atheistic evolution??? man evolution has nothing to do with atheism. it's just that you christians automatically assume since evolution endangers / disagrees with the bible, it has to be atheistic. but it isn't. it's just science, no more no less. as much as observing gravity or inventing new cellphones is science. it's not science's fault if by chance sth is proven wrong, just bc you don't feel comfortable about it.
What the FUCK are you talking about science dodging bullets? Get off your fat pseudo-intellectual ass and compare what science has achieved in 200 years to what religion has in 2000.
And you really overdid that redneck crap. Fuckin weak-ass straw man attack.
What does the ability or inability to account for "uniformity" have to do with the veracity of theism? I'm sorry but your rant seems to be a string of non sequiturs.
Everything in the Universe is here science is just a way of figuring out what is out there and how things work. The scientific method is the best known way of doing this because of its track record.
Who is denying that they expect the floor will turn into a fish pond in the next minute? I don't get this. I've never heard anyone say that. Or that it's good to stay away from oncoming traffic? Account? It's the way it is. How about Satan did it...and that's why is sucks so often. That's ridiculous. You say it requires your answer. Prove that it needs your conclusion. Prove it. You can't.
I just watched the video you are talking about. The guy is calm with sitar in the background and you are saying he's a drugged out hippie. He doesn't resort to ridiculous characterization or ADD med fueled attempts at comedy to detract from your argument or make you out to be something totally different. What the hell was all this stuff? He just laid down arguments that don't require acting like a monkey to answer, but you have to act that way because you can't address him honestly.
I am posting a video right now that deals with people who leave comments like the one you left. It is one thing to say something like that over the Internet. It is something altogether different when you call my radio program. If I had to bet the farm, I'd say you'll join the lost list of those who leave gibberish on my site but are too afraid to call my show. Of course, you could always visit my Web site and comment under bogs dealing with this material... nah, that would take smarts.
god damn your a fat asshole who doesn't let people rate his videos because you know you will get 0 stars. You sound like you live in your mom's basement, and your nothing like a hippi and iv'e bet you've never even touched drugs. Think before you speak faggot.
2:34 seconds to start the video, thanks for my lost time.
"If you can't account for it stop using it."
That's what all of that led up to?
An inconsistent argument, since you account account for most of the technology you use on a daily basis, and a demand that you gave no reason for us to follow.
Or an example of moving the goal post, since the uniformity of nature has been explained.
This also misses one of the basic tenets of science, we accept--as an assumption--this "uniformity."
It is rational before taking on one of the many versions of god/gods/funky monkies that we need reasonable evidence to show that the higher power they claim is real, is as they say it is.
Atheist do not deny they cannot prove the god does not exist.
But they do believe with much actual evidence that religions take on the any possible higher being is untrue and cannot be proven(burden of proof is on you to prove that the version of god is accurate and real).
They don't deny as stated above that there maybe a higher being(give whatever name to it god or funky monkey).
Wow lots of hate comments it is really sad to see all this people so confused on what you believe is truth
well its Obvious that there has not being a real Christ follower to meet your need and introduce you to the True love of Jesus so you angry haters atheist and evolutionist out there i apologize and I love you and Jesus loves you too
I think that by the "uniformity of nature", you mean determinism - every effect has a cause, and things don't happen for no reason (at macroscopic levels). This is irrelevant to evolution, where change happens through tiny deterministic steps over time, with various forms of selection (natural, sexual) operating to "prune the tree" of genetic diversity. There are no sudden changes in forms of adult organisms, as you suggest.
Creationists ignore time & space. They see two adult lifeforms today, and they want to see some intermediary blend of the two. They want to leap from "leaf to leaf" on the descent-tree, instead of tracing branches back to the trunk. They might accept your 3 points, but still disagree that this can cause new *species* to emerge. *Cladogenesis* is really what they object to - unaware of how *isolated* gene pools from the same species can accumulate enough differences to become distinct species.
How did simple organic compounds create RNA? They are trying to recreate this in a lab, a synthetic life form. Evolution cannot explain the "emergence" of simple compounds into even the most simple life form, and even if they can make one component of a cell the result is out of a very controlled, enclosed enviroment. Is it so hard to think that something designed all of what we know, including a basic set of physical laws that were put here to help and create maintain the universe that we know.
Don't hold the synthesis of RNA to a higher standard than other tasks. If it hasn't been done yet, that doesn't mean it won't be done later.
What's hard for me to imagine is why you prefer to have a mysterious *subject* start the universe, instead of a mysterious *object*. Where did God come from? Did he just "happen"?
I think you prefer a subject over an object at the origins just because we have parents, who are powerful mysterious subjects when we are babies, so it fits our experience.
Nothing like missing the point. It has everything to do with evolution and creation when you realize that the issue at hand concerns the necessary preconditions wherein uniformity is possible. Just saying that nothing spontaneously turns into anything else is rather naive given prevalent views of biogenesis, quantum theory, and creatures such as the archeaopteryx.
We are not talking about what is, per se. we are talking about how one's presuppositions can account for it. First things 101.
I think you mean "abiogenesis". Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with a complex structure spontaneously popping into some other complex structure.
I guess I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Archaeopteryx is an evolutionary step between reptiles and birds. What's that got to do with my webcam not turning into a banana?
You keep saying uniformity. Do you mean "stability"?
You are also confusing knowledge=Absolute Truth with knowledge=demonstrated facts. Yes, I can say I KNOW I'll be squashed by a semi trailer and that this also will hold in the future and refer to physics. I can be WRONG, but by claim to knowledge is derived from my observation of how the universe behaves. THIS is the bottom line. The universe appears to work that way.
On the flipside, if I believed in a miracle working God regularly defying nature I would have no basis for this assumption.
Humans observe that the universe appears to be one where causality and law reigns. This observation alone justifies our use of induction. We don't have to go deeper and ask, for example "WHY?". "Why" may even be an ill defined question if reality simply exists.
The observing of laws gives us reason to attempt induction and describing the laws mathematically(and yes, math is also derived from observation).
If reality simply exists? Well, that is quite a naive assumption, and one that begs the question. Actually, it doesn't evade the one asking why, it simply delays it one step. One will then ask why you believe it "just exists."
The issue here is concerning the necessary preconditions for empiricism. Well, the necessary preconditions for everything! To be satisfied with "we just do it" or "we know it happens" is to beg the question and propose a non-answer.
how can i account for the universe behaving in an organized way? because the universe is bound by natural laws such as gravity, electromagnetism and basic cause and effect. the belief that such natural laws hold no credibility is held by people who believe in the SUPERnatural.
so, how do YOU account for the universal dominance of NATURAL laws if the supernatural can easily defy them?
You're right, we don't KNOW that the future will resemble the past. What's your point? Hume showed us this at least 200 years ago. In fact, what's your point in this video at all? The fact is that we have senses which are generally reliable and the future does resemble the past. We take these facts for granted and move forward from there. Unjustified? Who cares about justifying perception when we've smashed the atom?
Faith is beleif in somthing that is not completely ensured. Besides if a religion preaches the practice in somthing that actually does somthing good in the world its good to listen to, YOU HEAR ME BOY!!!!
The point of science is to make sensible conclusions given observed data. Nobody is saying that science is totally correct. But what else do we have to go by? It is impossible to know the truth so we have to make a choice: do we believe in evidence based reasoning or do we believe in a supernatural being which we have little or no evidence for - even if we do have evidence for supernatural entities, that would be using evidence based reasoning, no?
Baltimora made a very good point (one i've tried to make, but lacking the clarity). It is absolutely impossible to make ANY deductions without making some assumptions. It's a bit like the Creation argument - a 'complex' entity must have a maker. But then the maker must be more 'complex'. That means the maker must have had a maker. So who/what is the ultimate maker? We have to stop somewhere.
Lets say for a minute that the Problem of Induction is an unsolvable one, which it may well be, and science can never really know anything for sure. Why must this lead us to a solution including God?
It sounds like you're saying that if we cannot have absolute faith in science we MUST have absolute faith in God? Why have faith in either when we lack evidence for certainty in them both?
how do you explain uniformity, paleocrat? saying "JESUS CAUSES UNIFORMITY!!!1" is not an explanation because there is no evidence for such a statement.
The issue here is with the necessary preconditions for uniformity. Just saying "but we have it" begs the question. No biggie, you guys have been doing this all along.
Ironically, I made a mock-u-sponse (Those Wacky Atheists) dealing with just how absurd you guys sound. Your comment here fits in just fine.
how is it begging the question? uniformity is a fact- you can see it all around you. there is no doubt that it exists. we don't need to know the mechanism behind uniformity to know that uniformity exists. likewise, we don't need to know the mechanism behind gravity to know that gravity exists.
We are talking about the necessary preconditions for what is a given. We readily admit that uniformity exists. That is the what. We are dealing with the why and how. Sorry if this is way over your head.
Well, I don't know where you got lackey from, but I'm certainly not uninformed. I just don't like you or the way you shit on people for giggles. All he did we politely replied stating his views. And, you made a mockery out of him. If I felt like attacking you, like you did to me and that responder, I'd say something about you being an unfunny failure waste of oxygen. However, I don't plan on going down to your level.
Ironically, you did go "down to my level." You pulled the "I could say X, but I won't" tactic. The irony of it all is that you actually stated X. Seriously, rather foolish.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree over your being a lackey. I can see why you would oppose being described as one, though. The element of self-assurance and self-interest.
you make no sence, eightfootmanboy whatever his name is looks stoned and makes more sence that you and your sober?.... all I see is lips and they've have been on a woman before. Probably they were kissin god ass
Sorry I deprived you of the ability to anonymously sucker-punch my video. I just wasn't in the mood to have people like you get their jolly-rocks off by anonymously rating my video with one star. Rip on me all you want, but not anonymously. Anonymity is for cowards.
Oh, btw, douche is spelled with an "e" at the end.
Lol, this guy doesn't get the simplest concept that the burden of proof is on him as a deist. Thats like someone telling me that theres a porshe in my driveway and then telling me the burden of proof is on me to explain why I don't believe its there rather than being on him to prove to me the porshe is there.
The laws of physics are required to type 'LOL', so every time 'LOL' is typed, the laws of physics metaphorically kick you in the balls. Also, every time a child is abused by a priest, the laws of physics are used which shows they are neutral about morality. The Catholic Church unleashes an army of child molesters on the world, the laws of physics are just physical laws so thats just what happens.
Every time the Catholic Church pays hush money to a child abused by a priest the laws of physics are used, as money is made of atoms as are banks and bishops. Although rational humans think bishops are vile, the laws of physics is neutral on the vileness of bishops as physical laws are neutral.
"there is nothing about atheism that makes a worldview unlivable." You don't need a god to have a reason to live or think...
your claim that an atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic or absolutes has no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
absolutes by definition is something not limited by conditions and limitations and is something that does not depends on anything else. so therefor an atheist doesn't need to account for absolutes, because we can't, even god can't, for if he did, then the absolute would cease to be an absolute.
Some things are accepted. Taken as granted. Like the speed of light, mass of a proton, and Planck's constant. They just are. They require no explanation. "Paleocrats videos are muddled and incoherent" is just another fact of nature. It's what they are. They are necessarily so. They are a constant. They cannot be otherwise. They are inherently bad. It's presupposed. Any questions?
Mere assetions...no substantiation...no explanation.
Just saying Paleocrat's vids are muddled and incoherent, doesn't make them so. Just because you are unwilling to question your presuppositions doesn't invalidate Paleocrat's points. It only shows you don't want to question yourself. This, my friend, is evidence of the fact no one approaches evidence with *neutrality*.
In the beginning was The Laws of Physics. The laws of physics are true. They are that they are. Paleo asserts another worldview, yet the very fact that without the laws of physics, he could not even make a video, let alone live, breathe, or talk just proves my worldview to be correct. So, any vid Paleo makes is just more evidence that my worldview is correct. And further, if you even respond to me, you make my point yet again, by using the laws of physics, the very thing you deny.
By posting such an statement you are in fact demonstrating The Fundamental Laws of Physics. They are that they are. The fact that you are using the internet proves my point. Quoting of scripture proves my position as well because the bible is made of atoms which demonstrate physics.
Just to add to the debate - although I think Paleo makes some great points - the Catholic Church does allow its members to believe in evolution - the Church doesn't give an official teaching on how the world was started, except that it was created by God (possibly through evolution). Pope John Paul II said that evolution is compatible with the Christian faith. Just thought i'd add this - but like i said, paleo makes some good arguments
I don't think JPII said that... I know it is being spread... but I think it is a mistranslation. The caveat is, If evolution is true, it cannot be incompatibale with the Catholic faith. Atheistic evolution is obviously incompatible, so we need to make proper distinctions.
Well yes that's true, atheistic evolution is certainly incompatible - but God creating the world through evolution would not be incompatible. You think it was a mistranslation? I actually received the quotes from a few Catholic web sources.
I heard it was a translation error... The speech was in French, I believe... if you contact me directly on my youtube address, I might be able to get you an analysis of it... Check out my videos, I have a talk by Robert Sungenis on Catholic Doctrine of Creation... You may agree, or disagree.
That was a profound statement... It should be in a book somewhere... What laws of physics are involved in Paleo sending a video, can you list all of them for us?
Your lack of ability to recognize satire further demonstrates the laws of physics. The laws of physics clearly predict profound stupidity, as you demonstrate. The laws of physics rule your sorry credulous ass yet again.
The laws of physics are available in many physics books and on the internet. You can demonstrate the laws of physics by dropping a brick on your own head. The brick will break, as your head is more dense than a brick. The laws of physics rule all block heads and smart people equally.
And what degrees of science do you possess? I didnt ask for the Laws of physics involved in bricks falling. I asked for the ones involved in Paleo sending a video... Perhaps I will find your statement that physics rule all block heads in those textbooks.
Dude? It's satire. He told you. And the best part is, he even predicted that you are so stupid that even after telling you it was satire, you would still think he was serious! This might be the single funniest thing I have ever seen. Now, sweep up that broken brick.
Those thing I mentioned, including the inherent incoherence of Paleo's vids, are the only way to make sense of the world. One could not make sense of any human experience otherwise. Human experience is unintelligible if you believe differently. In fact, human thought itself is not possible if you believe differently. To hold another worldview is incoherent in and of itself. By denying my view, you indeed behave in accord with it. You prove my point, so to say.
how does the brain work? the fundamental question of psychology. how do neurons firing and action potentials create thought enabling living things to think and operate in the world? We don't know how exactly, does that mean we do not think? According to your argument, if we can't even answer how thinking works then the question is are thinking at all? and we all know that isn't true. nice try though.
We may not be able to explain everything to do with human thought process, but we can account for the possibility of thought. We can account for those necessary preconditions for thought (and analysis of thought), and we do it in a way that is completely consistent with our most basic presuppositions (worldview).
Walked into what? Atheists have yet to account for any of the aforementioned necessary preconditions. They say, "But we do science! We have knowledge! We have a general trustworthiness of the senses! We use inductive reasoning!" All the while they never account for these things in light of their worldview. This begs the question. It leaves them uncomfortably between fideism and despair.
Again, you're singling out atheists as though they're obligated to resolve the problem of induction, but theists aren't; as if theists have resolved the problem of induction; as if theists can trust their sense more than atheists.
yes, and you explained it for us. the atheist worldview is science, experience of observable phenomenon. "completely consistent with our most basic presuppositions" "we can account for the possibility of thought. We can account for those necessary preconditions for thought" you answered it for us and we thank you. you shot yourself in the foot, and now you are bleeding.
Can you please identify where an atheist has given an account for these necessary preconditions in light of their espoused presuppositions? I don't see where they have. If you claim they have, just point it out. Anywhere? Anywhere at all? Oh, no? Bummer for the infidels, I guess...
It's only fair now that you elaborate upon how this can be so. I would like to see you respond to my (justwordsonthescreen) video - like you said you would. I would like to see you explain how it is that the theistic worldview is any more capable of resolving these things: the problem of induction, the trustworthiness of the senses, and so on.
I agree that we cannot resolve the issues. But if paleocrat pretends he can, and attempts to prove it by using methods that don't contradict an atheist worldview, we can just as easily say, ok in that sense then thanks for proving us right. He doesn't even understand his own fallacious question.
No, because atheists and theists disagree on worlviews and the presuppositions that they are made up of. This being the case, your statement here is nonsense. Seriously, you look really bad on this one...
yes, but nowhere in your description for your worldview contradict an atheist worldview. (mentioning god) therefor given your conditions could also apply to an atheist worldview. admit it, you have no argument. simply stating that you do means nothing. whether god accounts or not, doesn't change the fact the preconditions for a given worldview can never be 100% fully verified, so you are lying when you say they can.
I would have earlier, but I had to go down to the studio to record our television program. Local politics, nothing big. Still, it is time consuming. In fact, there are clips from various airings on my main page.
I hope to put together a few videos dealing with the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) within the next few days.
Let me get this straight. You want an atheist to explain to you, from an evolutionary perspective, why science is even possible and why the senses are (generally) trustworthy?
Then it would be a piece of cake for an atheistic evolution to refute my claims pertaining to their inability to explain how science is possible in light of their most basic and ruling assumptions. Where do they stand as of now?
that was a mouthful. . . you have been in church too long. you need to get out among the people and learn the speech patterns of the unwashed. . . . you know . . . the ones Jesus hung out with.
the arguing to me is pointless, but it is fun for me to watch from a distance. love you brother.
Rating system? Yeah right! By the look of it, I would have a solid 1 star rating. Personally, I think the whole anonymous rating system blows. Anonymous sucker punches and juvenile cheap shots. If they want to bust my chops, fine, but put it in print or on video.
tell me about it. my Mike Savage vid hovers at 2 stars, but it tells me i have riled up the haters! don't get hung up on ratings .. . oh yeah you hate the fairness doctrine. you think ratings makes it the truth.
Now how poor the universe design is. the majority of the universe would kill us instantly. We are on a collision course with Andromeda galaxy. Most galaxy orbits will bring you close to a super nova. Bad thing. Star formation is completely inefficient. The universe is approaching a heat death. I would have to say God needs a bit of learning about intelligent design.
The world was designed just for us. When was the last time you looked at the world. This world that was designed just for us, is covered 71 percent with water that we cannot drink. Cannot live on 2/3 of the planet. The world is constantly trying to kill us every day. Earthquakes, weather, volcanos etc. 99 percent of all life that has ever lived is now extinct. Diseases everywhere. Not intelligently design for us.
What I've noticed is that a lot of creationists misunderstand what the theory of evolution is. They don't understand anything about genetics, and since it's confusing they automatically assume that it can't be real. And a lot of them think that they can disprove a scientific theory without using science, which just isn't going to be taken seriously by anyone with a brain.
Paleocrat looks at the world and says "It was designed just for us."
I realize we observe the universe as it is because if it were any other way, we could not be. We fit the universe, not the other way around. A puddle in a pot hole observes the shape of the pot hole and says "This pot hole fits me just right!" No. A puddle of any other shape or type would be in a different pot hole.
"A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: 'This is a very amazing world I find myself in. It fits me very perfectly. In fact it fits me so absolutely perfectly... I mean it's really precise isn't it? If the hole was just one millimeter smaller or larger, I wouldn't fit... It must have been designed to have me in it."
No, the question is not flawed. It is rather simple, actually. I am not asking anyone to account for anything other than what they claim to believe. That is it.
Even if my personal opinion was that the atheists must rely upon things that can only be accounted for from the Christian worldview, this wouldn't make it a flawed question. It just makes it all that more bold in its assertion.
"I am not asking anyone to account for anything other than what they claim to believe." This wording implies you think atheists believe something other than they claim. If this is in fact what you believe, what evidence do you have for this. And if you have no evidence, how could you possibly know the thoughts of another person?
Fine. You tell me what you think I believe. Fact by fact. If I do happen to believe a particular things, I will tell you why. I'm fairly certain I'll have good reasons. (I hope you are not confusing lack of a belief with belief. Like, would you demand that I account for my lack of belief in Russell's Celestial teapot?)
Give me a break. I have done this so many times that I am getting blue in the face. I have phrased and rephrased this challenge more times than I wish to recollect within my videos! This doesn't even include this comment section.
What do I get in response? Everything but an answer...
well because you think that the very senses everyone derive their experience and observations from, can only be accounted for by the supernatural, any answer we give you will disagree with and not understand, thus is what we see here.
You have phrased and rephrased because people keep poking holes in your red herrings. And when they ask you to be specific, you run away crying like a little child.
Physical constants (necessary preconditions) make science possible. If constants went from a state of non-existence to existence, that would be a change, therefore incoherent. They are constant, unchanging, uncaused. Theologists talk of "a necessary being" (god) and "contingent beings". The Physical constants are necessary for the contingency of science. The physical constants are necessary, uncaused, uncreated. Just Constant.
the answer to the question is deductive analysis. most people use reason, and base decisions on experience and probabilities. we can all account that tomorrow morning the sun will rise in the east, we have no reason to think otherwise, if the sun doesn't rise in the east everyone will be surprised. its really not that hard to understand, and your entire argument is pure BS.
Uh, you obviously miss the point here. I am asking for you to explain from your worldview how you can account for the preconditions required to make deductive reasoning possible. Just saying "we utilize deductive reasoning" is a given. I am asking for you to give an account for this given your presuppositional framework.
ever wonder that its the same people who can't mind their own business? It's the same people that have a problem with those who don't share the same religion. have a problem with gays and don't want them to be equal. don't want women to be in charge of their own bodies. same morons that don't believe in birth control or protection.
yes, hes implying that it is impossible to account for the laws of nature that we depend on to exist without supernatural influences. the claim is that an atheist who doesn't believe in the supernatural cannot account for why the universe's laws exist in the first place, and therefor cannot account for science.
No. The argument thus far has been in the negative. It has been transcendental in the Kantian sense.
We, as far as I know, grant that many things are required for humans to have any meaningful knowledge of the universe. I am simply asking atheists to show me, from their worldview (their most basic presuppositions) how any of this is possible. Nothing too hard, but something none have been able to do.
The most basic presupposition you want us to show is the existence of "right" and "wrong". We are unable because right and wrong are adjectives. Totally subjective...for simplicity, we've just given automated validity to certain principles of civilized living like "murder is wrong". WE CLEAR?
No. We are not CLEAR. Neither right nor wrong were listed in the preconditions I am referring to. And your notion of presuppositions seems to be greatly lacking. Your comment, while not actually aleviating the problem, merely compounded it, because you would then be forced to give a presuppositional account for those principles.
Round and round we go. When atheists will have an answer, nobody knows!
Physical constants (necessary preconditions) make science possible. If constants went from a state of non-existence to existence, that would be a change, therefore incoherent. They are constant, unchanging, uncaused. Theologists talk of "a necessary being" (god) and "contingent beings". The Physical constants are necessary for the contingency of science. The physical constants are necessary, uncaused, uncreated. Just Constant.
I've dedicated 2 videos to the issue. All I have gotten is the run around, ridicule, and mere assertions (i.e. we have physical constants, etc.). To date, nobody has taken up the presuppositional challenge. Nobody.
I am not asking if you have X, Y, or Z. I grant this from the get-go. I am asking for them to explain how this is possible given their most ruling presuppositions that make up what we call a worldview. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The most ruling presuppositions that make up our worldview...can you be a little more vague? I can still sorta understand what the heck you're talking about. Are you talking about the laws of gravity? The laws of morality? The laws of empiricism? Horses? Apples? Hammers?
Paleocrat looks at the world and says "It was designed just for us."
I realize we observe the universe as it is because if it were any other way, we could not be. We fit the universe, not the other way around. A puddle in a pot hole observes the shape of the pot hole and says "This pot hole fits me just right!" No. A puddle of any other shape or type would be in a different pot hole.
The world was designed just for us. When was the last time you looked at the world. This world that was designed just for us, is covered 71 percent with water that we cannot drink. Cannot live on 2/3 of the planet. The world is constantly trying to kill us every day. Earthquakes, weather, volcanos etc. 99 percent of all life that has ever lived is now extinct. Diseases everywhere. Not intelligently design for us.
Now how poor the universe design is. the majority of the universe would kill us instantly. We are on a collision course with Andromeda galaxy. Most galaxy orbits will bring you close to a super nova. Bad thing. Star formation is completely inefficient. The universe is approaching a heat death. I would have to say God needs a bit of learning about intelligent design.
A puddle is under no obligation to "account" for the size and shape of the pot hole it is in. If the pot hole were any other way, the puddle would not be as it is. It would not "be" at all.
What a phenomenal post. It looks like these guys are figuring out what you're getting at. You explain it much better than I can hope to. You've explained the arbitrariness and exposed unargued assumptions taken for granted by atheists that don't comport with their premises...they borrow from the Christian's worldview to do science...only Christians can account for the uniformity of nature...they can't do science without us!
It's like, you refer to the air they breathe, and they cannot perceive it. The air is so comfortable, necessary and assumed, they simply refuse to acknowledge it is there.
What air? Eh? You guys are uneducated, man. Go read a book until you see it my way!
atheistic evolution??? man evolution has nothing to do with atheism. it's just that you christians automatically assume since evolution endangers / disagrees with the bible, it has to be atheistic. but it isn't. it's just science, no more no less. as much as observing gravity or inventing new cellphones is science. it's not science's fault if by chance sth is proven wrong, just bc you don't feel comfortable about it.
donttttt 7 months ago
What the FUCK are you talking about science dodging bullets? Get off your fat pseudo-intellectual ass and compare what science has achieved in 200 years to what religion has in 2000.
And you really overdid that redneck crap. Fuckin weak-ass straw man attack.
redshark618 8 months ago
And people wonder why we laugh at creationists.
HoLOLcaust 11 months ago
What does the ability or inability to account for "uniformity" have to do with the veracity of theism? I'm sorry but your rant seems to be a string of non sequiturs.
friendofthefunk 1 year ago
You have no idea how evolution works. STFU
JayChouFanatic 1 year ago
What a strange argument.
'Uniformity of nature'
It sounds as if you want to know what accounts for causality?
The Standard Model of Physics accounts for it pretty well.
"How can the atheistic world view account for trustworthyness of the senses?"
Evolution explains that.
Those creatures that had psychotic senses, or irrational minds would likely die off. (Jump in front of a truck, etc...)
Those creatures that had sharp senses and rational minds would likely succeed.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
Ultimately I must agree with the shotgun toting redneck.
Largely irrelivant.
How does your argument justify religious belief, or infallibility in any way?
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
You "argument" makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. If my fingers turned into bananas, that would be more evidence towards gods then towards science...
The fact that atoms behave predictably IS science...
Rayvn7 2 years ago
you rock palio crat
bitterherbs94 2 years ago 3
Everything in the Universe is here science is just a way of figuring out what is out there and how things work. The scientific method is the best known way of doing this because of its track record.
bullwhipjesus 2 years ago
you know, we assume that our fingers aren't going to spontaneously transform into a pair of keys is because it is physically impossible. by theory.
skullnbonesquid 2 years ago
Who is denying that they expect the floor will turn into a fish pond in the next minute? I don't get this. I've never heard anyone say that. Or that it's good to stay away from oncoming traffic? Account? It's the way it is. How about Satan did it...and that's why is sucks so often. That's ridiculous. You say it requires your answer. Prove that it needs your conclusion. Prove it. You can't.
shunyotube 2 years ago
I just watched the video you are talking about. The guy is calm with sitar in the background and you are saying he's a drugged out hippie. He doesn't resort to ridiculous characterization or ADD med fueled attempts at comedy to detract from your argument or make you out to be something totally different. What the hell was all this stuff? He just laid down arguments that don't require acting like a monkey to answer, but you have to act that way because you can't address him honestly.
shunyotube 2 years ago 2
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
This vid is chock full of epic lulz.
seinfan9 2 years ago
paleocrat has never touched drugs or PUSSY! he likes priests! keep believing SUCKERS!
leadzhead 3 years ago
I am posting a video right now that deals with people who leave comments like the one you left. It is one thing to say something like that over the Internet. It is something altogether different when you call my radio program. If I had to bet the farm, I'd say you'll join the lost list of those who leave gibberish on my site but are too afraid to call my show. Of course, you could always visit my Web site and comment under bogs dealing with this material... nah, that would take smarts.
paleocrat 3 years ago
a radio show with unfunny religious nuts like yourself. damn, i'd hate to miss it but... go try some drugs or pussy and get back to me!
leadzhead 3 years ago
Typical drive-by comment from someone on YouTube. What a joke. People like you are so predictable.
My married life is... vibrant. Three kids and we don't plan to stop any time soon. Needless to say, I am not lacking in one department.
As for drugs, I cannot confirm or deny my having used or continued use of drugs, be they licit or illicit.
Get a life.
paleocrat 3 years ago
wow, your a loser.
Childinfaith 3 years ago 2
This video is hilarious!! LMAO!! And the truth of it transcends all argumentation.
elelmhorst 3 years ago 2
god damn your a fat asshole who doesn't let people rate his videos because you know you will get 0 stars. You sound like you live in your mom's basement, and your nothing like a hippi and iv'e bet you've never even touched drugs. Think before you speak faggot.
shadowperson12 3 years ago
wow you're just... an asshole
awormyourhonor 3 years ago
2:34 seconds to start the video, thanks for my lost time.
"If you can't account for it stop using it."
That's what all of that led up to?
An inconsistent argument, since you account account for most of the technology you use on a daily basis, and a demand that you gave no reason for us to follow.
Or an example of moving the goal post, since the uniformity of nature has been explained.
This also misses one of the basic tenets of science, we accept--as an assumption--this "uniformity."
TheThomaswastaken 3 years ago
Hey, just a quick question for you paleocrat. Are you saying science is wrong or just that science can't account for uniformity? Just to clarify?
kuxstall 3 years ago
Think it over, it is hard to take on a man made view of a higher power without proof.
again not denying that something made this all come to be but to take it on blindly man made view of god/gods/funky monkey
btiggy420 3 years ago
It is rational before taking on one of the many versions of god/gods/funky monkies that we need reasonable evidence to show that the higher power they claim is real, is as they say it is.
btiggy420 3 years ago
Atheist do not deny they cannot prove the god does not exist.
But they do believe with much actual evidence that religions take on the any possible higher being is untrue and cannot be proven(burden of proof is on you to prove that the version of god is accurate and real).
They don't deny as stated above that there maybe a higher being(give whatever name to it god or funky monkey).
btiggy420 3 years ago
Wow lots of hate comments it is really sad to see all this people so confused on what you believe is truth
well its Obvious that there has not being a real Christ follower to meet your need and introduce you to the True love of Jesus so you angry haters atheist and evolutionist out there i apologize and I love you and Jesus loves you too
pakun300 3 years ago
I think that by the "uniformity of nature", you mean determinism - every effect has a cause, and things don't happen for no reason (at macroscopic levels). This is irrelevant to evolution, where change happens through tiny deterministic steps over time, with various forms of selection (natural, sexual) operating to "prune the tree" of genetic diversity. There are no sudden changes in forms of adult organisms, as you suggest.
njlachap 3 years ago
Do organisms pass on traits (heredity)? You must say yes.
Is there variation in nature (mutation)? You can't deny it.
Will the best suited traits populate the environment (natural selection)? Of course!
All three things are present? Um YEAH!
The ONLY thing that can occur is evolution! IT MUST happen, it is inevitable and inescapable,
madman0000004 3 years ago
Creationists ignore time & space. They see two adult lifeforms today, and they want to see some intermediary blend of the two. They want to leap from "leaf to leaf" on the descent-tree, instead of tracing branches back to the trunk. They might accept your 3 points, but still disagree that this can cause new *species* to emerge. *Cladogenesis* is really what they object to - unaware of how *isolated* gene pools from the same species can accumulate enough differences to become distinct species.
njlachap 3 years ago
How did simple organic compounds create RNA? They are trying to recreate this in a lab, a synthetic life form. Evolution cannot explain the "emergence" of simple compounds into even the most simple life form, and even if they can make one component of a cell the result is out of a very controlled, enclosed enviroment. Is it so hard to think that something designed all of what we know, including a basic set of physical laws that were put here to help and create maintain the universe that we know.
frippery 3 years ago 2
Don't hold the synthesis of RNA to a higher standard than other tasks. If it hasn't been done yet, that doesn't mean it won't be done later.
What's hard for me to imagine is why you prefer to have a mysterious *subject* start the universe, instead of a mysterious *object*. Where did God come from? Did he just "happen"?
I think you prefer a subject over an object at the origins just because we have parents, who are powerful mysterious subjects when we are babies, so it fits our experience.
njlachap 3 years ago
Wow. I could only watch 2:51 before I had to stop. Your determined ignorance is alarming.
Uniformity of nature = my webcam not spontaneously turning into a banana? And this has something to do with creation/evolution?
Are you retarded? Why WOULD my webcam turn into a banana? Nothing spontaneously turns into anything else.
Now before you go bringing up the big bang, read up on the energy levels present then. With that much energy, things get strange.
But not in my living room.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Nothing like missing the point. It has everything to do with evolution and creation when you realize that the issue at hand concerns the necessary preconditions wherein uniformity is possible. Just saying that nothing spontaneously turns into anything else is rather naive given prevalent views of biogenesis, quantum theory, and creatures such as the archeaopteryx.
We are not talking about what is, per se. we are talking about how one's presuppositions can account for it. First things 101.
paleocrat 3 years ago
I think you mean "abiogenesis". Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with a complex structure spontaneously popping into some other complex structure.
I guess I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Archaeopteryx is an evolutionary step between reptiles and birds. What's that got to do with my webcam not turning into a banana?
You keep saying uniformity. Do you mean "stability"?
OccamKant 3 years ago
You are also confusing knowledge=Absolute Truth with knowledge=demonstrated facts. Yes, I can say I KNOW I'll be squashed by a semi trailer and that this also will hold in the future and refer to physics. I can be WRONG, but by claim to knowledge is derived from my observation of how the universe behaves. THIS is the bottom line. The universe appears to work that way.
On the flipside, if I believed in a miracle working God regularly defying nature I would have no basis for this assumption.
FaithIsImaginary 3 years ago
Humans observe that the universe appears to be one where causality and law reigns. This observation alone justifies our use of induction. We don't have to go deeper and ask, for example "WHY?". "Why" may even be an ill defined question if reality simply exists.
The observing of laws gives us reason to attempt induction and describing the laws mathematically(and yes, math is also derived from observation).
FaithIsImaginary 3 years ago
If reality simply exists? Well, that is quite a naive assumption, and one that begs the question. Actually, it doesn't evade the one asking why, it simply delays it one step. One will then ask why you believe it "just exists."
The issue here is concerning the necessary preconditions for empiricism. Well, the necessary preconditions for everything! To be satisfied with "we just do it" or "we know it happens" is to beg the question and propose a non-answer.
paleocrat 3 years ago
how can i account for the universe behaving in an organized way? because the universe is bound by natural laws such as gravity, electromagnetism and basic cause and effect. the belief that such natural laws hold no credibility is held by people who believe in the SUPERnatural.
so, how do YOU account for the universal dominance of NATURAL laws if the supernatural can easily defy them?
DriftingAces87 3 years ago
You're right, we don't KNOW that the future will resemble the past. What's your point? Hume showed us this at least 200 years ago. In fact, what's your point in this video at all? The fact is that we have senses which are generally reliable and the future does resemble the past. We take these facts for granted and move forward from there. Unjustified? Who cares about justifying perception when we've smashed the atom?
dashpowers22 3 years ago
Amen to Hippies!!!!! Haha - you're a Christian, close-minded freak.
estelle497 3 years ago
Faith is beleif in somthing that is not completely ensured. Besides if a religion preaches the practice in somthing that actually does somthing good in the world its good to listen to, YOU HEAR ME BOY!!!!
SteelWool91 3 years ago
The point of science is to make sensible conclusions given observed data. Nobody is saying that science is totally correct. But what else do we have to go by? It is impossible to know the truth so we have to make a choice: do we believe in evidence based reasoning or do we believe in a supernatural being which we have little or no evidence for - even if we do have evidence for supernatural entities, that would be using evidence based reasoning, no?
petermanlwl 3 years ago
Baltimora made a very good point (one i've tried to make, but lacking the clarity). It is absolutely impossible to make ANY deductions without making some assumptions. It's a bit like the Creation argument - a 'complex' entity must have a maker. But then the maker must be more 'complex'. That means the maker must have had a maker. So who/what is the ultimate maker? We have to stop somewhere.
petermanlwl 3 years ago
Damn- ten minutes of my life that I can never get back- thanks einstein
Babrbarossa 4 years ago
An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support. Their all commies!
mediator4u 4 years ago
Wow... epic failure of a comment.
ManuelHung 3 years ago
"Don't you ever, EVER use that argument AGAIN."
Priceless.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
Lets say for a minute that the Problem of Induction is an unsolvable one, which it may well be, and science can never really know anything for sure. Why must this lead us to a solution including God?
It sounds like you're saying that if we cannot have absolute faith in science we MUST have absolute faith in God? Why have faith in either when we lack evidence for certainty in them both?
Baltimora 4 years ago 2
So these are essential for science, and you ask how not believing in God can account for them?
1. 'Uniformity of nature'
2. Predictability, trustworthiness of the senses
3. Belief that the subject can know the object in some general fashion
4. The existence and the reliability of the abstract
tingtangs 4 years ago
I cannot answer the question for all atheists, but from an evolutionary stand point:
1. The laws of nature/physics/the universe
2. Evolutionary advantage
3. Eh?
4. Evolutionary advantage
Regarding #1, you are now going to claim that those laws cannot exist without God, which is complete and utter nonsense.
tingtangs 4 years ago 2
Regarding 2 and 4:
Abstract thought is just a bunch of chemical processes in our brain. Simple as that.
Our senses are here, again, because they are physical and evolved that way.
tingtangs 4 years ago 2
'the atheistic worldview cannot account for the trustworthiness of our senses'
Eh.
There is no atheistic worldview. Atheism is the lack of belief in God, that's it.
You may be referring to EVOLUTION, in which case it CAN account for our senses. Our senses are a result of evolution.
tingtangs 4 years ago 6
how do you explain uniformity, paleocrat? saying "JESUS CAUSES UNIFORMITY!!!1" is not an explanation because there is no evidence for such a statement.
33LB 4 years ago
Dealt with it in TAG. Won't repeat myself.
paleocrat 4 years ago
we know that this "uniformity" exists. if it exists, then we can do science.
likewise, we don't need to know what causes rainfall for us to use an umbrella- as long as we know rainfall exists, that's all that matters.
33LB 4 years ago
The issue here is with the necessary preconditions for uniformity. Just saying "but we have it" begs the question. No biggie, you guys have been doing this all along.
Ironically, I made a mock-u-sponse (Those Wacky Atheists) dealing with just how absurd you guys sound. Your comment here fits in just fine.
paleocrat 4 years ago
"Just saying "but we have it" begs the question."
how is it begging the question? uniformity is a fact- you can see it all around you. there is no doubt that it exists. we don't need to know the mechanism behind uniformity to know that uniformity exists. likewise, we don't need to know the mechanism behind gravity to know that gravity exists.
33LB 4 years ago 2
We are talking about the necessary preconditions for what is a given. We readily admit that uniformity exists. That is the what. We are dealing with the why and how. Sorry if this is way over your head.
paleocrat 4 years ago
And WHAT the FUCK do you have? GOD? You can bash atheistic evolutionists or whatever all day, in the end your argument stays the same;
God did it [PERIOD}
Tell me, have YOU been doing any scientific research lately?
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
I don't like you.
RawFeverTV 4 years ago
A 15-year-old YouTube lackey doesn't like me. I wish I could say my feelings are hurt, but with age comes desensitization.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Well, I don't know where you got lackey from, but I'm certainly not uninformed. I just don't like you or the way you shit on people for giggles. All he did we politely replied stating his views. And, you made a mockery out of him. If I felt like attacking you, like you did to me and that responder, I'd say something about you being an unfunny failure waste of oxygen. However, I don't plan on going down to your level.
Thanks.
RawFeverTV 4 years ago
Ironically, you did go "down to my level." You pulled the "I could say X, but I won't" tactic. The irony of it all is that you actually stated X. Seriously, rather foolish.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree over your being a lackey. I can see why you would oppose being described as one, though. The element of self-assurance and self-interest.
paleocrat 4 years ago
you make no sence, eightfootmanboy whatever his name is looks stoned and makes more sence that you and your sober?.... all I see is lips and they've have been on a woman before. Probably they were kissin god ass
ShaunBonJovi 4 years ago
crap smells like wet dirt
jasnom 4 years ago
Dear paleocrat,
You are a douchbag for disableing rating.
Fallout11 4 years ago
Dear Fallout11,
Sorry I deprived you of the ability to anonymously sucker-punch my video. I just wasn't in the mood to have people like you get their jolly-rocks off by anonymously rating my video with one star. Rip on me all you want, but not anonymously. Anonymity is for cowards.
Oh, btw, douche is spelled with an "e" at the end.
paleocrat 4 years ago
If you dressed as a scarecrow w/a shotgun this would have been perfection!
JD834 4 years ago
Nice. He won't get it, though
UnBeguiled 4 years ago
Or maybe he should have dressed as a gangster and said "make a logical argument or I'll bust a cap in yo ass bitch!"
JD834 4 years ago
Lol, this guy doesn't get the simplest concept that the burden of proof is on him as a deist. Thats like someone telling me that theres a porshe in my driveway and then telling me the burden of proof is on me to explain why I don't believe its there rather than being on him to prove to me the porshe is there.
JD834 4 years ago
For the simple reason that I don't see your god, the burden of proof is on YOU.
JD834 4 years ago
LOL
CaptainCatholic587 4 years ago
The laws of physics are required to type 'LOL', so every time 'LOL' is typed, the laws of physics metaphorically kick you in the balls. Also, every time a child is abused by a priest, the laws of physics are used which shows they are neutral about morality. The Catholic Church unleashes an army of child molesters on the world, the laws of physics are just physical laws so thats just what happens.
CoultersAdamsApple 4 years ago
Every time the Catholic Church pays hush money to a child abused by a priest the laws of physics are used, as money is made of atoms as are banks and bishops. Although rational humans think bishops are vile, the laws of physics is neutral on the vileness of bishops as physical laws are neutral.
CoultersAdamsApple 4 years ago
Hmmmm... My question involves the Laws of Physics, at least how you define it, :-) , are you really 31 years old?
pacislander4life 4 years ago
You are quite awesome
Fallout11 4 years ago
Paleocrat has made many videos. In all these videos Paleocrat demonstrates muddled incoherent thinking.
Therefore: Paleocrats future videos will me muddled and incoherent. Can I prove this? Of course not. But the evidence is overwhelming.
UnBeguiled 4 years ago
he has a shotgun
captainpablo 4 years ago
"there is nothing about atheism that makes a worldview unlivable." You don't need a god to have a reason to live or think...
your claim that an atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic or absolutes has no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
shabocentury 4 years ago
absolutes by definition is something not limited by conditions and limitations and is something that does not depends on anything else. so therefor an atheist doesn't need to account for absolutes, because we can't, even god can't, for if he did, then the absolute would cease to be an absolute.
shabocentury 4 years ago 2
mere assertion without explanation/substantiation.
antipelagian 4 years ago
Some things are accepted. Taken as granted. Like the speed of light, mass of a proton, and Planck's constant. They just are. They require no explanation. "Paleocrats videos are muddled and incoherent" is just another fact of nature. It's what they are. They are necessarily so. They are a constant. They cannot be otherwise. They are inherently bad. It's presupposed. Any questions?
CoultersAdamsApple 4 years ago
Mere assetions...no substantiation...no explanation.
Just saying Paleocrat's vids are muddled and incoherent, doesn't make them so. Just because you are unwilling to question your presuppositions doesn't invalidate Paleocrat's points. It only shows you don't want to question yourself. This, my friend, is evidence of the fact no one approaches evidence with *neutrality*.
antipelagian 4 years ago
*assetions* = "assertions"
antipelagian 4 years ago
In the beginning was The Laws of Physics. The laws of physics are true. They are that they are. Paleo asserts another worldview, yet the very fact that without the laws of physics, he could not even make a video, let alone live, breathe, or talk just proves my worldview to be correct. So, any vid Paleo makes is just more evidence that my worldview is correct. And further, if you even respond to me, you make my point yet again, by using the laws of physics, the very thing you deny.
CoultersAdamsApple 4 years ago 2
Seems to me the real question is, "Why are the laws of physics true?"
And the answer seems to be, from the atheists, "Because that's the way it is."
Requires something of a leap of faith, doesn't it?
Big bang. Boom. That's it, right out of nowhere. Like magic.
RogerOnTheRight 4 years ago
By posting such an statement you are in fact demonstrating The Fundamental Laws of Physics. They are that they are. The fact that you are using the internet proves my point. Quoting of scripture proves my position as well because the bible is made of atoms which demonstrate physics.
CoultersAdamsApple 4 years ago
So, your point would seem to be, "What is, is."
Very profound. However, the question on the table is, "How is this so?"
RogerOnTheRight 4 years ago
Just to add to the debate - although I think Paleo makes some great points - the Catholic Church does allow its members to believe in evolution - the Church doesn't give an official teaching on how the world was started, except that it was created by God (possibly through evolution). Pope John Paul II said that evolution is compatible with the Christian faith. Just thought i'd add this - but like i said, paleo makes some good arguments
CaptainCatholic587 4 years ago
I don't think JPII said that... I know it is being spread... but I think it is a mistranslation. The caveat is, If evolution is true, it cannot be incompatibale with the Catholic faith. Atheistic evolution is obviously incompatible, so we need to make proper distinctions.
pacislander4life 4 years ago
Well yes that's true, atheistic evolution is certainly incompatible - but God creating the world through evolution would not be incompatible. You think it was a mistranslation? I actually received the quotes from a few Catholic web sources.
CaptainCatholic587 4 years ago
I heard it was a translation error... The speech was in French, I believe... if you contact me directly on my youtube address, I might be able to get you an analysis of it... Check out my videos, I have a talk by Robert Sungenis on Catholic Doctrine of Creation... You may agree, or disagree.
God Bless,
Laurence
pacislander4life 4 years ago
That was a profound statement... It should be in a book somewhere... What laws of physics are involved in Paleo sending a video, can you list all of them for us?
pacislander4life 4 years ago
Your lack of ability to recognize satire further demonstrates the laws of physics. The laws of physics clearly predict profound stupidity, as you demonstrate. The laws of physics rule your sorry credulous ass yet again.
CoultersAdamsApple 4 years ago
The laws of physics are available in many physics books and on the internet. You can demonstrate the laws of physics by dropping a brick on your own head. The brick will break, as your head is more dense than a brick. The laws of physics rule all block heads and smart people equally.
CoultersAdamsApple 4 years ago
And what degrees of science do you possess? I didnt ask for the Laws of physics involved in bricks falling. I asked for the ones involved in Paleo sending a video... Perhaps I will find your statement that physics rule all block heads in those textbooks.
pacislander4life 4 years ago
Dude? It's satire. He told you. And the best part is, he even predicted that you are so stupid that even after telling you it was satire, you would still think he was serious! This might be the single funniest thing I have ever seen. Now, sweep up that broken brick.
UnBeguiled 4 years ago
How about you, are you really 31 too?
pacislander4life 4 years ago
Those thing I mentioned, including the inherent incoherence of Paleo's vids, are the only way to make sense of the world. One could not make sense of any human experience otherwise. Human experience is unintelligible if you believe differently. In fact, human thought itself is not possible if you believe differently. To hold another worldview is incoherent in and of itself. By denying my view, you indeed behave in accord with it. You prove my point, so to say.
CoultersAdamsApple 4 years ago
how does the brain work? the fundamental question of psychology. how do neurons firing and action potentials create thought enabling living things to think and operate in the world? We don't know how exactly, does that mean we do not think? According to your argument, if we can't even answer how thinking works then the question is are thinking at all? and we all know that isn't true. nice try though.
shabocentury 4 years ago
We may not be able to explain everything to do with human thought process, but we can account for the possibility of thought. We can account for those necessary preconditions for thought (and analysis of thought), and we do it in a way that is completely consistent with our most basic presuppositions (worldview).
Oranges and Apples... nice try though.
paleocrat 4 years ago
using that same logic then you have proven the atheist worldview thanks for the help. walked into that one.
shabocentury 4 years ago
Walked into what? Atheists have yet to account for any of the aforementioned necessary preconditions. They say, "But we do science! We have knowledge! We have a general trustworthiness of the senses! We use inductive reasoning!" All the while they never account for these things in light of their worldview. This begs the question. It leaves them uncomfortably between fideism and despair.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Again, you're singling out atheists as though they're obligated to resolve the problem of induction, but theists aren't; as if theists have resolved the problem of induction; as if theists can trust their sense more than atheists.
EvoLIEtion 4 years ago
yes, and you explained it for us. the atheist worldview is science, experience of observable phenomenon. "completely consistent with our most basic presuppositions" "we can account for the possibility of thought. We can account for those necessary preconditions for thought" you answered it for us and we thank you. you shot yourself in the foot, and now you are bleeding.
shabocentury 4 years ago
Can you please identify where an atheist has given an account for these necessary preconditions in light of their espoused presuppositions? I don't see where they have. If you claim they have, just point it out. Anywhere? Anywhere at all? Oh, no? Bummer for the infidels, I guess...
paleocrat 4 years ago
The atheists here have, for the most part, conceded that they cannot as of yet resolve such issues. Clearly, you're implying that theists CAN.
EvoLIEtion 4 years ago
It's only fair now that you elaborate upon how this can be so. I would like to see you respond to my (justwordsonthescreen) video - like you said you would. I would like to see you explain how it is that the theistic worldview is any more capable of resolving these things: the problem of induction, the trustworthiness of the senses, and so on.
EvoLIEtion 4 years ago
I agree that we cannot resolve the issues. But if paleocrat pretends he can, and attempts to prove it by using methods that don't contradict an atheist worldview, we can just as easily say, ok in that sense then thanks for proving us right. He doesn't even understand his own fallacious question.
shabocentury 4 years ago
No, because atheists and theists disagree on worlviews and the presuppositions that they are made up of. This being the case, your statement here is nonsense. Seriously, you look really bad on this one...
paleocrat 4 years ago
yes, but nowhere in your description for your worldview contradict an atheist worldview. (mentioning god) therefor given your conditions could also apply to an atheist worldview. admit it, you have no argument. simply stating that you do means nothing. whether god accounts or not, doesn't change the fact the preconditions for a given worldview can never be 100% fully verified, so you are lying when you say they can.
shabocentury 4 years ago
I would have earlier, but I had to go down to the studio to record our television program. Local politics, nothing big. Still, it is time consuming. In fact, there are clips from various airings on my main page.
I hope to put together a few videos dealing with the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) within the next few days.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Let me get this straight. You want an atheist to explain to you, from an evolutionary perspective, why science is even possible and why the senses are (generally) trustworthy?
philhellenes 4 years ago 3
very slick vid. . . . by taking on atheism you are gonna get so much attention!!
and be a man!!! enable the rating system!!!
when you talk about science you are out of your element. no offense.
citizenkong 4 years ago
Then it would be a piece of cake for an atheistic evolution to refute my claims pertaining to their inability to explain how science is possible in light of their most basic and ruling assumptions. Where do they stand as of now?
Atheists: 0
I am waiting...
paleocrat 4 years ago
that was a mouthful. . . you have been in church too long. you need to get out among the people and learn the speech patterns of the unwashed. . . . you know . . . the ones Jesus hung out with.
the arguing to me is pointless, but it is fun for me to watch from a distance. love you brother.
citizenkong 4 years ago
Rating system? Yeah right! By the look of it, I would have a solid 1 star rating. Personally, I think the whole anonymous rating system blows. Anonymous sucker punches and juvenile cheap shots. If they want to bust my chops, fine, but put it in print or on video.
paleocrat 4 years ago
tell me about it. my Mike Savage vid hovers at 2 stars, but it tells me i have riled up the haters! don't get hung up on ratings .. . oh yeah you hate the fairness doctrine. you think ratings makes it the truth.
citizenkong 4 years ago
Now how poor the universe design is. the majority of the universe would kill us instantly. We are on a collision course with Andromeda galaxy. Most galaxy orbits will bring you close to a super nova. Bad thing. Star formation is completely inefficient. The universe is approaching a heat death. I would have to say God needs a bit of learning about intelligent design.
quedorf 4 years ago
The world was designed just for us. When was the last time you looked at the world. This world that was designed just for us, is covered 71 percent with water that we cannot drink. Cannot live on 2/3 of the planet. The world is constantly trying to kill us every day. Earthquakes, weather, volcanos etc. 99 percent of all life that has ever lived is now extinct. Diseases everywhere. Not intelligently design for us.
quedorf 4 years ago
What I've noticed is that a lot of creationists misunderstand what the theory of evolution is. They don't understand anything about genetics, and since it's confusing they automatically assume that it can't be real. And a lot of them think that they can disprove a scientific theory without using science, which just isn't going to be taken seriously by anyone with a brain.
heyxluno 4 years ago
what don't you get about logic,observation and evidence, through reason = science
jualldo 4 years ago
Paleocrat looks at the world and says "It was designed just for us."
I realize we observe the universe as it is because if it were any other way, we could not be. We fit the universe, not the other way around. A puddle in a pot hole observes the shape of the pot hole and says "This pot hole fits me just right!" No. A puddle of any other shape or type would be in a different pot hole.
BreakingButterflies 4 years ago
"A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: 'This is a very amazing world I find myself in. It fits me very perfectly. In fact it fits me so absolutely perfectly... I mean it's really precise isn't it? If the hole was just one millimeter smaller or larger, I wouldn't fit... It must have been designed to have me in it."
--Douglas Adams
cda6590 4 years ago
Yes, I knew I had heard that somewhere! Thanks for giving credit were it is due.
BreakingButterflies 4 years ago
Watch the religious nutcase ignore this completely.
tingtangs 4 years ago 2
the question itself is flawed. The question presupposes that an atheists worldview (gods don't exist) is dependent on god(s) existing.
shabocentury 4 years ago
No, the question is not flawed. It is rather simple, actually. I am not asking anyone to account for anything other than what they claim to believe. That is it.
Even if my personal opinion was that the atheists must rely upon things that can only be accounted for from the Christian worldview, this wouldn't make it a flawed question. It just makes it all that more bold in its assertion.
paleocrat 4 years ago
"I am not asking anyone to account for anything other than what they claim to believe." This wording implies you think atheists believe something other than they claim. If this is in fact what you believe, what evidence do you have for this. And if you have no evidence, how could you possibly know the thoughts of another person?
BreakingButterflies 4 years ago
"I am not asking anyone to account for anything other than what they claim to believe. "
Why not just say:
"I'm asking atheists to account for what they believe."
It's so much more clear.
BreakingButterflies 4 years ago
Fine. You tell me what you think I believe. Fact by fact. If I do happen to believe a particular things, I will tell you why. I'm fairly certain I'll have good reasons. (I hope you are not confusing lack of a belief with belief. Like, would you demand that I account for my lack of belief in Russell's Celestial teapot?)
BreakingButterflies 4 years ago
Give me a break. I have done this so many times that I am getting blue in the face. I have phrased and rephrased this challenge more times than I wish to recollect within my videos! This doesn't even include this comment section.
What do I get in response? Everything but an answer...
paleocrat 4 years ago
well because you think that the very senses everyone derive their experience and observations from, can only be accounted for by the supernatural, any answer we give you will disagree with and not understand, thus is what we see here.
shabocentury 4 years ago
You have phrased and rephrased because people keep poking holes in your red herrings. And when they ask you to be specific, you run away crying like a little child.
tingtangs 4 years ago 3
Physical constants (necessary preconditions) make science possible. If constants went from a state of non-existence to existence, that would be a change, therefore incoherent. They are constant, unchanging, uncaused. Theologists talk of "a necessary being" (god) and "contingent beings". The Physical constants are necessary for the contingency of science. The physical constants are necessary, uncaused, uncreated. Just Constant.
BreakingButterflies 4 years ago 2
Yeeeep. Makes sense to me. More sense than a supernatural being who is necessary, uncaused and uncreated.
Occam's razor... it slices... it dices...
eightfootmanchild 4 years ago
the answer to the question is deductive analysis. most people use reason, and base decisions on experience and probabilities. we can all account that tomorrow morning the sun will rise in the east, we have no reason to think otherwise, if the sun doesn't rise in the east everyone will be surprised. its really not that hard to understand, and your entire argument is pure BS.
shabocentury 4 years ago
Uh, you obviously miss the point here. I am asking for you to explain from your worldview how you can account for the preconditions required to make deductive reasoning possible. Just saying "we utilize deductive reasoning" is a given. I am asking for you to give an account for this given your presuppositional framework.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I exist and I think! = my accounts for the preconditions. I figured that was a given.
your question is an informal fallacy of the loaded question.
shabocentury 4 years ago
paleocrat why are you so mad?And what should we teach if evolution was taking out of the school?
robnyc1986 4 years ago
ever wonder that its the same people who can't mind their own business? It's the same people that have a problem with those who don't share the same religion. have a problem with gays and don't want them to be equal. don't want women to be in charge of their own bodies. same morons that don't believe in birth control or protection.
shabocentury 4 years ago
That's completely unrelated to the topic.
cda6590 4 years ago
Paleocrat: Just so we're clear, you're attempting to resolve the problem of induction with a supernatural force(Gods, or otherwise). Correct?
EvoLIEtion 4 years ago
yes, hes implying that it is impossible to account for the laws of nature that we depend on to exist without supernatural influences. the claim is that an atheist who doesn't believe in the supernatural cannot account for why the universe's laws exist in the first place, and therefor cannot account for science.
shabocentury 4 years ago
No. The argument thus far has been in the negative. It has been transcendental in the Kantian sense.
We, as far as I know, grant that many things are required for humans to have any meaningful knowledge of the universe. I am simply asking atheists to show me, from their worldview (their most basic presuppositions) how any of this is possible. Nothing too hard, but something none have been able to do.
paleocrat 4 years ago
The most basic presupposition you want us to show is the existence of "right" and "wrong". We are unable because right and wrong are adjectives. Totally subjective...for simplicity, we've just given automated validity to certain principles of civilized living like "murder is wrong". WE CLEAR?
DeimosSaturn 4 years ago
No. We are not CLEAR. Neither right nor wrong were listed in the preconditions I am referring to. And your notion of presuppositions seems to be greatly lacking. Your comment, while not actually aleviating the problem, merely compounded it, because you would then be forced to give a presuppositional account for those principles.
Round and round we go. When atheists will have an answer, nobody knows!
paleocrat 4 years ago
Physical constants (necessary preconditions) make science possible. If constants went from a state of non-existence to existence, that would be a change, therefore incoherent. They are constant, unchanging, uncaused. Theologists talk of "a necessary being" (god) and "contingent beings". The Physical constants are necessary for the contingency of science. The physical constants are necessary, uncaused, uncreated. Just Constant.
BreakingButterflies 4 years ago
OK, you just ignored every precondition I mentioned. That is fine. I have never seen people say so little with so many words!
paleocrat 4 years ago
OK, you seem to be so sure of what you want us to say, so say it for us since we are so evasive.
DeimosSaturn 4 years ago
I've dedicated 2 videos to the issue. All I have gotten is the run around, ridicule, and mere assertions (i.e. we have physical constants, etc.). To date, nobody has taken up the presuppositional challenge. Nobody.
I am not asking if you have X, Y, or Z. I grant this from the get-go. I am asking for them to explain how this is possible given their most ruling presuppositions that make up what we call a worldview. Nothing more. Nothing less.
paleocrat 4 years ago
The most ruling presuppositions that make up our worldview...can you be a little more vague? I can still sorta understand what the heck you're talking about. Are you talking about the laws of gravity? The laws of morality? The laws of empiricism? Horses? Apples? Hammers?
DeimosSaturn 4 years ago
Paleocrat looks at the world and says "It was designed just for us."
I realize we observe the universe as it is because if it were any other way, we could not be. We fit the universe, not the other way around. A puddle in a pot hole observes the shape of the pot hole and says "This pot hole fits me just right!" No. A puddle of any other shape or type would be in a different pot hole.
BreakingButterflies 4 years ago
You call them "presuppositions". No. Thats just our pot hole.
BreakingButterflies 4 years ago
The world was designed just for us. When was the last time you looked at the world. This world that was designed just for us, is covered 71 percent with water that we cannot drink. Cannot live on 2/3 of the planet. The world is constantly trying to kill us every day. Earthquakes, weather, volcanos etc. 99 percent of all life that has ever lived is now extinct. Diseases everywhere. Not intelligently design for us.
quedorf 4 years ago
Now how poor the universe design is. the majority of the universe would kill us instantly. We are on a collision course with Andromeda galaxy. Most galaxy orbits will bring you close to a super nova. Bad thing. Star formation is completely inefficient. The universe is approaching a heat death. I would have to say God needs a bit of learning about intelligent design.
quedorf 4 years ago
Those responses were not directed towards you. I hit the wrong key. sorry if I misled you they were directed towards the video maker.
quedorf 4 years ago
A puddle is under no obligation to "account" for the size and shape of the pot hole it is in. If the pot hole were any other way, the puddle would not be as it is. It would not "be" at all.
BreakingButterflies 4 years ago
PERFECT
ProudAmerican8 4 years ago
What a phenomenal post. It looks like these guys are figuring out what you're getting at. You explain it much better than I can hope to. You've explained the arbitrariness and exposed unargued assumptions taken for granted by atheists that don't comport with their premises...they borrow from the Christian's worldview to do science...only Christians can account for the uniformity of nature...they can't do science without us!
antipelagian 4 years ago
It's like, you refer to the air they breathe, and they cannot perceive it. The air is so comfortable, necessary and assumed, they simply refuse to acknowledge it is there.
What air? Eh? You guys are uneducated, man. Go read a book until you see it my way!
RogerOnTheRight 4 years ago