What a load of bollocks. You should be ashamed of yourself for making a video like that and calling yourself a physicist at the same time. If you are a physicist then you are a disgrace to the scientific community.
@stage1411 I think you missed the objective of the video entirely...and the purposeful lack of logic employed in its content. His very point IS that the argument he provides IS bollocks..yet is also a common one.
@stage1411 Thx. Read the spiel that goes with the video to see what it's about. I am an atheist making a film called A Cure for Religion. The real question is where does the logic break down & why. At each stage I note the different possible answers and then simply follow the direction that can be investigated. The logic works - bt only kind of. & whether it is of any use is a completely different matter. I am a physicist btw, but as it's an odd film I don't blame anyone for strong responses.
@philm Apologies for the strong response. When I saw this I was shocked, as it is completely at odds with how, even a semi competent physicist, would behave. I felt compelled to respond. I quickly realised that this could not be serious, but still found it annoying that the word physicist was been used in the title of the video, in reality it is more like: A film maker who happens to be a physicist, is making a film and doing an experiment in psychology.
@philmoran I also didn't like the idea that maybe this video could be used out of contexts, but as trythinkingnow suggests, in another comment response to me, if I understand him correctly, anyone who would take this video, use it, and agree with its contents would actually be doing themselves a disservice. Good luck with your film.
Interesting. He is well aware that he starts by saying no assumptions are going to be made...then sets for a clear path of assumptions leading to christianity. His aim is to see who, presumably the faithful, easily are blinded to the contradictions in his statements instead agreeing with his 'logic'. He is not a fool...it is an interesting psychological experiment.
@trythinkingnow Yes I agree, this is probably true, but then he is a psychologist pretending to be a physicist as part of the experiment? That is very annoying, it gives out of contexts ammunition to gullible Christians, that can then use this video for their own propaganda.
Wow. How can someone engaged in physics be this pathetically illogical. Moran claimed that his proof has no assumption, and then every step has an unwarranted assumption.
I might use the same method to determine just about anything. Are Unicorns white? Yes or No? Well the most popular color when depicted is white, therefore unicorns are white.
@drfoxcourt Very good point. Please read the spiel that goes with the video to see what it's really about. The interesting question for me is where the logic breaks down and why.
@StygianDysnomia Good point. I could also put in many other steps that deal with all the objections along the way - but life is too short. Read the spiel that goes with the video to see what it is about. Phil
@friedie1jeff Thanks for this. The piece is completely logical - please explain where it is not and why. Also, I suggest you read the spiel that goes with the video to understand what this is really about.
I'm going to take this as a satire, otherwise, I HIGHLY question your credentials as a Phycist. I don't even think the most backwards fundamentalists would buy this as "convincing".
@elvebrothergenju Thx. I am a physicist. Read the spiel that goes with the video to understand. You're right to question it, and yes it is true that it doesn't convince many people - but why? Where does the logic fail?
You're making far too many assumptions. Assuming that there is a reason for our being here simply because it would be a waste of time looking if we assumed there wasn't is rediculous. The entire basis of your arguement is the assumption of each individual premise which is basically begging the question. If I had to say why it doesn't convince anyone, is because it is not a strcturally stable arguement, you have no basis for making these assumptions, hence, it's not believable.
That was more of an exaggeration on how incredibly incredulous this video is in providing any bit of evidence for a God. Anyone can assume their way to an answer, the point of science is to make a prediction and then undergo experiments and record the results to see if they met said predictions. This handles everything "Yes or No" and simply assumes it's way to the desired result. So no, I don't even think even the most backwards Fundamentalists would consider this convincing.
@elvebrothergenju If you watch some of their videos here on YouTube, you might conclude that even the smartest fundamentalists would believe this as sound logic. The real point is that faith requires no logic, and those who try to use logic to defend faith are quite wrong to do so. Fundamentalists believe in a literal acceptance of liturgy, meaning that they are quite small-minded, and probably would believe anything anyone told them that fits their prescription of faith.
I think you're missing the point that it's more of an exaggeration to try and relay my idea of just how preposturous the logic of this is. While obviously some people would most likely agree to this, those people probably already had the presupposition in their mind so that this would simply fortify their belief, but I doubt any of them would ever consider this a valid arguement for their faith as they prefer to often make appeals to emotion, rather than logic.
@elvebrothergenju We will have to agree to disagree on two points. First, there is a movement in the fundamentalist groups to prove the Genesis story of Creation, as well as disprove the the theory of evolution, cosmology theories, etc, throug "science". They even call it "Creation Science" Honest. Hence, logice like this would be welcome in that camp. Second, I sincerely believe that many fundamentalists, if not most, are dumb enough to take this as good "scientific" evidence
@friedie1jeff I think you're right. Using logic to prove the Earth is 6000 years old is useless. It won't work for the simple reason that it isn't true. The existence of God though, is more tricky because the notion of God is a continually shifting idea. Shoot down one concept and another pops up.
@philmoran Of course logic can never be successfully used to prove something that is false, such as the idea of a 6000 year old earth. However, there are existing many concepts of God. in fact, there are many perspectives on God sometimes from deep thinkers of the same religious faith. And some of their works are quite scholarly. However, theological concepts concerning God should never be commingled with scientific concepts concerning cosmology or any other science.
@philmoran Phil- I am wondering how many of the faithful actually miss the contradiction in the no/assumptions/multiple assumptions statements on the way to the chrsitianity endpoint. Are they more prone to being absent logical thinking when the subject is their religion? While atheists immediately catch on and stamp their feet, do the faithful even notice? Signed...a foot stomper..
So the only way to "prove" that religion and jesus are true is to make, what was that, 7-8 completely unfounded guesses and assume that you are correct. . . Yup, that sounds about right to me.
@colmeweb You're right, it's not really a proof - that's just a headline grabber. They are not unfounded guesses though, and I'm not assuming that I'm correct either. In every step the alternatives are considered and then I follow the options that are possible to follow. It doesn't mean that these options are true, of course, simply that they can be followed. Read the spiel to understand what the piece is really about. Best wishes Phil
@ohmysausages It certainly is logic my friend. You are stating there is no reason. Well how can you possibly know that? Blind faith??? In my piece I'm saying there may or may not be a reason. There probably is no reason, sure, but that can't be investigated, so let's follow the other path and investigate. Read the spiel to understand what the piece is really about. Best wishes Phil
according to the bible God himself ordered genocide and the killing of all Egypts firstborn. Thats the guiding moral giver for Christians, the source of Absolute morality ?
@SqueakerAlpha I know, nuts isn't it. But then again, it's nigh on impossible to judge right and wrong when it comes to God. Sticking a needle in a child is a bad thing to do, but a doctor doing to inject a cure against something is a good thing. Perhaps there's more to the story about God ordering genocide and if we knew the big picture we would understand that it wasn't a bad thing. This is one of the problems in understanding anything to do with God. Best wishes Phil
You can't assume your way to a fact. Your argument leaves no third answer, especially when you make this leap by saying: "science doesn't tell us the WHY regarding our existence, therefore we can only find that in religion". You leave out the possibility that the reason for your existence may be for its own sake, independent of any god, and most especially from your god, (because this idea rules out your god entirely, knowing that the Christian god is an interfering god.)
@politicoochie09 There isn't enough time to make the argument comprehensive, but if we make the answers yes, no or a third option that covers any alternative such 'this question cannot be answered', then we're still in the same position - as the third option also cannot be investigated. I don't leave out possibilities - I cover them and say if we can't investigate, let's park them and follow where we can investigate. Read the spiel to understand what the piece is really about. Best wishes Phil
@philmoran By dismissing the third option outright, all you are doing is leading yourself down a path that you know has a high probability of being wrong -- based on the high number of assumptions that got you there. And your video is nothing more than an elaborate way of showing Pascal's Wager which has been proven over and over to NOT be "a safe bet."
@politicoochie09 Read the spiel that goes with this to understand what is going on. I am an atheist making a documentary film. Correct that this is an elaborate Pascal's Wager, but am pretty certain that no-one has proven the wager not to be 'a safe bet' - more they have used different logic to reach different conclusions. (How would one prove it wrong actually?) I follow the steps I can and acknowledge the steps I can't. True there's a high probability of being wrong - I never said otherwise. P
@politicoochie09 no Pascal's wager is not 50/50, what if the Buddhist are right or the Muslims are right or what if the pagans are right. If you take in all the different world religions you have less then 0.1% chance of picking the one true religion. the odds are much much worse then you think.
@politicoochie09 I see nothing wrong with your logic, I personally believe differently, but I make no claims and would never ask you to believe what I believe.
@politicoochie09 But why is picking none of them a safe bet? If there is no God, heaven or hell, then it doesn't make any difference if we follow a religion - so there is nothing to lose. Phil
@philmoran New Question: Suppose there was a God that gave you a test with two choices. If you pass, you go to the afterlife. The choices: 1. Use your brain and figure out what life’s about all on your own. Or, 2. Use only the contradictory guidebook handed to you (assumed to be from God). Which do you choose? Both paths are confusing. What if choosing the guidebook meant you failed the test because you weren’t using the brain you were given, but figuring it out on your own meant you pass?
@Crazy80563 I'm an atheist actually - this is a piece about the use of logic, that's all. I disagree that Christianity commits genocide though - only people can do that. It's the same for science - to many it's bad because it invented the atomic bomb. But to me it's only people who can be good or bad. Christianity and science and any structure you like are often used for immoral gain; it's part of the human condition. I'd also question what 'true morality' actually means? Thks 4 yr post. P
@philmoran my use of the term genocide was purely metaphorical. all I meant was that for one to accept the claims of the bible as true it would require that a person allow his or her faculties of reason to be slaughtered by way of the cross. I use to be a believer, looking back I remember how easy it was to be spoon fed. I remember also the sermon that opened my eyes and reason to the terror of scripture and the genocide committed not only by holy men but by god himself. true morality.......
@philmoran True morality? Big bite cant chew,allow me to simplify. TM stops to consider the implications of ones thoughts and what action it is equal to. It suspends judgement in the absence of knowledge. It is the application of discretion which benefits individuals no matter their standing. It is the application of judgement based on the best wisdom available. It demands correction where errors exist. TM is that which sustains truths that squash error into oblivion, and much more.
@Crazy80563 well thanks for all the comments. Morality is a very interesting topic and I quite agree that some terrible things have been done in the past in the name of Christianity - and other religions. Interesting too that you used to be a believer - same for me. But what about the oddness of our existence - I mean the fact that anything exists at all. What are your thoughts about that? Best wishes Phil
@philmoran I have pondered "Existence" a lot and have concluded that within the essence of existence is its eternal nature. I have abandoned the notion of "nothing" as an abstract concept that makes the origin of the universe irreconcilable. I am not a scientist such as you are but if we separate concepts from reality it's a no brainer that existence has always and will always be. While "nothing" may be as convenient as the concept of zero, It provides nothing more than functionality in thought.
This "logic" is full of false dichotomies. Example: "Have we been shown the reason"? Maybe not. Maybe we haven't been shown yet, and all the current "reasons" we know of (by way of religion) are false. Yet the logic here ignores this possibility and assumes the truth lies in one of the current religions.
@csmcmillion But I don't ignore them. Am saying that we might not have been shown the reason in which case we won't find it if we go looking. But we don't know if we have been shown the reason, so we may as well keep looking in case we have. It is possible, of course, that all religions might be false and we have not been shown the reason - and it is one option that we can't pursue further than that; which is exactly what I say. Anyway, read the spiel with the video 2 c what it's really about.
Many, many assumptions. The selection of Christianity based on popularity is argument ad populum, and is fallacious. 500 years ago 99% of the population were sure the Earth was flat.
@csmcmillion It's not fallacious logic at all. All you're saying is that the logical argument could be different at different times. 500 years ago if discussing whether the Earth is flat or round, then it would be logical to go with the the majority and believe that the Earth is flat. Of course a majority view is no guarantee of truth. Am simply saying that if you have accepted the steps to that point and you decide to choose one religion - then all things being equal choose the popular one.
@csmcmillion Others have said 'yes but what if Islam happened to be the biggest religion'. Well the answer is that Islam would then be the logical choice as to which religion to join if you accept all the steps up to that point. It's logic.
@gunter5150 I get this a lot. I meant to say without starting with any assumptions. Be clever if you like, but the question is where does the logic fail and why. Read the spiel that goes with it too - not all is as it seems. Cheers Phil
@redrum41987 The logic is sound as far as I can see. I have not had anyone who can argue against it effectively - the logic is mostly useless, however, because you can pick the method of arguing at each stage to get different results. Please let me know at what stage the logic is faulty - if you can. Phil (PS Am an atheist. Read the spiel to understand what it is really about.)
@gordogreat74 lol sorry you feel that way. Read the spiel with the video to understand what it is really about. I made the mistake of saying with no assumptions - I meant to say without starting with any assumptions.
1000 years ago we thought the moon was a place that we can never get to.. Now we did. Lack of knowledge = god. Logical deduction. You logic is false and retarded.
@Vikramthewhite But I'm not saying lack of knowledge = god. The thing is that you are making assumptions about what the word god means in your statement. Go through each stage of the argument and tell me where the logic is wrong - if you can. (PS logic cannot be retarded, it can be correct, incorrect or nonsense. All three have their uses in logical deduction. Read the spiel with the video to understand what it's about). Phil
Honestly I dont believe you're a physicist... actually I don't think you are a scientist at all... otherwise you would see at least one of the flaws on your argument
The reason for our existence is to replicate our genes as it is in every other species. Humans have an additional purpose: to spread memes. We can also define our own purpose as individuals. God's purpose for us is to praise him for eternity. Pretty lame...
@13Heathens Thanks. Read the spiel that goes with it and you'll see that I'm an atheist making a docutmentary called A Cure for Religion in which I convert believers to atheism. This is a piece about the use of logic. The logic kind of works although whether it is really any use is questionable. Popularity is not insane - it's perfectly logical. If a restaurant is full of customers then it indicates that the food is good - do you agree? Thanks again, Phil
@philmoran "If a restaurant is full of customers then it indicates that the food is good - do you agree?"
No, honestly I don't. There was this greasy little choke and puke near Harvard square that was almost always full. The burgers were greasy, the fries were bland, and so on. The food wasn't good, but it was convenient and cheep. The majority of the patrons would even admit their food was a bit nasty, yet they still kept coming back.
@13Heathens Sry, misread insane, but argument remains same. Point am making; popularity is an indication of something. At that point in my logical steps am saying if you agree to all points up to there, then u have decided to choose 1 religion. If religions are all the same, choosing most popular is the best guess. Popularity is useful even in yr restaurant. The food is 'good' because it is cheap. Everyone uses popularity as an assessment parameter - why not! Is logical - yes?
In no other belief system is there a resurrected being other than Christianity; its book, the Holy Bible, is proved true time and again with archealogical findings and in prophecies that came true or are coming true. Yes, Jesus is the Son of the Living God, our Creator, Creator of the Universe - and there is a Judgement Day coming for all. I pray others will turn to Jesus, repent of their sins before it is too late. God bless.
@kathyandgabby2 Thanks for this. If I could prove to you that Jesus did not resurrect, would you stop being a Christian? I don't think prophecies are coming true - I think some people fit what is happening in the world to the prophesies so that it reinforces what we want to believe. Best wishes Phil
@kathyandgabby2 I'd love to see some of this archaeological evidence you speak of. As far as I can tell there is none and there are no prophecies that have come true either unless you completely suspend all critical thinking. P.S. resurrection features in plenty of the older religions (pre Christianity). Your points are devoid of truth, evidence or logical substance.
Sorry but you're one of the few physicists who believe everything has a reason (or cause). You know very well that virtual particles refute this idea.
@PhoneExpert27 I didn't say that I believed my logical argument. Read the spiel that goes with it. I'm interested to know what virtual particles do - can you explain? Best wishes Phil
@Realityprogramming Thanks - you didn't explain how though. I have had this argument before, so let me pre-emt a little. I haven't defined what 'reason' means so it isn't possible to say that step 2 is a false dichotomy. Thanks again. Phil (PS, read the spiel that goes with the piece to understand what I'm really about.)
@philmoran And lastly C) Assuming you get past those two barriers which seem insurmountable to me – why jesus? Why not zeus or Allah or Xemu. Why something supernatural at all? We are 2000 years more advanced than jesus and his friends. Why do we feel we still have to grope in the dark for an invisible god when most likely the reason and purpose for our existence are already known.
@Realityprogramming I don't mention anything supernatural. You're making assumptions about what is necessary to be a Christian. The reason 'why Jesus' is simply a flip of the coin. At that point in the argument if you have accepted the steps so far, then you believe that it is worth joining a single religious group just in case there is only 'one true faith'. My next step is to say all things being equal your best bet is to join the most popular one. Best wishes Phil
@philmoran B) Science indicates that the “reason” for existence is most likely that we are the product of physics / chemistry / organic chemistry / biology. In other words, natural processes are the reason for our existence.
@Realityprogramming Sure - but it depends on the meaning of the word 'reason'. I don't believe in Adam an Eve (and in fact don't believe in God), so I believe evolution is the driver that caused our existence. But, there is still the issue - why is there a universe at all. There may be no reason for it, in which case it doesn't matter if we go looking or not. If there is a reason, then we'll only find it if we go looking. It's logical therefore to keep an open mind and go looking - yes?
@philmoran Assuming "there is a reason for existence" is the logical fail. This is because when you state “reason” you are clearly assuming “purpose”.
So put more clearly, your entire logical argument is dependent on there being a “purpose” for existence when in fact A ) There is no evidence of a purpose to life beyond reproduction, so why should you assume one?
@Realityprogramming No I don't mean purpose actually, I mean reason. Just say there is a God who created a universe (whatever 'create' actually means) and then allowed physics and chemistry to do it's thing. Then there is a 'reason' for the universe in that God created it, but not a 'purpose' for us in that God didn't intend our existence for any reason. Anyway, read the spiel that goes with the video - am an atheist making a doc about faith. This piece is about logic.
i actually got it .... :) u r funny sir. well done. It could be easily understood why people react to this video the way they do. We face the stupidity of religion in a lot of videos and these people r so dumb ... that at first i thought u where actually serious .... good luck sir. good work.
@nuberiffic lol. Thanks for this. You're right, it's not a proof at all - that's just a headline grabber. If you read the spiel that goes with the post, you'll see what it's really about. I'm an atheist making a film called "A Cure for Religion" in which I convert believers to atheism. This logical argument does work though - kind of. It's basically Pascals wager; many people dismiss it as a false dichotomy, but my view is that this depends on how the information is presented. Anyway, thx
@TheTruggsess lol. Thanks for the comments. Yes I get a real slating sometimes. The logic works though - kind of. Anyway, read the spiel that goes with it and it will make sense (you're right, it's not a proof. That's just a headline grabber) Best wishes Phil
@mehico33 Thanks. If you read the spiel, I'm an atheist making a documentary called "A Cure for Religion". The piece is really about the use of logic. At point 2, I don't use the word 'purpose', I say 'reason' - also, the word reason isn't defined so I'm not even talking about a 'mind' at this point. The question might be meaningless - but then it's also a dead end, so u may as well assume that the question isn't meaningless. It's not a proof - that's just headline grabber. Hope that helps. Phil
@philmoran It does, I apologise. I kind of shot first then asked questions later. (I also overstepped my bounds in saying "the purpose of life is to live. Thats it")
@mehico33 Well that's a really nice and self reflective response. Thanks! You don't need need to apologies - it is an odd little video. It makes me chuckle all the different responses I get. If you know anyone who might be interested in taking in part in my film, please forward my details. Best wishes, Phil
i agree with you up to the second question because the only assumption we should make is that we exist. We do not know if there is a reason for our existence, and we should not assume that there is one, because you must make your own
Let me explain if you are placed in a society and you are promised a house by diff people but you do not know when you get it and you spend much time looking for it. You may as well build your own and not depend on the promise of someone else you know may be lying
@Netruic Yes, interesting comment. I think what I am saying is that we shouldn't assume there is no reason for our existence. There probably isn't one - but we don't know that for sure, so we may as well keep looking (which is what I really mean when I say we may as well assume that there is one). We should of course build our own house at the same time, just in case. Thanks for your comment. Phil
I also like how at the beginning of the video you say "with NO assumptions, then directly contradict yourself by making MANY assumptions one after another to reach the final question :p
I could go into how arguable "christianity" isn't the largest group since many denominations are actually mutually exclusive, but islam who worships the same god has the largest single denomination and should therefor be deemed as the one most likely to be correct!
On the second point, it doesn't address what would happen if there is no reason, and we don't look for it.
Rather than looking for reason when we've seen no evidence FOR reason, we're starting with a fairly egotistical assumption and then trying to find evidence that fits. We'd be better off advancing science education, rational thought etc. and allowing the world to become a better place overall.
If there is a reason for our existence, we're far more likely to find it in a quest for truth.
I'd say the logic breaks down on the first question, do we exist, it's a false dilemna.
Do "we" exist. With a solipsist mindset, I can only be reasonably sure that I exist. I think therefor I am. I can believe I exist without believing that others exist.
I do agree that it's best to assume that the universe around us does exist, and that we can learn something/ know something about it in order to make any sense of that which is around us, and find any type of truth of this reality.
Okay, to answer your last statement then (and I'm not heckling, I'm really interested in this conversation) the argument breaks down at "Does anything except religion claim to give us the answer?" Because although religion claims to give us the answer, the answer may lie elsewhere and we just haven't seen it yet. Also, on "should we assume that one particular religion has the answer" No. Even if the answer is in religion, it could be that all of them are partly right and partly wrong.
@msschaarschmidt Aha ... very clever. Yes that is also logical, the answer might be somewhere else but we haven't seen it yet, true, BUT! that means we should go looking for the answer elsewhere - and at the same time we may as well accept that religion has the answer as it's the only show in town for now. True also that all the religions might be partly right or wrong, but it might be that only one of them is correct - in which case better to choose one, just in case. Phil
Now that I know this video is about the Christian logic, I'd like to play along. The question "Do we exist?", can be answered by René Descartes. "Cogito ergo sum" or, "I think, therefore I am" is sufficient evidence to continue further inquiry.
"Is there a reason for our existence?" This is where the evidence train derails and logic falls apart. There is no evidence that there is a reason for our existence. Likewise, no evidence against a reasoned existence. Without evidence, we can't continue.
@legendsofatheria Thanks for this - I'll play too! How do you know there is no evidence for a reason for existence? You've not found any so far, perhaps. There probably isn't any evidence - but how do we know? After all, it's odd that the universe exists. Better to keep looking I think - just in case. Phil
@philmoran If a pertinent question is asked we should always try and find the answer. I do think people should keep searching for the beginnings of our existence and the possibility of purpose in the universe, but building conclusion upon assumption may lead the conclusion astray. To be true about existence and reality, a conclusion must be based on factual evidence and testable by others.
@legendsofatheria But we always need to make conclusions based on assumptions - we assume that our eyes don't lie to us for example and act accordingly. We should perhaps be open to other possible conclusions - just in case. But that is what I do in the piece at each stage. Do we exist? Maybe, maybe not - our non existence is possible and we should bear it in mind, but it's also a dead end so we can't investigate it. Let's assume existence then and investigate that. Phil
There is neither proof or logic in this video. Doesn't the word assumption have the same meaning as assume? From watching this video, I "assume" you received your physics degree from a Happy Meal™.
@legendsofatheria No problem - sorry for such a short response. As you can imagine, I get a roasting and I'm just spending too longing responding to all the comments. Cheers, Phil
To answer your question, the logic breaks down at the very first assumption. If you assume there is no reason for our existence, then stop. There may be no reason for our existence. It could just be. In which case, the rest of the argument falls apart.
Additionally, the argument is not at all scientific in that you start with your desired outcome and design the argument to fit it. Although, to be fair, you never stated it was a scientific argument.
@msschaarschmidt But the point of most of the steps is to consider the options. There may or may not be a reason for existence - we stop only if there is no reason because we can't go any further. If there is a reason lets keep investigating. I'm not saying there is a reason - in fact, as an atheist, I don't think there is. You're right this isn't a scientific argument, only a logical one - although my headline grabbing title indicates a proof, which it isn't. Best wishes, Phil
To answer your question, the logic breaks down at the very first assumption. If you assume there is no reason for our existence, then stop. There may be no reason for our existence. It could just be. In which case, the rest of the argument falls apart.
@cmfic36 Thanks for this. I assume it's just an insult. I get quite a roasting for this piece, but most don't get it. If you read the spiel that goes with it, you'll see that I'm an atheist making a documentary called "A Cure for Religion" in which I convert believers to atheism. The piece is about logic, so if you want to think on it again, I'd be interested in your thoughts. Where does the logic break down; that's the question. Phil
@philmoran Nah, I was just making a stupid reference to an internet gag from the tea party. I see what you're doing and I'm interested to see how it turns out. Just Google "get a brain morans" to catch my reference. Good luck to you!
This can't be serious. He started with the statement "a clear argument without making any assumptions" then he gives us a series of bad assumptions. At the end it asks you to contact him if you are convinced. I wonder if this isn't some sort of setup to prove that he can actually only "make his proof" to people who aren't actually listening, or who ignore truth while seeking it.
@msschaarschmidt Thanks for this. If you read the spiel that goes with it, you'll see that I'm an atheist making a documentary called "A Cure for Religion" in which I convert believers to atheism. I meant to say without starting with any assumptions. The reality is that all logic has assumptions - that logic works for a start. The question you haven't addressed is where does the logic break down? Each step gives alternatives and if one way is a dead-end you go the other way - logic. Phil
I will be in you're little movie.I teach astronomy and physics and have been doing so for over 20 years.You give me nothing in your vid that proves anything.You steer it towards your beliefs.You have a preacher way about you.Prove it in mathematics,give me a real problem to solve,private msg me with it and lets see if you truly can make a good try at it.
@profsat5 Hi. This sounds interesting! Your right, it's not a proof - that's a headline grabber - the piece is about logic. I'm an atheist actually and I'm making a film called "A Cure for Religion" in which I convert believers to atheism - does this count you out? Are you religious?
You start out by saying your 'argument' doesn't make 'any assumptions' and then you move forward with nothing but assumptions, and not even the most probable ones. Even in the final step, where you suggest that the most common religion is the 'best bet', you offer no validation of that whatsoever. Had Christianity killed fewer non-Christians or not repeatedly aligned itself with tyrants, it would not be the most common religion - how does murder and tyranny validate Christianity?
@HeatherSpoonheim Thx Heather. I meant 2 say I don't start with assumptions. The reality is that all logic has assumptions - that logic works for a start. I do offer a validation for Christianity - at that step in the chain, I'm saying you may as well choose one just in case. If there is nothing between them, then choose the most popular one - popularity is the validation, not alignment with tyrants. Read the spiel that goes with this to see what it's really about. I'm an atheist. Phil
@philmoran Except that alignment with tyrants/atrocities and popularity are inextricably linked. Had Islam made better alignments and killed more Christians, it would be the top religion today. From a bronze age perspective one could see how being able to kill your enemies would mean you were 'backed by a god' but from a modern perspective that seems to be a moral paradox. Anyhow, I think I get where you are going with this. Good luck - I've been debating the faithful for years.
@HeatherSpoonheim I thought that about about the assumptions thing too, he says assume like 15 times. murder and tyranny validate christianity because the christian god allowed them to happen. The pagan gods and allah didn't stop them.
@aksh16 lol. It's mildly tongue in cheek, but also serious. It is odd, but the logic kind of works. The question is where does it fall down? Thanks for you comment.
@philmoran Well you make too many assumptions. And the outcome depends on many different conditions to be true. So it isn't a proof but more of a hypothesis saying that if this, that & this were true, then this would be true.
@aksh16 Thanks for this. If you read the spiel that goes with the video, you'll understand what it is about. It's not a proof, true - that's just an attention grabbing headline. However, the logic does work - whether it is of use is a different matter. I don't say that the conclusion is the true one, I simply follow a series of logical arguments examining which direction we can follow in the logic - some are dead ends, but that doesn't mean they are not true, nor do I claim them to be untrue.
@Lynnmist Ok great. Do you mind if we e-mail rather than go through YouTube? My e-mail address is philmoran@ffab.co.uk. We'll start with me asking you a couple of questions, and you can of course ask me any questions as we go along. Best wishes, Phil
@philmoran Hi Lynn, I just tried to send you a msg through YouTube, but wasn't able to. I'd really love to go through the evidence for evolution for you - don't you want to? If you can let me know either way, that would be great. Best wishes, Phil
@Lynnmist Right, I see. Interesting. Are you open minded about other possible explanations? I think I could show you that evolution is a better explanation. Interested? Best wishes Phil
@FUCKSTICK645 No problem - the more discussion the better as far as I'm concerned. I think I'm the same as you - I become more atheistic as time goes on. We could we wrong though! Best wishes, Phil
@slimmworker Hmmm. I know what you mean. I don't know if it's a bad thing though. I mean the more we believe in money the more it exists - is that a good thing or bad?
@Lynnmist Thank you. I had a look at your YouTube page and saw the clip on Intelligent Design, I don't believe in intelligent design myself, evolution fits the evidence much better - and it doesn't mean there isn't a God. The catholic church accept evolution for example. What are your thoughts on that? Best wishes Phil
@FUCKSTICK645 Move on to the next challenge. :-) Seriously though, my film is just an interesting way of looking at why and how people believe. It's a respectful documentary - I'm not a person who dismisses believers; and there are many very intelligent people who believe - but I do find faith odd. The question is, why do other people believe and not me. How about yourself? Do you have any religious leanings? Best wishes Phil
@FUCKSTICK645 I think you've missed the point. I'm an atheist making a film called "A Cure for Religion" in which I take believers and convert them to atheism. I do have an ego, of course, but that doesn't mean that the logic doesn't work - there is a kind of logic, but another question is what use is it. The title, of course, is false. The piece isn't a proof - one can only disprove God. Anyway, thanks for your comments. If you know any believers, please forward. Phil
Do you honestly think that is a good way to asses reality? Are you really a physicist? A man of science? I don’t believe you are. Because what you just said was that someone told you the answer was X, and you are going to believe that it is X until anyone else makes an objection. Believing something because you don’t have a better answer is an argument from ignorance. A physicist should know better.
@jillum89 Thanks for this. I'm afraid you've completely missed the point. I'm an atheist making a film about faith. I am a scientist, yes. This clip is not about a way to assess reality; it's about the use of logic. The question is where does the logic break down? As a scientist I would say each step we should consider all the alternatives. As a logician, I'm saying if the answer is a dead end we can't do anything with it. Phil
@philmoran That made me feel so much better. :D Sometimes it's really hard to pin down satire. This could easily have been the real deal. In that case. Thank you very much for the video. :)
@jillum89 LOL. Funny actually - I get a real roasting if you read down the comments. It's only slightly tongue in cheek though. The logic does kind of work - whether it's any use is a different matter. Thanks again for your comments, and if you know any believers who would like to be converted to atheism, please let me know. Cheers Phil
Religion claims it has the answer. No one else claims it has the answer.
-
This is equivalent to a child holding a cardboard box, shouting “There’s a sandwich that cures cancer in here!” People shake their heads. He the shouts “Does anyone have any better suggestion to that which the box contains?” No one says a thing. Because how should they know. Then the child declares victory. “Because no one else claims to have the answer, but me, then the box MUST contain a sandwich that cures cancer!”
@jillum89 Yes, this is good point. HOWEVER. In terms of the logic, you've used an example in which we assume that the box doesn't contain a cancer curing sandwich. Also, what is the purpose of the child and a cardboard box except to emotionally guide the argument? What about a scientist in a white coat holding up a test tube saying "there's a formula that cures cancer in here - anyone disagree?" Same principle, but it's not so convincing then - there may be a cure in the test tube. Phil
What a load of bollocks. You should be ashamed of yourself for making a video like that and calling yourself a physicist at the same time. If you are a physicist then you are a disgrace to the scientific community.
stage1411 6 days ago
@stage1411 I think you missed the objective of the video entirely...and the purposeful lack of logic employed in its content. His very point IS that the argument he provides IS bollocks..yet is also a common one.
trythinkingnow 5 days ago
@stage1411 Thx. Read the spiel that goes with the video to see what it's about. I am an atheist making a film called A Cure for Religion. The real question is where does the logic break down & why. At each stage I note the different possible answers and then simply follow the direction that can be investigated. The logic works - bt only kind of. & whether it is of any use is a completely different matter. I am a physicist btw, but as it's an odd film I don't blame anyone for strong responses.
philmoran 5 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@philm Apologies for the strong response. When I saw this I was shocked, as it is completely at odds with how, even a semi competent physicist, would behave. I felt compelled to respond. I quickly realised that this could not be serious, but still found it annoying that the word physicist was been used in the title of the video, in reality it is more like: A film maker who happens to be a physicist, is making a film and doing an experiment in psychology.
stage1411 4 days ago
@philmoran I also didn't like the idea that maybe this video could be used out of contexts, but as trythinkingnow suggests, in another comment response to me, if I understand him correctly, anyone who would take this video, use it, and agree with its contents would actually be doing themselves a disservice. Good luck with your film.
stage1411 4 days ago
Interesting. He is well aware that he starts by saying no assumptions are going to be made...then sets for a clear path of assumptions leading to christianity. His aim is to see who, presumably the faithful, easily are blinded to the contradictions in his statements instead agreeing with his 'logic'. He is not a fool...it is an interesting psychological experiment.
trythinkingnow 1 week ago
@trythinkingnow Yes I agree, this is probably true, but then he is a psychologist pretending to be a physicist as part of the experiment? That is very annoying, it gives out of contexts ammunition to gullible Christians, that can then use this video for their own propaganda.
stage1411 6 days ago
@stage1411 I don't think it is possible to provide any additional ammunition to gullible christians for propaganda purposes at this point!!
trythinkingnow 5 days ago
Wow. How can someone engaged in physics be this pathetically illogical. Moran claimed that his proof has no assumption, and then every step has an unwarranted assumption.
I might use the same method to determine just about anything. Are Unicorns white? Yes or No? Well the most popular color when depicted is white, therefore unicorns are white.
drfoxcourt 1 week ago
@drfoxcourt Very good point. Please read the spiel that goes with the video to see what it's really about. The interesting question for me is where the logic breaks down and why.
philmoran 5 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This is just a wind-up! No-one could be that stupid.
simondrift 2 weeks ago
You seriously do not understand what a "logical proof" is.
You could have saved all those steps and just said, "Oh, well if Christianity is true, then Jesus is the son of God!"
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
@StygianDysnomia Good point. I could also put in many other steps that deal with all the objections along the way - but life is too short. Read the spiel that goes with the video to see what it is about. Phil
philmoran 5 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Failed !!!! As soon as you asked ' is there a reason?'
daverigby23 1 month ago
lol
darkilustrisimus 1 month ago
Logic is an undergraduate math course that all physics majors have to take. I wonder how this one got away without taking it.
friedie1jeff 2 months ago
@friedie1jeff Thanks for this. The piece is completely logical - please explain where it is not and why. Also, I suggest you read the spiel that goes with the video to understand what this is really about.
philmoran 1 month ago
@philmoran I read the spiel. The problem is that your target audience isn't bright enough to understand neither the video nor the spiel!
friedie1jeff 1 month ago
I'm going to take this as a satire, otherwise, I HIGHLY question your credentials as a Phycist. I don't even think the most backwards fundamentalists would buy this as "convincing".
elvebrothergenju 2 months ago
@elvebrothergenju Thx. I am a physicist. Read the spiel that goes with the video to understand. You're right to question it, and yes it is true that it doesn't convince many people - but why? Where does the logic fail?
philmoran 1 month ago
@philmoran
You're making far too many assumptions. Assuming that there is a reason for our being here simply because it would be a waste of time looking if we assumed there wasn't is rediculous. The entire basis of your arguement is the assumption of each individual premise which is basically begging the question. If I had to say why it doesn't convince anyone, is because it is not a strcturally stable arguement, you have no basis for making these assumptions, hence, it's not believable.
elvebrothergenju 1 month ago
@elvebrothergenju Yes they would. At least in the USA.
friedie1jeff 1 month ago
@friedie1jeff
That was more of an exaggeration on how incredibly incredulous this video is in providing any bit of evidence for a God. Anyone can assume their way to an answer, the point of science is to make a prediction and then undergo experiments and record the results to see if they met said predictions. This handles everything "Yes or No" and simply assumes it's way to the desired result. So no, I don't even think even the most backwards Fundamentalists would consider this convincing.
elvebrothergenju 1 month ago
@elvebrothergenju If you watch some of their videos here on YouTube, you might conclude that even the smartest fundamentalists would believe this as sound logic. The real point is that faith requires no logic, and those who try to use logic to defend faith are quite wrong to do so. Fundamentalists believe in a literal acceptance of liturgy, meaning that they are quite small-minded, and probably would believe anything anyone told them that fits their prescription of faith.
friedie1jeff 1 month ago
@friedie1jeff
I think you're missing the point that it's more of an exaggeration to try and relay my idea of just how preposturous the logic of this is. While obviously some people would most likely agree to this, those people probably already had the presupposition in their mind so that this would simply fortify their belief, but I doubt any of them would ever consider this a valid arguement for their faith as they prefer to often make appeals to emotion, rather than logic.
elvebrothergenju 1 month ago
@elvebrothergenju We will have to agree to disagree on two points. First, there is a movement in the fundamentalist groups to prove the Genesis story of Creation, as well as disprove the the theory of evolution, cosmology theories, etc, throug "science". They even call it "Creation Science" Honest. Hence, logice like this would be welcome in that camp. Second, I sincerely believe that many fundamentalists, if not most, are dumb enough to take this as good "scientific" evidence
friedie1jeff 1 month ago
@friedie1jeff I think you're right. Using logic to prove the Earth is 6000 years old is useless. It won't work for the simple reason that it isn't true. The existence of God though, is more tricky because the notion of God is a continually shifting idea. Shoot down one concept and another pops up.
philmoran 5 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@philmoran Of course logic can never be successfully used to prove something that is false, such as the idea of a 6000 year old earth. However, there are existing many concepts of God. in fact, there are many perspectives on God sometimes from deep thinkers of the same religious faith. And some of their works are quite scholarly. However, theological concepts concerning God should never be commingled with scientific concepts concerning cosmology or any other science.
friedie1jeff 5 days ago
That's an awful lot of assumptions. Are you sure you're a physicist?
tristan9812 2 months ago
because which is the lat religion .its islam and it accept other prophets as true then islam is the true religion
esraretin 2 months ago
lol if religions are true then most logical choice is islam for me not cristianity
esraretin 2 months ago
I bet he proved it with his Jesusometer while wearing his best tinfoil hat.
PFWoody488 2 months ago 3
@PFWoody488 lol. Thanks - read the spiel that goes with the video to understand what this video is really about. Best wishes Phil
philmoran 1 month ago
@philmoran Phil- I am wondering how many of the faithful actually miss the contradiction in the no/assumptions/multiple assumptions statements on the way to the chrsitianity endpoint. Are they more prone to being absent logical thinking when the subject is their religion? While atheists immediately catch on and stamp their feet, do the faithful even notice? Signed...a foot stomper..
trythinkingnow 1 week ago 2
So the only way to "prove" that religion and jesus are true is to make, what was that, 7-8 completely unfounded guesses and assume that you are correct. . . Yup, that sounds about right to me.
colmeweb 3 months ago
@colmeweb You're right, it's not really a proof - that's just a headline grabber. They are not unfounded guesses though, and I'm not assuming that I'm correct either. In every step the alternatives are considered and then I follow the options that are possible to follow. It doesn't mean that these options are true, of course, simply that they can be followed. Read the spiel to understand what the piece is really about. Best wishes Phil
philmoran 3 months ago
May aswell assume? That's not logic. Your tree stops at is there a reason, no.
ohmysausages 3 months ago
@ohmysausages It certainly is logic my friend. You are stating there is no reason. Well how can you possibly know that? Blind faith??? In my piece I'm saying there may or may not be a reason. There probably is no reason, sure, but that can't be investigated, so let's follow the other path and investigate. Read the spiel to understand what the piece is really about. Best wishes Phil
philmoran 3 months ago
according to the bible God himself ordered genocide and the killing of all Egypts firstborn. Thats the guiding moral giver for Christians, the source of Absolute morality ?
SqueakerAlpha 3 months ago
@SqueakerAlpha I know, nuts isn't it. But then again, it's nigh on impossible to judge right and wrong when it comes to God. Sticking a needle in a child is a bad thing to do, but a doctor doing to inject a cure against something is a good thing. Perhaps there's more to the story about God ordering genocide and if we knew the big picture we would understand that it wasn't a bad thing. This is one of the problems in understanding anything to do with God. Best wishes Phil
philmoran 3 months ago
You can't assume your way to a fact. Your argument leaves no third answer, especially when you make this leap by saying: "science doesn't tell us the WHY regarding our existence, therefore we can only find that in religion". You leave out the possibility that the reason for your existence may be for its own sake, independent of any god, and most especially from your god, (because this idea rules out your god entirely, knowing that the Christian god is an interfering god.)
politicoochie09 3 months ago
@politicoochie09 There isn't enough time to make the argument comprehensive, but if we make the answers yes, no or a third option that covers any alternative such 'this question cannot be answered', then we're still in the same position - as the third option also cannot be investigated. I don't leave out possibilities - I cover them and say if we can't investigate, let's park them and follow where we can investigate. Read the spiel to understand what the piece is really about. Best wishes Phil
philmoran 3 months ago
@philmoran By dismissing the third option outright, all you are doing is leading yourself down a path that you know has a high probability of being wrong -- based on the high number of assumptions that got you there. And your video is nothing more than an elaborate way of showing Pascal's Wager which has been proven over and over to NOT be "a safe bet."
politicoochie09 3 months ago
@politicoochie09 Read the spiel that goes with this to understand what is going on. I am an atheist making a documentary film. Correct that this is an elaborate Pascal's Wager, but am pretty certain that no-one has proven the wager not to be 'a safe bet' - more they have used different logic to reach different conclusions. (How would one prove it wrong actually?) I follow the steps I can and acknowledge the steps I can't. True there's a high probability of being wrong - I never said otherwise. P
philmoran 3 months ago
@philmoran Pascal's Wager being true is 50/50. Not exactly great odds. NOT a safe bet.
politicoochie09 3 months ago
@politicoochie09 no Pascal's wager is not 50/50, what if the Buddhist are right or the Muslims are right or what if the pagans are right. If you take in all the different world religions you have less then 0.1% chance of picking the one true religion. the odds are much much worse then you think.
Fireflygamer 3 months ago
@Fireflygamer Then the solution to the problem is obvious! The safe bet is to pick none of them!
politicoochie09 3 months ago
@politicoochie09 I see nothing wrong with your logic, I personally believe differently, but I make no claims and would never ask you to believe what I believe.
Fireflygamer 3 months ago
@Fireflygamer Thanks for this - a very honest and considerate response.
philmoran 1 month ago
@politicoochie09 But why is picking none of them a safe bet? If there is no God, heaven or hell, then it doesn't make any difference if we follow a religion - so there is nothing to lose. Phil
philmoran 1 month ago
@philmoran New Question: Suppose there was a God that gave you a test with two choices. If you pass, you go to the afterlife. The choices: 1. Use your brain and figure out what life’s about all on your own. Or, 2. Use only the contradictory guidebook handed to you (assumed to be from God). Which do you choose? Both paths are confusing. What if choosing the guidebook meant you failed the test because you weren’t using the brain you were given, but figuring it out on your own meant you pass?
politicoochie09 1 month ago
Why would one use logic to choose a religion that commits genocide against reason, and true morality?
The premise that because we exist therefore Jesus is gods son may be logic but nothing has been demonstrated to be true.
Crazy80563 3 months ago
@Crazy80563 I'm an atheist actually - this is a piece about the use of logic, that's all. I disagree that Christianity commits genocide though - only people can do that. It's the same for science - to many it's bad because it invented the atomic bomb. But to me it's only people who can be good or bad. Christianity and science and any structure you like are often used for immoral gain; it's part of the human condition. I'd also question what 'true morality' actually means? Thks 4 yr post. P
philmoran 3 months ago
@philmoran my use of the term genocide was purely metaphorical. all I meant was that for one to accept the claims of the bible as true it would require that a person allow his or her faculties of reason to be slaughtered by way of the cross. I use to be a believer, looking back I remember how easy it was to be spoon fed. I remember also the sermon that opened my eyes and reason to the terror of scripture and the genocide committed not only by holy men but by god himself. true morality.......
Crazy80563 3 months ago
Comment removed
Crazy80563 3 months ago
@philmoran True morality? Big bite cant chew,allow me to simplify. TM stops to consider the implications of ones thoughts and what action it is equal to. It suspends judgement in the absence of knowledge. It is the application of discretion which benefits individuals no matter their standing. It is the application of judgement based on the best wisdom available. It demands correction where errors exist. TM is that which sustains truths that squash error into oblivion, and much more.
Crazy80563 3 months ago
@Crazy80563 well thanks for all the comments. Morality is a very interesting topic and I quite agree that some terrible things have been done in the past in the name of Christianity - and other religions. Interesting too that you used to be a believer - same for me. But what about the oddness of our existence - I mean the fact that anything exists at all. What are your thoughts about that? Best wishes Phil
philmoran 3 months ago
@philmoran I have pondered "Existence" a lot and have concluded that within the essence of existence is its eternal nature. I have abandoned the notion of "nothing" as an abstract concept that makes the origin of the universe irreconcilable. I am not a scientist such as you are but if we separate concepts from reality it's a no brainer that existence has always and will always be. While "nothing" may be as convenient as the concept of zero, It provides nothing more than functionality in thought.
Crazy80563 3 months ago
Where's the proof? Concluding that Christianity is your best bet does not _prove_ anything.
csmcmillion 3 months ago
@csmcmillion Correct, it's not a proof. That's simply an outrageous headline grabber.
philmoran 3 months ago
Comment removed
csmcmillion 3 months ago
Comment removed
csmcmillion 3 months ago
This "logic" is full of false dichotomies. Example: "Have we been shown the reason"? Maybe not. Maybe we haven't been shown yet, and all the current "reasons" we know of (by way of religion) are false. Yet the logic here ignores this possibility and assumes the truth lies in one of the current religions.
"Your best bet"? That's Pascals' Gambit.
csmcmillion 3 months ago
@csmcmillion But I don't ignore them. Am saying that we might not have been shown the reason in which case we won't find it if we go looking. But we don't know if we have been shown the reason, so we may as well keep looking in case we have. It is possible, of course, that all religions might be false and we have not been shown the reason - and it is one option that we can't pursue further than that; which is exactly what I say. Anyway, read the spiel with the video 2 c what it's really about.
philmoran 3 months ago
Many, many assumptions. The selection of Christianity based on popularity is argument ad populum, and is fallacious. 500 years ago 99% of the population were sure the Earth was flat.
csmcmillion 3 months ago
@csmcmillion It's not fallacious logic at all. All you're saying is that the logical argument could be different at different times. 500 years ago if discussing whether the Earth is flat or round, then it would be logical to go with the the majority and believe that the Earth is flat. Of course a majority view is no guarantee of truth. Am simply saying that if you have accepted the steps to that point and you decide to choose one religion - then all things being equal choose the popular one.
philmoran 3 months ago
@csmcmillion Others have said 'yes but what if Islam happened to be the biggest religion'. Well the answer is that Islam would then be the logical choice as to which religion to join if you accept all the steps up to that point. It's logic.
philmoran 3 months ago
Comment removed
csmcmillion 3 months ago
@gunter5150 I get this a lot. I meant to say without starting with any assumptions. Be clever if you like, but the question is where does the logic fail and why. Read the spiel that goes with it too - not all is as it seems. Cheers Phil
philmoran 3 months ago
Faulty logic
redrum41987 3 months ago
@redrum41987 The logic is sound as far as I can see. I have not had anyone who can argue against it effectively - the logic is mostly useless, however, because you can pick the method of arguing at each stage to get different results. Please let me know at what stage the logic is faulty - if you can. Phil (PS Am an atheist. Read the spiel to understand what it is really about.)
philmoran 3 months ago
I'm no physicist but he "assumes" a lot & I feel like an ass listening to him.
gordogreat74 3 months ago
@gordogreat74 lol sorry you feel that way. Read the spiel with the video to understand what it is really about. I made the mistake of saying with no assumptions - I meant to say without starting with any assumptions.
philmoran 3 months ago
1000 years ago we thought the moon was a place that we can never get to.. Now we did. Lack of knowledge = god. Logical deduction. You logic is false and retarded.
Vikramthewhite 3 months ago
@Vikramthewhite But I'm not saying lack of knowledge = god. The thing is that you are making assumptions about what the word god means in your statement. Go through each stage of the argument and tell me where the logic is wrong - if you can. (PS logic cannot be retarded, it can be correct, incorrect or nonsense. All three have their uses in logical deduction. Read the spiel with the video to understand what it's about). Phil
philmoran 3 months ago
Honestly I dont believe you're a physicist... actually I don't think you are a scientist at all... otherwise you would see at least one of the flaws on your argument
gabrieloshiro 4 months ago
The reason for our existence is to replicate our genes as it is in every other species. Humans have an additional purpose: to spread memes. We can also define our own purpose as individuals. God's purpose for us is to praise him for eternity. Pretty lame...
OgreMECH 4 months ago
That was just sad. I jumped off at nearly every assumption.. the argument by popularity was the most inane part.
13Heathens 4 months ago
@13Heathens Thanks. Read the spiel that goes with it and you'll see that I'm an atheist making a docutmentary called A Cure for Religion in which I convert believers to atheism. This is a piece about the use of logic. The logic kind of works although whether it is really any use is questionable. Popularity is not insane - it's perfectly logical. If a restaurant is full of customers then it indicates that the food is good - do you agree? Thanks again, Phil
philmoran 3 months ago
@philmoran "If a restaurant is full of customers then it indicates that the food is good - do you agree?"
No, honestly I don't. There was this greasy little choke and puke near Harvard square that was almost always full. The burgers were greasy, the fries were bland, and so on. The food wasn't good, but it was convenient and cheep. The majority of the patrons would even admit their food was a bit nasty, yet they still kept coming back.
13Heathens 3 months ago
(footnote - I said inane, not insane.)
13Heathens 3 months ago
@13Heathens Sry, misread insane, but argument remains same. Point am making; popularity is an indication of something. At that point in my logical steps am saying if you agree to all points up to there, then u have decided to choose 1 religion. If religions are all the same, choosing most popular is the best guess. Popularity is useful even in yr restaurant. The food is 'good' because it is cheap. Everyone uses popularity as an assessment parameter - why not! Is logical - yes?
philmoran 3 months ago
In no other belief system is there a resurrected being other than Christianity; its book, the Holy Bible, is proved true time and again with archealogical findings and in prophecies that came true or are coming true. Yes, Jesus is the Son of the Living God, our Creator, Creator of the Universe - and there is a Judgement Day coming for all. I pray others will turn to Jesus, repent of their sins before it is too late. God bless.
kathyandgabby2 4 months ago
@kathyandgabby2 Thanks for this. If I could prove to you that Jesus did not resurrect, would you stop being a Christian? I don't think prophecies are coming true - I think some people fit what is happening in the world to the prophesies so that it reinforces what we want to believe. Best wishes Phil
philmoran 3 months ago
@kathyandgabby2 I'd love to see some of this archaeological evidence you speak of. As far as I can tell there is none and there are no prophecies that have come true either unless you completely suspend all critical thinking. P.S. resurrection features in plenty of the older religions (pre Christianity). Your points are devoid of truth, evidence or logical substance.
Realityprogramming 3 months ago
Sorry but you're one of the few physicists who believe everything has a reason (or cause). You know very well that virtual particles refute this idea.
PhoneExpert27 4 months ago
@PhoneExpert27 I didn't say that I believed my logical argument. Read the spiel that goes with it. I'm interested to know what virtual particles do - can you explain? Best wishes Phil
philmoran 3 months ago
logical fail at step 2
Realityprogramming 4 months ago
@Realityprogramming Thanks - you didn't explain how though. I have had this argument before, so let me pre-emt a little. I haven't defined what 'reason' means so it isn't possible to say that step 2 is a false dichotomy. Thanks again. Phil (PS, read the spiel that goes with the piece to understand what I'm really about.)
philmoran 3 months ago
@philmoran And lastly C) Assuming you get past those two barriers which seem insurmountable to me – why jesus? Why not zeus or Allah or Xemu. Why something supernatural at all? We are 2000 years more advanced than jesus and his friends. Why do we feel we still have to grope in the dark for an invisible god when most likely the reason and purpose for our existence are already known.
Realityprogramming 3 months ago
@Realityprogramming I don't mention anything supernatural. You're making assumptions about what is necessary to be a Christian. The reason 'why Jesus' is simply a flip of the coin. At that point in the argument if you have accepted the steps so far, then you believe that it is worth joining a single religious group just in case there is only 'one true faith'. My next step is to say all things being equal your best bet is to join the most popular one. Best wishes Phil
philmoran 3 months ago
@philmoran B) Science indicates that the “reason” for existence is most likely that we are the product of physics / chemistry / organic chemistry / biology. In other words, natural processes are the reason for our existence.
Realityprogramming 3 months ago
@Realityprogramming Sure - but it depends on the meaning of the word 'reason'. I don't believe in Adam an Eve (and in fact don't believe in God), so I believe evolution is the driver that caused our existence. But, there is still the issue - why is there a universe at all. There may be no reason for it, in which case it doesn't matter if we go looking or not. If there is a reason, then we'll only find it if we go looking. It's logical therefore to keep an open mind and go looking - yes?
philmoran 3 months ago
@philmoran Assuming "there is a reason for existence" is the logical fail. This is because when you state “reason” you are clearly assuming “purpose”.
So put more clearly, your entire logical argument is dependent on there being a “purpose” for existence when in fact A ) There is no evidence of a purpose to life beyond reproduction, so why should you assume one?
Realityprogramming 3 months ago
@Realityprogramming No I don't mean purpose actually, I mean reason. Just say there is a God who created a universe (whatever 'create' actually means) and then allowed physics and chemistry to do it's thing. Then there is a 'reason' for the universe in that God created it, but not a 'purpose' for us in that God didn't intend our existence for any reason. Anyway, read the spiel that goes with the video - am an atheist making a doc about faith. This piece is about logic.
philmoran 3 months ago
@philmoran hope that makes sense - sorry about the order of posting the reply. I "assumed" the correct order incorrectly :-)
Realityprogramming 3 months ago
Comment removed
LtPoultry 4 months ago
i actually got it .... :) u r funny sir. well done. It could be easily understood why people react to this video the way they do. We face the stupidity of religion in a lot of videos and these people r so dumb ... that at first i thought u where actually serious .... good luck sir. good work.
2050julp 4 months ago
must make a note to never attend a class held by this guy. just an awful 'proof'
nuberiffic 4 months ago
@nuberiffic lol. Thanks for this. You're right, it's not a proof at all - that's just a headline grabber. If you read the spiel that goes with the post, you'll see what it's really about. I'm an atheist making a film called "A Cure for Religion" in which I convert believers to atheism. This logical argument does work though - kind of. It's basically Pascals wager; many people dismiss it as a false dichotomy, but my view is that this depends on how the information is presented. Anyway, thx
philmoran 4 months ago
Holly shit! A lot of asuming and "ifs" in your "proof"...!
I really hope, that you don't take this approach to your work as a physicist!
TheTruggsess 5 months ago
@TheTruggsess lol. Thanks for the comments. Yes I get a real slating sometimes. The logic works though - kind of. Anyway, read the spiel that goes with it and it will make sense (you're right, it's not a proof. That's just a headline grabber) Best wishes Phil
philmoran 5 months ago
@philmoran
Ups... ok, maybe I should have read that first. So, that jocke's on me :-D
Well, good luck with you're project. I like the idea, even though I think your "quest to disprove the existence of good" is doomed to fail ;-)
TheTruggsess 5 months ago
@TheTruggsess You may well be right! But I just think let's see. You never know. Best wishes Phil
philmoran 5 months ago
Comment removed
mehico33 5 months ago
@mehico33 Thanks. If you read the spiel, I'm an atheist making a documentary called "A Cure for Religion". The piece is really about the use of logic. At point 2, I don't use the word 'purpose', I say 'reason' - also, the word reason isn't defined so I'm not even talking about a 'mind' at this point. The question might be meaningless - but then it's also a dead end, so u may as well assume that the question isn't meaningless. It's not a proof - that's just headline grabber. Hope that helps. Phil
philmoran 5 months ago
@philmoran It does, I apologise. I kind of shot first then asked questions later. (I also overstepped my bounds in saying "the purpose of life is to live. Thats it")
mehico33 5 months ago
@mehico33 Well that's a really nice and self reflective response. Thanks! You don't need need to apologies - it is an odd little video. It makes me chuckle all the different responses I get. If you know anyone who might be interested in taking in part in my film, please forward my details. Best wishes, Phil
philmoran 5 months ago
i agree with you up to the second question because the only assumption we should make is that we exist. We do not know if there is a reason for our existence, and we should not assume that there is one, because you must make your own
Let me explain if you are placed in a society and you are promised a house by diff people but you do not know when you get it and you spend much time looking for it. You may as well build your own and not depend on the promise of someone else you know may be lying
Netruic 6 months ago
@Netruic Yes, interesting comment. I think what I am saying is that we shouldn't assume there is no reason for our existence. There probably isn't one - but we don't know that for sure, so we may as well keep looking (which is what I really mean when I say we may as well assume that there is one). We should of course build our own house at the same time, just in case. Thanks for your comment. Phil
philmoran 5 months ago
I also like how at the beginning of the video you say "with NO assumptions, then directly contradict yourself by making MANY assumptions one after another to reach the final question :p
I could go into how arguable "christianity" isn't the largest group since many denominations are actually mutually exclusive, but islam who worships the same god has the largest single denomination and should therefor be deemed as the one most likely to be correct!
Good luck with your project!
bartsimpso3 6 months ago
On the second point, it doesn't address what would happen if there is no reason, and we don't look for it.
Rather than looking for reason when we've seen no evidence FOR reason, we're starting with a fairly egotistical assumption and then trying to find evidence that fits. We'd be better off advancing science education, rational thought etc. and allowing the world to become a better place overall.
If there is a reason for our existence, we're far more likely to find it in a quest for truth.
bartsimpso3 6 months ago
I'd say the logic breaks down on the first question, do we exist, it's a false dilemna.
Do "we" exist. With a solipsist mindset, I can only be reasonably sure that I exist. I think therefor I am. I can believe I exist without believing that others exist.
I do agree that it's best to assume that the universe around us does exist, and that we can learn something/ know something about it in order to make any sense of that which is around us, and find any type of truth of this reality.
bartsimpso3 6 months ago
Comment removed
inputverifier 6 months ago
Comment removed
inputverifier 6 months ago 2
Comment removed
inputverifier 6 months ago 2
Comment removed
fujinmage 6 months ago
Okay, to answer your last statement then (and I'm not heckling, I'm really interested in this conversation) the argument breaks down at "Does anything except religion claim to give us the answer?" Because although religion claims to give us the answer, the answer may lie elsewhere and we just haven't seen it yet. Also, on "should we assume that one particular religion has the answer" No. Even if the answer is in religion, it could be that all of them are partly right and partly wrong.
msschaarschmidt 6 months ago
@msschaarschmidt Aha ... very clever. Yes that is also logical, the answer might be somewhere else but we haven't seen it yet, true, BUT! that means we should go looking for the answer elsewhere - and at the same time we may as well accept that religion has the answer as it's the only show in town for now. True also that all the religions might be partly right or wrong, but it might be that only one of them is correct - in which case better to choose one, just in case. Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
Now that I know this video is about the Christian logic, I'd like to play along. The question "Do we exist?", can be answered by René Descartes. "Cogito ergo sum" or, "I think, therefore I am" is sufficient evidence to continue further inquiry.
"Is there a reason for our existence?" This is where the evidence train derails and logic falls apart. There is no evidence that there is a reason for our existence. Likewise, no evidence against a reasoned existence. Without evidence, we can't continue.
legendsofatheria 6 months ago
@legendsofatheria Thanks for this - I'll play too! How do you know there is no evidence for a reason for existence? You've not found any so far, perhaps. There probably isn't any evidence - but how do we know? After all, it's odd that the universe exists. Better to keep looking I think - just in case. Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
@philmoran If a pertinent question is asked we should always try and find the answer. I do think people should keep searching for the beginnings of our existence and the possibility of purpose in the universe, but building conclusion upon assumption may lead the conclusion astray. To be true about existence and reality, a conclusion must be based on factual evidence and testable by others.
legendsofatheria 6 months ago
@legendsofatheria But we always need to make conclusions based on assumptions - we assume that our eyes don't lie to us for example and act accordingly. We should perhaps be open to other possible conclusions - just in case. But that is what I do in the piece at each stage. Do we exist? Maybe, maybe not - our non existence is possible and we should bear it in mind, but it's also a dead end so we can't investigate it. Let's assume existence then and investigate that. Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
@philmoran Our actions based on sight are far from assumption. These actions are based on a lifetime of evidence of constants.
legendsofatheria 6 months ago
There is neither proof or logic in this video. Doesn't the word assumption have the same meaning as assume? From watching this video, I "assume" you received your physics degree from a Happy Meal™.
legendsofatheria 6 months ago
@legendsofatheria Hi, Please read the spiel that goes with the piece. You've missed the point of it. Am an atheist. P
philmoran 6 months ago
@philmoran First viewed it on FB where the description was unavailable. My apologies.
legendsofatheria 6 months ago
@legendsofatheria No problem - sorry for such a short response. As you can imagine, I get a roasting and I'm just spending too longing responding to all the comments. Cheers, Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
To answer your question, the logic breaks down at the very first assumption. If you assume there is no reason for our existence, then stop. There may be no reason for our existence. It could just be. In which case, the rest of the argument falls apart.
Additionally, the argument is not at all scientific in that you start with your desired outcome and design the argument to fit it. Although, to be fair, you never stated it was a scientific argument.
msschaarschmidt 6 months ago
@msschaarschmidt But the point of most of the steps is to consider the options. There may or may not be a reason for existence - we stop only if there is no reason because we can't go any further. If there is a reason lets keep investigating. I'm not saying there is a reason - in fact, as an atheist, I don't think there is. You're right this isn't a scientific argument, only a logical one - although my headline grabbing title indicates a proof, which it isn't. Best wishes, Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
To answer your question, the logic breaks down at the very first assumption. If you assume there is no reason for our existence, then stop. There may be no reason for our existence. It could just be. In which case, the rest of the argument falls apart.
msschaarschmidt 6 months ago
Get a brain, Moran!
cmfic36 6 months ago
@cmfic36 Thanks for this. I assume it's just an insult. I get quite a roasting for this piece, but most don't get it. If you read the spiel that goes with it, you'll see that I'm an atheist making a documentary called "A Cure for Religion" in which I convert believers to atheism. The piece is about logic, so if you want to think on it again, I'd be interested in your thoughts. Where does the logic break down; that's the question. Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
@philmoran Nah, I was just making a stupid reference to an internet gag from the tea party. I see what you're doing and I'm interested to see how it turns out. Just Google "get a brain morans" to catch my reference. Good luck to you!
cmfic36 6 months ago
This can't be serious. He started with the statement "a clear argument without making any assumptions" then he gives us a series of bad assumptions. At the end it asks you to contact him if you are convinced. I wonder if this isn't some sort of setup to prove that he can actually only "make his proof" to people who aren't actually listening, or who ignore truth while seeking it.
msschaarschmidt 6 months ago
@msschaarschmidt Thanks for this. If you read the spiel that goes with it, you'll see that I'm an atheist making a documentary called "A Cure for Religion" in which I convert believers to atheism. I meant to say without starting with any assumptions. The reality is that all logic has assumptions - that logic works for a start. The question you haven't addressed is where does the logic break down? Each step gives alternatives and if one way is a dead-end you go the other way - logic. Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
I will be in you're little movie.I teach astronomy and physics and have been doing so for over 20 years.You give me nothing in your vid that proves anything.You steer it towards your beliefs.You have a preacher way about you.Prove it in mathematics,give me a real problem to solve,private msg me with it and lets see if you truly can make a good try at it.
profsat5 6 months ago
@profsat5 Hi. This sounds interesting! Your right, it's not a proof - that's a headline grabber - the piece is about logic. I'm an atheist actually and I'm making a film called "A Cure for Religion" in which I convert believers to atheism - does this count you out? Are you religious?
philmoran 6 months ago
You start out by saying your 'argument' doesn't make 'any assumptions' and then you move forward with nothing but assumptions, and not even the most probable ones. Even in the final step, where you suggest that the most common religion is the 'best bet', you offer no validation of that whatsoever. Had Christianity killed fewer non-Christians or not repeatedly aligned itself with tyrants, it would not be the most common religion - how does murder and tyranny validate Christianity?
HeatherSpoonheim 6 months ago
@HeatherSpoonheim Thx Heather. I meant 2 say I don't start with assumptions. The reality is that all logic has assumptions - that logic works for a start. I do offer a validation for Christianity - at that step in the chain, I'm saying you may as well choose one just in case. If there is nothing between them, then choose the most popular one - popularity is the validation, not alignment with tyrants. Read the spiel that goes with this to see what it's really about. I'm an atheist. Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
@philmoran Except that alignment with tyrants/atrocities and popularity are inextricably linked. Had Islam made better alignments and killed more Christians, it would be the top religion today. From a bronze age perspective one could see how being able to kill your enemies would mean you were 'backed by a god' but from a modern perspective that seems to be a moral paradox. Anyhow, I think I get where you are going with this. Good luck - I've been debating the faithful for years.
HeatherSpoonheim 6 months ago
@HeatherSpoonheim I thought that about about the assumptions thing too, he says assume like 15 times. murder and tyranny validate christianity because the christian god allowed them to happen. The pagan gods and allah didn't stop them.
InKa4484 6 months ago
Is this satire? Sure looks like it, but if it isn't, then its absolute lunacy.
aksh16 6 months ago
@aksh16 lol. It's mildly tongue in cheek, but also serious. It is odd, but the logic kind of works. The question is where does it fall down? Thanks for you comment.
philmoran 6 months ago
@aksh16 lol. It's a piece about logic. To me the logic *kind of* works - but is it any use? The question is where does the logic break down? Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
@philmoran Well you make too many assumptions. And the outcome depends on many different conditions to be true. So it isn't a proof but more of a hypothesis saying that if this, that & this were true, then this would be true.
aksh16 5 months ago
@aksh16 Thanks for this. If you read the spiel that goes with the video, you'll understand what it is about. It's not a proof, true - that's just an attention grabbing headline. However, the logic does work - whether it is of use is a different matter. I don't say that the conclusion is the true one, I simply follow a series of logical arguments examining which direction we can follow in the logic - some are dead ends, but that doesn't mean they are not true, nor do I claim them to be untrue.
philmoran 5 months ago
@Lynnmist Ok great. Do you mind if we e-mail rather than go through YouTube? My e-mail address is philmoran@ffab.co.uk. We'll start with me asking you a couple of questions, and you can of course ask me any questions as we go along. Best wishes, Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
@philmoran Hi Lynn, I just tried to send you a msg through YouTube, but wasn't able to. I'd really love to go through the evidence for evolution for you - don't you want to? If you can let me know either way, that would be great. Best wishes, Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
@Lynnmist Right, I see. Interesting. Are you open minded about other possible explanations? I think I could show you that evolution is a better explanation. Interested? Best wishes Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
@FUCKSTICK645 No problem - the more discussion the better as far as I'm concerned. I think I'm the same as you - I become more atheistic as time goes on. We could we wrong though! Best wishes, Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
The more you talk about religion the more it will exist, please stop it.....feeding the trolls....ha ha ha ha
slimmworker 6 months ago
@slimmworker Hmmm. I know what you mean. I don't know if it's a bad thing though. I mean the more we believe in money the more it exists - is that a good thing or bad?
philmoran 6 months ago
What a joke ..... I feel dirty for watching this.....gotta go shower with turpentine now.
slimmworker 6 months ago
@Lynnmist Thank you. I had a look at your YouTube page and saw the clip on Intelligent Design, I don't believe in intelligent design myself, evolution fits the evidence much better - and it doesn't mean there isn't a God. The catholic church accept evolution for example. What are your thoughts on that? Best wishes Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
@FUCKSTICK645 Move on to the next challenge. :-) Seriously though, my film is just an interesting way of looking at why and how people believe. It's a respectful documentary - I'm not a person who dismisses believers; and there are many very intelligent people who believe - but I do find faith odd. The question is, why do other people believe and not me. How about yourself? Do you have any religious leanings? Best wishes Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
@FUCKSTICK645 I think you've missed the point. I'm an atheist making a film called "A Cure for Religion" in which I take believers and convert them to atheism. I do have an ego, of course, but that doesn't mean that the logic doesn't work - there is a kind of logic, but another question is what use is it. The title, of course, is false. The piece isn't a proof - one can only disprove God. Anyway, thanks for your comments. If you know any believers, please forward. Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
Do you honestly think that is a good way to asses reality? Are you really a physicist? A man of science? I don’t believe you are. Because what you just said was that someone told you the answer was X, and you are going to believe that it is X until anyone else makes an objection. Believing something because you don’t have a better answer is an argument from ignorance. A physicist should know better.
jillum89 6 months ago
@jillum89 Thanks for this. I'm afraid you've completely missed the point. I'm an atheist making a film about faith. I am a scientist, yes. This clip is not about a way to assess reality; it's about the use of logic. The question is where does the logic break down? As a scientist I would say each step we should consider all the alternatives. As a logician, I'm saying if the answer is a dead end we can't do anything with it. Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
@philmoran That made me feel so much better. :D Sometimes it's really hard to pin down satire. This could easily have been the real deal. In that case. Thank you very much for the video. :)
jillum89 6 months ago
@jillum89 LOL. Funny actually - I get a real roasting if you read down the comments. It's only slightly tongue in cheek though. The logic does kind of work - whether it's any use is a different matter. Thanks again for your comments, and if you know any believers who would like to be converted to atheism, please let me know. Cheers Phil
philmoran 6 months ago
Religion claims it has the answer. No one else claims it has the answer.
-
This is equivalent to a child holding a cardboard box, shouting “There’s a sandwich that cures cancer in here!” People shake their heads. He the shouts “Does anyone have any better suggestion to that which the box contains?” No one says a thing. Because how should they know. Then the child declares victory. “Because no one else claims to have the answer, but me, then the box MUST contain a sandwich that cures cancer!”
jillum89 6 months ago 11
@jillum89 Yes, this is good point. HOWEVER. In terms of the logic, you've used an example in which we assume that the box doesn't contain a cancer curing sandwich. Also, what is the purpose of the child and a cardboard box except to emotionally guide the argument? What about a scientist in a white coat holding up a test tube saying "there's a formula that cures cancer in here - anyone disagree?" Same principle, but it's not so convincing then - there may be a cure in the test tube. Phil
philmoran 6 months ago