I'm a Christian, but I can't disagree with anything here. I wish more atheists were as respectful and intelligent as you are, most just try to hector Christians into acquiescence.
This is EXACTLY how I feel about TAG. It's nonsense, it delves into the deepest possible abstract definitions. It's more about giving the Theist viewer a sense of relax and new confidence at watching any Atheist have a moment of confusion, solely because the argument is so intricate in it's bullshit, and it always starts with immensely leading questions.
To be convinced isn't to be real. So it goes to: what it does for or to you. This isn't a matter of reality. But to the world you live inside your self. If it makes you happy in any sort then we tend to let it be and enjoy. What wrong with that? Well we live in reality, most of us. So if we take in our "self world" an unreal belief then we can't expect a real world life. This is a conflict of reality or a real, as we know it, lie.
basically two years later and you have around 25 thousand years... so I guess you'll have 14 thousand subscibers in 2012 and 17 more subscibers in 2013 and so on...
What would you say to someone who claimed that you denied Christianity and converted to Atheism as an excuse to do whatever you want [to sin and get away with it], whether subconsciously or intentionally? That is one accusation against me...
Matt Slick is a complete IDIOT! He is a pervert who is addicted to porn and tells anyone who disagrees with him that they have no understanding of logic. Obviously the opposite is true. He likes to have his lovers have abortions. You are a naughty naughty man Mr. Slick. GO SUCK A FUCKING DICK!!!!
Excellent observation and analysis of "gotcha" TKO agruments. Even when Slick throws out logical gymnastics that I'm unable to refute on the spot, my gut always tells me, "This is extreme manure..."
Yes you are a tool. And i wouldn't be surprised if eventually you became a Christian in your life. Who will get the glory in your walk here, Satan or God. Glory be to God luckily for you!
actually the intellectual capacity for understanding TAG requires one to realize that intellectual "capacity" is limited, logic/reason are inherently limited and so we are by nature using limited avenues to argue and try to understand a Being without limits that is entirely transcendent (i.e. beyond logic and reason) yet entirely existent. Experience this Being for yourself and there will be no doubt about it.This is the difference between those who know and those who merely think.
Hate to contradict you TBS, but I think I can construct a rational and intellectually honest argument on the logical contradiction between God's omniscience and man's free will.
@gdkangas I would like to see you try. First off: if theism was true, the theistic scriptures would be completely accurate and irrefutable, yet they are often self-contradictory and just utterly wrong. How do you explain this from your world view as it dictates you to believe that your creator is infallible and that the holy scriptures are his word?
Has Christian theist ever explained the contradiction of gods timelessness and his personhood? Bottom line is that god can't be a person (this is even more confusing with the trinity!) and be timeless.
@Ricardius1710 I'm an atheist. The trinity thing is absolute (fucking) bullshit, Christianity is polytheistic. The Apostles' Creed clearly states (about Jesus), that: "6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father." Now tell me how the fuck he can be seated next to him and be the same person.
I have never seen alogical fallacy in the "freewill v. God's knowledge" argument. I think it is pretty air tight. If somebody could explain to me what I am missing I would be thrilled to listen. Who knows, maybe I am just an idiot.
@AlexanderDGraham I have another video called "Omni vs. Omni!" in which I explain my problem with it a little, and how I think it can be improved (or replaced).
@AlexanderDGraham If you go about designing anything with 100% (absolute) knowledge of how that system or product will turn out, then essentially you have determined its behaviour, and it is *inherent within its design*.
Free will can only be an illusion if we were made by an omniscient being, since our behaviour acts 100% according to our designer's plan, (aka by the designer's will). Any deviation from our pre-determined behaviour would represent a flaw in God's design.
@gdkangas What? What does TBS's ego have to do with anything? How am I involved in this? What is this distinction between mind and heart? Where does he state that one can control how impressed you are by an argument. You response is really confusing.
@AlexanderDGraham Nope, there is no holes in it. God is omniscient, he knows all that has been, is, and is to come, ergo everything is set, there is no room for choice and the judgement passed on you when you die is therefore unjust. So either God is unjust or he is not omniscient.
Tracy said ""Concept" in my mind is based on experiential reality"
I understand that Slick can not see Logical Absolutes and the nature of reality they are based on as separate. But before humans codified Logic into laws, logicl absolutes still existed, we can't expect our early ancestors to live in a world that wasn't Logically sound... so where did Logic come from if not from observing the nature of reality?
Why can't "The Nature of..." be that which is not conceptual & physical?
I think you won but not for the good reasons. Essentially, God escapes the law of identity because the law of identity obeys to dualism and God is beyond the opposites by which we can grasp reality. That is why God is the Alpha AND the Omega. Oriental philosophy addresses dualism in a better way than the judeo/christian/muslim religions...
@tharip you say that as those two are polar opposites...id argue mother ter was nowhere near a decent human being, however a complete and utter disgrace to humanity with the cruel shit she pulled due to her religious faith...kinda like hitler
@tharip yes, we are. mother believed in suffering, she built places for people to go to die, without medicine to help the pain, without medicine to perhaps prolong life, or to even cure said illnesses. she caused massive suffering to multitudes of people because she felt like suffering was a way to understand jesus. do a little more research, she was a cunt.
I must say, I don't consider the free will point in any way deceitful. I think it's a very rational and moral point that no matter how illusory we call our deterministic state of affairs, it's certainly a lot closer to 'true' free will, than an agent with perfect foresight allowing events to unfold, and still eventually condemning people for unavoidable actions. If you know for sure something terrible is going to happen that you can prevent, you have a responsibility to try. Not so with God.
when they speak of trancending space and time your talking about infinity. per infinities' nature, everything is possible and everything exists and everything doesnt exist in any combination. logic simply does not apply in infinity. and infinity may very well exist in our reality so any ABSOLUTE logic is a joke. simply put nothing is absolute until you know absolutely everything.
"What exists?" "How do we know?" "To what extent are the senses a reliable guide to existence?" "What is the meaning, if any, of assertions of the existence of categories, ideas, and abstractions?" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Ah, maybe I should have gone on to number three which is linked as number one first?
Your completely correct when you say that it is a theistic assumption that for something to be what it is and not what it is not requires another thing that is what it is and is not what it is not is a completely illogical theistic assumption.
Something is what it is and is not what it is not is just describing in a long winded round about way what the average man on the street would say "yeah, no shit, dude, a cat is a cat and not a dog, how does that prove god?"
you need a new hero. a bit of a debate. dude he slaughtered matt slick. your right on the arguments. but the arguments fore god are more based to appeal to peoples fear and needs. arguments against are based on reasoning.
If Matt Slicks favorite argument is TAG, and anyone with half a mind realizes that TAG is logically broken within 20 seconds, its a pretty poor foundation to build our argument or even out belief. And TAG is broken just be the mere fact that Matt Slick gets his definitions wrong about logical absolutes being contingent upon thought but not space, time or matter. With his TAG argument Matt Slick has in fact erased the meaning of the word existence and made non-existing and transcendental alike.
I think the moral TAG is intended to convince: "Are you certain about your morals? How can you be certain if you're a fallible human? Maybe you're wrong. Want to not be wrong? Project your moral opinions onto someone we've defined as never being wrong. Now you can be certain." I think there's an emotional appeal to that ("try it on, see if certainty feels good"), and I think its genuinely intended to convince. Maybe this Matt guy doesn't use it that way, but its possible.
Why does TheoreticalBullshit consider Matt Slick a "hero" if he is an atheist? Was he being sarcastic or is there something he likes about Slick even though he objects to both this argument and Slick's claim that there is a god?
Why does TheoreticalBullshit consider Matt Slick a "hero" if he is an atheist? Was he being sarcastic or is there something he likes about Slick even though he objects to both this argument and Slick's claim that there is a god?
Why does TheoreticalBullshit consider Matt Slick a "hero" if he is an atheist? Was he being sarcastic or is there something he likes about Slick even though he objects to both this argument and Slick's claim that there is a god?
Why does TheoreticalBullshit consider Matt Slick a "hero" if he is an atheist? Was he being sarcastic or is there something he likes about Slick even though he objects to both this argument and Slick's claim that there is a god?
you are well spoken and would make a decent lawyer, however majority of your opinions are worded s facts. This takes away from your videos being informative to anyone. Convincing maybe, but not informative.
It's almost as if you're saying that the "better" (more persuasive) arguments are the ones that aren't all about technical logic, but rather ones that appeal to emotions. Appealing to emotions is one of the most annoying creationist/theist tactics out there. Atheists are all about logic and reasoning. Which, yes, does sometimes mean getting technical. So I fail to see the problem with the "omniscience vs free will" argument. It's as legitimate as any other, in my opinion.
I don't say that the Omniscience/Freewill argument is a "gotcha" argument just because it uses logic (as opposed to emotion?), but because it uses *flawed* logic, predicated on fuzzy definitions (not unlike TAG). I've made a video on this called "Omni VS. Omni!" and you're welcome to check it out.
@TheoreticalBullshit You're omni video was a good one. And I agree that knowledge of what someone is going to do does not force the outcome, and that free will is not the ability to escape prediction. However, I would say that most atheists who use this argument are not aware of this. They're not aware of the flawed logic, so they think they're using a valid argument. Now, once they do become aware, to continue using it would be dishonest. *cough* Matt Slick using TAG to this day *cough*.
Theoretical Bullshit, I will have to disagree with you on the "omniscience vs free will" argument being a "gotcha!" argument. I think it is very sound and logical, and is convincing. It was most definitely a huge deconversion factor for me. While I was a Christian, I wrote up a piece called "The Illusion of Free Will", because I realized free will doesn't exist. Then I realized this contradicted my religion. Within a year, I had deconverted.
Humans our outwardly focused. Materialist empiricists only see the outer world. Theists see themselves in the outer world. It is very interesting to me that theists think that materialist empericists who give humans no special place in the cosmos as being human centered while a human like god is a projection of humaness upon all aspects of the world. Both positions seem one sided as humaness being all or none.
TB has some really great arguments for atheism in his videos, but really, he doesn't need to. Atheists don't need to prove that we're right. The burden of proof lies with those making the positive claim (theists). Still good videos, though.
I detest TAG, mainly due to it's effect on the audiance, who man not be familiar or even educated enought to realize that believers use it as mental gymnastics, a magic show to wow the uneducated into believing in the "reality" of God.
oh how deluded and far from the truth are you?? read this 1 Corinthians 12 - 14. Stop the mess, the excuses the blames and the accusations, make a change now.
Did you just request I read the book that claims rabbits have hooves & chew the cuds, bats are birds, whales are fish, spit cures disease, the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, the sky is a solid dome, the stars are just little bitty lights put up in the solid dome sky, the sky and earth rest on pillars, animals can talk, zombies exist, dragons exist, unicorns exist, etc...
Is that the same fairy tale book you are referring me to?
@BoyintheMachine, So from all the pages in the bible, this are the only things you,ve seen in it? why not be specific and stop making generalized accusations cos it doesn't help. The bible is for those that believe in the holy word of God and trust in him, for those who understand and have the spirit of God in their hearts, not for the world, for that that have lust in the world, for surely they have not the spirit of God in them and wont understand what the bible is talking about.May God help u
The bible contains good and evil passages. In order to view the bible as "Holy", one must create excuses, downplaying the evil contained in the passages, or else admit that God, as portrayed in the bible, is just as evil as he is good. We both know that believers can't accept that later option, so resort to making excuses. I've had lengthy debates with believer who attempted to argue that slavery, rape, murdering babies, et. was okay, as long as it's for the glory of God.
"...why not be specific and stop making generalized accusations..."
If you have actually read the bible, then you would be familiar with what I am referring to. Otherwise, you are just a cherry picker, picking the verses that you want to emphasize, while ignoring the passages that are ultimately evil in nature, passages concerning slavery, raper, murder, murdering of babies, child molestation, sexism, genocide, intolerance and fanaticism, to just name a few topics.
If you insist, I will reply with one specific story in the bible that reflects evil. Take for example the story of Sodom & Gomorah. If the bible story is to be believed, God destroyed the city for the sexual sins of the inhabitants. However, the story itself ends with Lot's own daughters getting the father drunk and performing incest. So homosexuality is wrong, but incest is okay? The bible is a bronze-age book. All religions are ultimately false.
Ive read the bible over and over again, God used to destroy sinners through flood or some other calamity, But after the God destroyed the earth through flood in the time of Noah, he promised not to destroy th earth anymore, and he gave the rainbow to mark his promise. Stop confusing yourself, stop the blames, open your eyes, seek God in the spirit and he shall answer you, he's always there for those that have faith in his name
Ah, yes. The Flood Story that was stolen from the Sumerians. The silly tale that contains no hint of actual scientific accuracy or truth, then again, neither does the book that contains it.
From the very beginnin in Genesis the bible is 100% wrong and only goes downhill from there. For you to claim the bible is real is just as silly for the ancient Greeks to claim the books of myths of their gods are real as well. There are no gods. All religions are false.
@keggerous Well you have to base your evidence on fatcs innit, and quite the "Bitch" word. It only shows how dumb and deluded you are, and obviously immature.
Coming from a person who still holds that the world was flooded a mere several thousand years ago. I think you just forfeited your statement "base your evidence on facts".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Coming from a man who actually believes that the first form of life was a fish, and that we came an evolved from monkeys. Coming from a man who actually believes that there is no God and that he came to be by chance, then i,d rather not waste my time, for whatever i say makes no sense and is foolish to you. So lets cut our selves some slack ok. You know not of the things i know and they are strange to you. seek knowledge, for it is power to them that possess it.
So instead of defending your position on a global flood, you instead opted for criticizing me right away? By completely strawmannirg views that we haven't even established that I hold. So please can you explain to me how me simply stating that their was no flood somehow brands me an "evolutionist" and atheist in your eyes? Because I don't see how you can follow logically from that
The reason why, I hold their is no flood because. It's not only both genetically impossible to repopulate the planet with two of every species. I certainly hope you know why. Also their no geological evidence at all. And I don't have to be Certain their is "No Flood' Your making the claim that their was a flood. THe burden of proof lies with you....not me.
If you're ever in the Texas area, I think it would be very interesting to have you on The Atheist Experience as a guest (co-)host. Provided that it could be arranged.
there is no free will only the illusion we have it. with consideration to quantum effects id say everything is caculable even consciousness. the mind, and our choices.
Iv'e thought about this myself kegg, as in, say you had a room, where a guy flips a coin. If you knew everything, like the position of every single molecule, all the forces etc, you could predict the outcome with perfect accuracy. Then, just widen the example, and I think everything that will occur is totally predictable.
why do you talk about the arguments against, it's simple as this: if a believer that has a burden of proof on himself cannot make a good argument or respond to criticisms, the atheist position is rational, and default.
Brillant... No cap, no period, no drama, no doubt, no question necessary... Perfect
I thought I was the only one who saw it. Most people go after his lack of understanding. But it's much simpler than that. You nailed it, he is the epitome child of the devil, like the purest form of bent offspring. Chilling really. Like a human robot without a soul.
I love your videos, but would like to see all the links in the video listed in the description as well. Not being able to open stuff in another tab can be a real pain if one is running down several differnt avenues at once.
You're right I think, but the problem is that 'free will' is an ill defined concept that doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with. I'd like to note that free will is hard to reoncile with a naturalistic universe as well.
He's right in that the problem of evil isn't an effective argument against the existence of god. It's only an argument against a certain god concept, namely that God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and all good. You can have any 2 of the three, but not all three.
I kind of wonder whether these atheist converts you encountered were really atheists to begin with. Atheism doesn't require a person to believe anything, and therefore it is hard to return to a religious belief or pick up one. Very briefly I landed back into religion after being an atheist for years, but accepting that Jesus died for my sins--all is forgiven through prayer and whatnot--was impossible. The most basic ideas could not bring me back.
THis debate was brilliant. Matt D did an EXCELLENT job in refutign Matt S. It's actually not a hard concept to grasp really. It's a battle between subjectivity and objectiity, regardless of its definition. It's definition does not determine its existence.
That's why that saying when a tree falls in a forest, and nobody witensses it did it really fall?
This doesnt matter who witnessed it. The point is it either fell or didnt fall. It's trying to be clever but it really isn't.
1. I've home to an understanding why people believe, what function beliefs has for a person, and the collective.
2. Basic problems within the christian faith. Moral problems, logic problems, the real origin of the bible, and so on.
3. The fact that god, or acts of god, never been seen in this world, for real. Hearsay, testimonials, yes. Proof that they are factual and true? Nope.
When you talk about the "Problem of Evil", are you talking about the Riddle of Epicurus? That is a good analysis of the illogic of the standard definition of the omnigod - an analysis of its logical inconsistencies.
There is another problem of evil not addressed by this argument. How can a perfect being create imperfection (evil is, of course, an imperfection). Perfection, by definition, contains no imperfection. That was the argument that persuaded me in my youth.
A perfect being creates evil because this is exactly what the perfect being wants. God CREATED Satan. God, who knows all (omniscient) and is all powerful (omnipotent) saw at the moment of creating Satan all that Satan would do...the rebellion, the temptation in the garden, all of it. Yet God, who is also OMNIPOTENT and therefore has no limits on his power creates Satan anyway? Why? Because he WANTED Satan to do what he saw Satan would do. What other explanation is there?
If you'd actually read the Riddle of Epicurus (goodle it), you'd know that this issue is already addressed. If God created evil, despite knowing what the result would be (omniscience), and refuses to do anything to lessen evil (omnipotent), then he is not all-good (omnibenevolent).
But my question is - where did the evil come from? If god is perfect, he had no evil in him. How can he produce evil if he has no evil in him?
I'm sorry, I HAVE read the riddle and used it many times to blast theists. MY point was that god CREATED evil. Remember, not just OMNISCIENT but OMNIPOTENT. While we can try to say god has no evil in him, he has no limits on his power, so if he wants to create evil, poof, there it is.
If God is perfect, he has no evil in him. Where does it come from? If he wants evil to exists, his desire or thought is evil - but he's perfect; so, the evil/thought cannot arise in him in the first place. Where does it come from?
Gods desire to have evil in the universe does not need to spring from an evil desire within. Rather, God can simply see evil as a tool to serve his ends. Look, if you accept that god is both omniscient and omnipotent then evil can only come FROM god as there is no power greater than his.
"evil can only come FROM god as there is no power greater than his." I repeat: if evil comes from God, he was not omnibenevolent (all-good) when he created the universe.
"Gods desire to have evil in the universe does not need to spring from an evil desire within." Where does the evil desire come from when God is all that exists (in the Beginning)?
Remember that biblical evil is some kind of metaphysical "substance".
Again, does not need to be evil to have evil in the universe. God can see evil as a tool to serve his ends. Further, I agree with the riddle of epicurus. If god desired evil to be in the universe then he can't be all good. Yet, clearly, since god is omnipotent, there is nothing in the universe that god DIDN'T desire when he created it. If we try to blame Satan we come upon another riddle:How can a lesser being, Satan, possibly introduce into creation that which God did not want?
This is, of course, impossible. So, we come back to the conclusion that God wished evil to be in the universe to serve his ends. If god is the originator of evil, then he isn't all good and so on.
it was lagging in the room but matt seemed to suggest that you didnt have a grasp of logic
oh and he didnt seem to have watched your video you made to him yet, so i played it for him, im not sure if he actually listened to all of it
the room loved how you pwned him and we laughed as he tried to sluff it off and suggest we needed to study like he did and what he has for the last 30 some yrs
What this Guy fails to understand is that the purpose of agologetics or any Argument for God's existence is not to win converts Apologetics dont produce persuasion that not what it is meant for , the purpose of agologetics is to defend what christian believe, that is what Apologetcs mean ' The defense of the christian faith"
Thanks. There are many bad atheist arguments: Omnipotence vs Omniscience, Square Circles, Can God make something he cannot lift etc but NOTHING, NOTHING comes even remotely close to the absolute MESS that is the TAG argument.
First, we have to imagine a being with true omnipotence and omniscience - not something like Jehovah or Allah. A being like this would be unrecognizable as sentient: Every star, every blackhole, every flower would behave in precisely the way that they should behave. "What if this being WANTED it to be different." Answer: "It WOULDN'T want it to be different since that would not be the way everything SHOULD be." Note: No prayers, no emotions, virtually no life just omnipotence & omniscience.
A MUCH better argument is: "Does Jehovah behave like an omniscient or omnipotent being?' and the answer is clearly "NO!" - he didn't know what happened to Abel, couldn't fight iron chariots, can't forgive people without a human sacrifice, doesn't know the future behavior of Job or else torture would've been unnecessary, cannot abide (exist with) sin, regrets making humans (didn't see what they would do), could not get the angel Gabriel to Daniel because of interference... etc etc.
We're assuming that if this being is omnipotent - it is necessarily responsible for everything. Omnipotence can't come from nor be subject to non-infinite power. Add omniscience and we must come to the conclusion that everything is a product of, subject to and in fact, an extension of the being. Omniscience doesn't foil omnipotence it simply foils the illusion of "free will". We make decisions because we don't have perfect knowledge. An OS being wouldn't ever decide - it would simply act.
Keep up the good work and continue to present your arguments in a logical manner as you do so well. The truth always comes out - If there were a God, then we wouldn't be on line arguing about it. He/She/It would be there in front of us...and there is no proof today. There is only humans trying to convince us of this God with no proof. Truly the best Marketing concept in the history of the world!!!! Create a concept (God), make it believable (books), and persuade people to buy into it (control).
I'm a Christian, but I can't disagree with anything here. I wish more atheists were as respectful and intelligent as you are, most just try to hector Christians into acquiescence.
stallion4life 4 months ago
This is EXACTLY how I feel about TAG. It's nonsense, it delves into the deepest possible abstract definitions. It's more about giving the Theist viewer a sense of relax and new confidence at watching any Atheist have a moment of confusion, solely because the argument is so intricate in it's bullshit, and it always starts with immensely leading questions.
FoldedTapestry 5 months ago
To be convinced isn't to be real. So it goes to: what it does for or to you. This isn't a matter of reality. But to the world you live inside your self. If it makes you happy in any sort then we tend to let it be and enjoy. What wrong with that? Well we live in reality, most of us. So if we take in our "self world" an unreal belief then we can't expect a real world life. This is a conflict of reality or a real, as we know it, lie.
theoseans 7 months ago
basically two years later and you have around 25 thousand years... so I guess you'll have 14 thousand subscibers in 2012 and 17 more subscibers in 2013 and so on...
way to go scott
ugasziz 7 months ago
scott you give me mind orgasms. You make so much sense...
ugasziz 7 months ago
What would you say to someone who claimed that you denied Christianity and converted to Atheism as an excuse to do whatever you want [to sin and get away with it], whether subconsciously or intentionally? That is one accusation against me...
aem12684 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matt Slick is a complete IDIOT! He is a pervert who is addicted to porn and tells anyone who disagrees with him that they have no understanding of logic. Obviously the opposite is true. He likes to have his lovers have abortions. You are a naughty naughty man Mr. Slick. GO SUCK A FUCKING DICK!!!!
MrSupernova890 7 months ago
Excellent observation and analysis of "gotcha" TKO agruments. Even when Slick throws out logical gymnastics that I'm unable to refute on the spot, my gut always tells me, "This is extreme manure..."
okuradani 8 months ago
Which mind is god a concept of? If god is the absolute absolute, wouldn't god have to be the concept of a mind?
baldurus1 8 months ago
I love the beginning where he says "sup" and then laughs while thinking "i'm such a tool" and then he goes on to claim that he is indeed a tool.
InKa4484 9 months ago
Yes you are a tool. And i wouldn't be surprised if eventually you became a Christian in your life. Who will get the glory in your walk here, Satan or God. Glory be to God luckily for you!
donnajfrnb 10 months ago
"He seems to not be interested in winning someone over, he seems to be interested in Winning" Pssh! More like Bi-Winning!
MasterDebator809 11 months ago
The impasse is called elenchy. See Socrates dialectics.
sophisticatedzack1 1 year ago
actually the intellectual capacity for understanding TAG requires one to realize that intellectual "capacity" is limited, logic/reason are inherently limited and so we are by nature using limited avenues to argue and try to understand a Being without limits that is entirely transcendent (i.e. beyond logic and reason) yet entirely existent. Experience this Being for yourself and there will be no doubt about it.This is the difference between those who know and those who merely think.
snbeings 1 year ago
Hate to contradict you TBS, but I think I can construct a rational and intellectually honest argument on the logical contradiction between God's omniscience and man's free will.
Tobytrim 1 year ago
There are no arguments for the existence of God that can't be shot down easily.
M3t4lManiac 1 year ago
Comment removed
darketernal3 1 year ago
@M3t4lManiac Are you so willfully ignorant as to think that we cannot shoot down all your arguments for atheism?
gdkangas 8 months ago
@gdkangas I would like to see you try. First off: if theism was true, the theistic scriptures would be completely accurate and irrefutable, yet they are often self-contradictory and just utterly wrong. How do you explain this from your world view as it dictates you to believe that your creator is infallible and that the holy scriptures are his word?
M3t4lManiac 8 months ago
Has Christian theist ever explained the contradiction of gods timelessness and his personhood? Bottom line is that god can't be a person (this is even more confusing with the trinity!) and be timeless.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 I'm an atheist. The trinity thing is absolute (fucking) bullshit, Christianity is polytheistic. The Apostles' Creed clearly states (about Jesus), that: "6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father." Now tell me how the fuck he can be seated next to him and be the same person.
M3t4lManiac 8 months ago
I have never seen alogical fallacy in the "freewill v. God's knowledge" argument. I think it is pretty air tight. If somebody could explain to me what I am missing I would be thrilled to listen. Who knows, maybe I am just an idiot.
AlexanderDGraham 1 year ago
@AlexanderDGraham I have another video called "Omni vs. Omni!" in which I explain my problem with it a little, and how I think it can be improved (or replaced).
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@AlexanderDGraham If you go about designing anything with 100% (absolute) knowledge of how that system or product will turn out, then essentially you have determined its behaviour, and it is *inherent within its design*.
Free will can only be an illusion if we were made by an omniscient being, since our behaviour acts 100% according to our designer's plan, (aka by the designer's will). Any deviation from our pre-determined behaviour would represent a flaw in God's design.
aliasbrush 1 year ago
@aliasbrush I am on your side. I was replying to the call from theists that your position is fallacious.
AlexanderDGraham 1 year ago
Comment removed
gdkangas 10 months ago
@gdkangas What? What does TBS's ego have to do with anything? How am I involved in this? What is this distinction between mind and heart? Where does he state that one can control how impressed you are by an argument. You response is really confusing.
AlexanderDGraham 10 months ago
@gdkangas I'm pretty sure pacemaker technology has allowed us to change the heart. Smoking, cholesterol, aging, and stress also change the heart.
InKa4484 9 months ago
@AlexanderDGraham Nope, there is no holes in it. God is omniscient, he knows all that has been, is, and is to come, ergo everything is set, there is no room for choice and the judgement passed on you when you die is therefore unjust. So either God is unjust or he is not omniscient.
M3t4lManiac 8 months ago
Matt isnt out to make an argument or turning anyone to god. Thats the silly part.
DarthAardvark1977 1 year ago
Tracy said ""Concept" in my mind is based on experiential reality"
I understand that Slick can not see Logical Absolutes and the nature of reality they are based on as separate. But before humans codified Logic into laws, logicl absolutes still existed, we can't expect our early ancestors to live in a world that wasn't Logically sound... so where did Logic come from if not from observing the nature of reality?
Why can't "The Nature of..." be that which is not conceptual & physical?
TheEarthAbides 1 year ago
I think you won but not for the good reasons. Essentially, God escapes the law of identity because the law of identity obeys to dualism and God is beyond the opposites by which we can grasp reality. That is why God is the Alpha AND the Omega. Oriental philosophy addresses dualism in a better way than the judeo/christian/muslim religions...
FortYeah 1 year ago
lmfao i feel so lame that this is exciting to me
soozin511 1 year ago
Most people just go to the store and try on a few prepackaged world views, when their old views don't seem to fit any more.
UncleVRoy 1 year ago 2
No God, no moral absolutes.
Adolf hitler, or Mother Terresa?
who do you want to be?? regardless, it's all relative.
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip you say that as those two are polar opposites...id argue mother ter was nowhere near a decent human being, however a complete and utter disgrace to humanity with the cruel shit she pulled due to her religious faith...kinda like hitler
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@Delinexwow
HAHAHAHA dude, are we talkin bout the same lady here.....hahahahah
tharip 1 year ago
@tharip yes, we are. mother believed in suffering, she built places for people to go to die, without medicine to help the pain, without medicine to perhaps prolong life, or to even cure said illnesses. she caused massive suffering to multitudes of people because she felt like suffering was a way to understand jesus. do a little more research, she was a cunt.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
I must say, I don't consider the free will point in any way deceitful. I think it's a very rational and moral point that no matter how illusory we call our deterministic state of affairs, it's certainly a lot closer to 'true' free will, than an agent with perfect foresight allowing events to unfold, and still eventually condemning people for unavoidable actions. If you know for sure something terrible is going to happen that you can prevent, you have a responsibility to try. Not so with God.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
when they speak of trancending space and time your talking about infinity. per infinities' nature, everything is possible and everything exists and everything doesnt exist in any combination. logic simply does not apply in infinity. and infinity may very well exist in our reality so any ABSOLUTE logic is a joke. simply put nothing is absolute until you know absolutely everything.
SpliffMcTwist 1 year ago
@SpliffMcTwist
"What exists?" "How do we know?" "To what extent are the senses a reliable guide to existence?" "What is the meaning, if any, of assertions of the existence of categories, ideas, and abstractions?" - Friedrich Nietzsche
tharip 1 year ago
Ah, maybe I should have gone on to number three which is linked as number one first?
Your completely correct when you say that it is a theistic assumption that for something to be what it is and not what it is not requires another thing that is what it is and is not what it is not is a completely illogical theistic assumption.
Godshoulddie 1 year ago
Something is what it is and is not what it is not is just describing in a long winded round about way what the average man on the street would say "yeah, no shit, dude, a cat is a cat and not a dog, how does that prove god?"
Godshoulddie 1 year ago
I guess I simply don't understand how the following could ever be persuasive to believing in god:
Something is what it is and is not what it is not.
Saying this to the average person on the street would make them go "uh, yeah, no shit" and off they would walk.
Trying to say that that then proves god would make them "uh, huh, how?"
Because it's a law of logic and laws of logic prove god...?
Godshoulddie 1 year ago
you need a new hero. a bit of a debate. dude he slaughtered matt slick. your right on the arguments. but the arguments fore god are more based to appeal to peoples fear and needs. arguments against are based on reasoning.
kalyoub 1 year ago
If Matt Slicks favorite argument is TAG, and anyone with half a mind realizes that TAG is logically broken within 20 seconds, its a pretty poor foundation to build our argument or even out belief. And TAG is broken just be the mere fact that Matt Slick gets his definitions wrong about logical absolutes being contingent upon thought but not space, time or matter. With his TAG argument Matt Slick has in fact erased the meaning of the word existence and made non-existing and transcendental alike.
mYOzZyKaT 1 year ago
I think the moral TAG is intended to convince: "Are you certain about your morals? How can you be certain if you're a fallible human? Maybe you're wrong. Want to not be wrong? Project your moral opinions onto someone we've defined as never being wrong. Now you can be certain." I think there's an emotional appeal to that ("try it on, see if certainty feels good"), and I think its genuinely intended to convince. Maybe this Matt guy doesn't use it that way, but its possible.
Cadfan17 1 year ago
As a compliment, you look like Jonny Depp.
powerinstars6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why does TheoreticalBullshit consider Matt Slick a "hero" if he is an atheist? Was he being sarcastic or is there something he likes about Slick even though he objects to both this argument and Slick's claim that there is a god?
Beeza2996 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why does TheoreticalBullshit consider Matt Slick a "hero" if he is an atheist? Was he being sarcastic or is there something he likes about Slick even though he objects to both this argument and Slick's claim that there is a god?
Beeza2996 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why does TheoreticalBullshit consider Matt Slick a "hero" if he is an atheist? Was he being sarcastic or is there something he likes about Slick even though he objects to both this argument and Slick's claim that there is a god?
Beeza2996 1 year ago
Why does TheoreticalBullshit consider Matt Slick a "hero" if he is an atheist? Was he being sarcastic or is there something he likes about Slick even though he objects to both this argument and Slick's claim that there is a god?
Beeza2996 1 year ago
@Beeza2996
He was being ironic. The sly little smile there was a tip-off. ;-)
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo That's what I thought. He didn't emphasize his sarcasm very much, so I wasn't sure. Thanks =)
Beeza2996 1 year ago
@Beeza2996 Sarcastic.
It's pretty evident too.
XXIstCenturyBoy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaoala
TheYoucanttouchme 1 year ago
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaoala
TheYoucanttouchme 1 year ago
you look like a loser go to hell you stupid faggot
TheYoucanttouchme 1 year ago
you are well spoken and would make a decent lawyer, however majority of your opinions are worded s facts. This takes away from your videos being informative to anyone. Convincing maybe, but not informative.
kghia333 1 year ago
It's almost as if you're saying that the "better" (more persuasive) arguments are the ones that aren't all about technical logic, but rather ones that appeal to emotions. Appealing to emotions is one of the most annoying creationist/theist tactics out there. Atheists are all about logic and reasoning. Which, yes, does sometimes mean getting technical. So I fail to see the problem with the "omniscience vs free will" argument. It's as legitimate as any other, in my opinion.
matt0198922 1 year ago
I don't say that the Omniscience/Freewill argument is a "gotcha" argument just because it uses logic (as opposed to emotion?), but because it uses *flawed* logic, predicated on fuzzy definitions (not unlike TAG). I've made a video on this called "Omni VS. Omni!" and you're welcome to check it out.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit You're omni video was a good one. And I agree that knowledge of what someone is going to do does not force the outcome, and that free will is not the ability to escape prediction. However, I would say that most atheists who use this argument are not aware of this. They're not aware of the flawed logic, so they think they're using a valid argument. Now, once they do become aware, to continue using it would be dishonest. *cough* Matt Slick using TAG to this day *cough*.
matt0198922 1 year ago
Theoretical Bullshit, I will have to disagree with you on the "omniscience vs free will" argument being a "gotcha!" argument. I think it is very sound and logical, and is convincing. It was most definitely a huge deconversion factor for me. While I was a Christian, I wrote up a piece called "The Illusion of Free Will", because I realized free will doesn't exist. Then I realized this contradicted my religion. Within a year, I had deconverted.
matt0198922 1 year ago
GREAT VIDEO!!!!
u
rock
lukaskoube 2 years ago
I literally went "oof" after your last line about Matt in this video. I love it.
laflugantabastardo 2 years ago
You seem too intelligent to believe in god Matt.
radaresalaam 2 years ago
did slick ever call back to AE and either get it straight that he was wrong or contest it?
Matt#2 seemed to just shit on him.
shaotiger82 2 years ago
gnosisoneness 2 years ago
You need a nappy on that mouth
Rockster969 2 years ago
Nice video! +1 subscriber.
jonnyt50 2 years ago
TB has some really great arguments for atheism in his videos, but really, he doesn't need to. Atheists don't need to prove that we're right. The burden of proof lies with those making the positive claim (theists). Still good videos, though.
LibertineEagle 2 years ago 3
I detest TAG, mainly due to it's effect on the audiance, who man not be familiar or even educated enought to realize that believers use it as mental gymnastics, a magic show to wow the uneducated into believing in the "reality" of God.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago 18
oh how deluded and far from the truth are you?? read this 1 Corinthians 12 - 14. Stop the mess, the excuses the blames and the accusations, make a change now.
theaccousticaddict 2 years ago
@theaccousticaddict
Did you just request I read the book that claims rabbits have hooves & chew the cuds, bats are birds, whales are fish, spit cures disease, the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, the sky is a solid dome, the stars are just little bitty lights put up in the solid dome sky, the sky and earth rest on pillars, animals can talk, zombies exist, dragons exist, unicorns exist, etc...
Is that the same fairy tale book you are referring me to?
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
@BoyintheMachine, So from all the pages in the bible, this are the only things you,ve seen in it? why not be specific and stop making generalized accusations cos it doesn't help. The bible is for those that believe in the holy word of God and trust in him, for those who understand and have the spirit of God in their hearts, not for the world, for that that have lust in the world, for surely they have not the spirit of God in them and wont understand what the bible is talking about.May God help u
theaccousticaddict 2 years ago
@theaccousticaddict
The bible contains good and evil passages. In order to view the bible as "Holy", one must create excuses, downplaying the evil contained in the passages, or else admit that God, as portrayed in the bible, is just as evil as he is good. We both know that believers can't accept that later option, so resort to making excuses. I've had lengthy debates with believer who attempted to argue that slavery, rape, murdering babies, et. was okay, as long as it's for the glory of God.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
@theaccousticaddict
"...why not be specific and stop making generalized accusations..."
If you have actually read the bible, then you would be familiar with what I am referring to. Otherwise, you are just a cherry picker, picking the verses that you want to emphasize, while ignoring the passages that are ultimately evil in nature, passages concerning slavery, raper, murder, murdering of babies, child molestation, sexism, genocide, intolerance and fanaticism, to just name a few topics.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago 2
@theaccousticaddict:
If you insist, I will reply with one specific story in the bible that reflects evil. Take for example the story of Sodom & Gomorah. If the bible story is to be believed, God destroyed the city for the sexual sins of the inhabitants. However, the story itself ends with Lot's own daughters getting the father drunk and performing incest. So homosexuality is wrong, but incest is okay? The bible is a bronze-age book. All religions are ultimately false.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
Ive read the bible over and over again, God used to destroy sinners through flood or some other calamity, But after the God destroyed the earth through flood in the time of Noah, he promised not to destroy th earth anymore, and he gave the rainbow to mark his promise. Stop confusing yourself, stop the blames, open your eyes, seek God in the spirit and he shall answer you, he's always there for those that have faith in his name
theaccousticaddict 2 years ago
@theaccousticaddict
Ah, yes. The Flood Story that was stolen from the Sumerians. The silly tale that contains no hint of actual scientific accuracy or truth, then again, neither does the book that contains it.
From the very beginnin in Genesis the bible is 100% wrong and only goes downhill from there. For you to claim the bible is real is just as silly for the ancient Greeks to claim the books of myths of their gods are real as well. There are no gods. All religions are false.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
LOL!
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago
@theaccousticaddict this isnt book club bitch
keggerous 2 years ago
@keggerous Well you have to base your evidence on fatcs innit, and quite the "Bitch" word. It only shows how dumb and deluded you are, and obviously immature.
theaccousticaddict 2 years ago
no, what it shows is how much i think ur a stupid fucking shit burger.
go read ur book and stfu
keggerous 2 years ago
Is that all you can do? lol
theaccousticaddict 2 years ago
grow the fuck up u invisible friend having cunt
keggerous 2 years ago
Coming from a person who still holds that the world was flooded a mere several thousand years ago. I think you just forfeited your statement "base your evidence on facts".
Jengelhardt2012 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Coming from a man who actually believes that the first form of life was a fish, and that we came an evolved from monkeys. Coming from a man who actually believes that there is no God and that he came to be by chance, then i,d rather not waste my time, for whatever i say makes no sense and is foolish to you. So lets cut our selves some slack ok. You know not of the things i know and they are strange to you. seek knowledge, for it is power to them that possess it.
theaccousticaddict 2 years ago
So instead of defending your position on a global flood, you instead opted for criticizing me right away? By completely strawmannirg views that we haven't even established that I hold. So please can you explain to me how me simply stating that their was no flood somehow brands me an "evolutionist" and atheist in your eyes? Because I don't see how you can follow logically from that
Jengelhardt2012 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What makes you so sure that there was no flood??
theaccousticaddict 2 years ago
The reason why, I hold their is no flood because. It's not only both genetically impossible to repopulate the planet with two of every species. I certainly hope you know why. Also their no geological evidence at all. And I don't have to be Certain their is "No Flood' Your making the claim that their was a flood. THe burden of proof lies with you....not me.
Jengelhardt2012 2 years ago 3
@Jengelhardt2012 Everybody should be what you people call evolutionists. Evolution is a fact. Denying that just makes you look like retards.
M3t4lManiac 1 year ago
If you're ever in the Texas area, I think it would be very interesting to have you on The Atheist Experience as a guest (co-)host. Provided that it could be arranged.
psychopicasso 2 years ago
there is no free will only the illusion we have it. with consideration to quantum effects id say everything is caculable even consciousness. the mind, and our choices.
keggerous 2 years ago
Iv'e thought about this myself kegg, as in, say you had a room, where a guy flips a coin. If you knew everything, like the position of every single molecule, all the forces etc, you could predict the outcome with perfect accuracy. Then, just widen the example, and I think everything that will occur is totally predictable.
PageofLegend 2 years ago
why do you talk about the arguments against, it's simple as this: if a believer that has a burden of proof on himself cannot make a good argument or respond to criticisms, the atheist position is rational, and default.
WaywardSonCRO 2 years ago 3
At the start of this video i was thinking "wow this guy's a douce" but by the end I was saying
MOOOOAAAAAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GIME MOAR!!!!!!!!!!!
ryanb9 2 years ago
censoring the bullshit. hahah i actually like the sound of that. that should be your motto. you should have that under your channel name. brilliant
britainmjames 2 years ago 2
this guy is evil
brianmcKee47 2 years ago
@brianmcKee
Brillant... No cap, no period, no drama, no doubt, no question necessary... Perfect
I thought I was the only one who saw it. Most people go after his lack of understanding. But it's much simpler than that. You nailed it, he is the epitome child of the devil, like the purest form of bent offspring. Chilling really. Like a human robot without a soul.
tbgx1 2 years ago
Hmm.. I think the same thing about you,
So what does that mean? Does that mean I'm right? Or your right?
Or does it mean neither. Neither of us or MAtt Dillahunty are anything but human beings attempting to reason with each other.
Seriously dude. Its not becoming to talk likethat.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
seems pretty nice to me
britainmjames 2 years ago
I love your videos, but would like to see all the links in the video listed in the description as well. Not being able to open stuff in another tab can be a real pain if one is running down several differnt avenues at once.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
Free will is a supernatural concept. At least imo.
WayOfTheBastard 2 years ago
No, pointing out contradictins in the definition of God are not 'gotcha' arguments
I've never seen an argument against a theistic god that leaves you with free will and your god intact
funincluded 2 years ago
You're right I think, but the problem is that 'free will' is an ill defined concept that doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with. I'd like to note that free will is hard to reoncile with a naturalistic universe as well.
devourerofbabies 2 years ago
Yes, I agree that it's tough to defend free will... especially when you remove the ghost from the machine
funincluded 2 years ago
You think the problem of evil is a bad argument? Really?
WayOfTheBastard 2 years ago
He's right in that the problem of evil isn't an effective argument against the existence of god. It's only an argument against a certain god concept, namely that God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and all good. You can have any 2 of the three, but not all three.
devourerofbabies 2 years ago
A very very excellent job of poisoning the well. You make a good rhetorician.
VeritasEtLibertas82 2 years ago
If I didn't devote the following 3 videos to breaking down every aspect of the the argument itself... I might think you had a point.
TheoreticalBullshit 2 years ago 6
Atheism isn't a real belief.
Rooker2009 2 years ago
I kind of wonder whether these atheist converts you encountered were really atheists to begin with. Atheism doesn't require a person to believe anything, and therefore it is hard to return to a religious belief or pick up one. Very briefly I landed back into religion after being an atheist for years, but accepting that Jesus died for my sins--all is forgiven through prayer and whatnot--was impossible. The most basic ideas could not bring me back.
fyrefox4289 2 years ago
dude, i swear, ur so awesome! censor the "Bullshit" ... they obviously cant reason as well as you! u have knowledge worthy of spreading!
deviouscola 2 years ago
teleological -having to do with 'purpose', divine purpose
xx13moons 2 years ago
3:43
tilliological?
i dont know if im familiar with that argument.
could someone please summarize it for me?
(im not quite sure how to spell it to look it up)
thank you
BreathingTheDark 2 years ago
Matt D won...
LordBLB 2 years ago
lol Matt D won the argument not Matt S, just watch from 10 : 38 and 10 seconds after and he disproves the whole TAG argument
boorens18 2 years ago 2
I'm sorry. I don't care what the names of the believers are. To me they are genuinly and basicly DISHONEST.
So in my eyes M. Slick is a lying bastard any day.
That's the reality of things.
The name alone reveal the truth. :)
BelieveNoGod 2 years ago 2
Has anyone told you you look like Ben Affleck?
poolerboy0077 2 years ago
Like Ben Affleck and Ryan Reynold's love child.
HankRearden2 2 years ago 3
THis debate was brilliant. Matt D did an EXCELLENT job in refutign Matt S. It's actually not a hard concept to grasp really. It's a battle between subjectivity and objectiity, regardless of its definition. It's definition does not determine its existence.
That's why that saying when a tree falls in a forest, and nobody witensses it did it really fall?
This doesnt matter who witnessed it. The point is it either fell or didnt fall. It's trying to be clever but it really isn't.
Domzdream 2 years ago
I thought the question was "did it make a sound", not "did it really fall". Obviously it fell.
GodlessAtheist01 2 years ago
Something like that. I do get things wrong sometimes. Like: see you later, crocodile... or
...for a while, alligator.
Domzdream 2 years ago
Why can't God regrow severed limbs?
obdami 2 years ago 4
that musickle guy was convinced by it
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
Anyone else think Matt Slicks response to TBS's argument against TAG was totally shallow.
All he kept asserting was that TBS was off the point and didn't understand TAG.
I waited all that time for a disappointing response from Matt. i feel unhappy.
1337Ideaman 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BullShit sums up this channel.
157626 2 years ago
he talks quite a lot. I'm guessing he's like a philosopher since he reasons himself and others so well.
but then I get bored listening to him talk about stuffs after a while since I'm not that rich in vocab.
is he gonna write a book or something?
hyojeong8 2 years ago
its funny how stupid christians get angry by his reasoning! lol
blakstonefan 2 years ago
I'm an atheist -_-..
I'm not angry by his reasoning. I think he's a great guy who can put things down so it's easy to understand.
It's just that I'd rather read a book full of stuffs than have to go through a youtube lecture to learn his theories.
and he does talk about a lot of random stuffs in his intro when I want him to just get to the actual thing.
hyojeong8 2 years ago
understood. i thought u were a christian, lol.
blakstonefan 2 years ago
Seems to me, now, I could be way off, but seems to me, anyone who watches your videos videos can see your username right up there, so...
dechha1981 2 years ago
what the hell is tag...
1deanwdaniel 2 years ago
Transcendental Arguement (for) God
Xigano1 2 years ago
thank you!
1deanwdaniel 2 years ago
Argh... so many fallacies taken for granted.
hossrex 2 years ago
Good job. You make TAG interesting, the argument against TAG anyway.
Shoemagic 2 years ago
The reasons for my atheism is threefold.
1. I've home to an understanding why people believe, what function beliefs has for a person, and the collective.
2. Basic problems within the christian faith. Moral problems, logic problems, the real origin of the bible, and so on.
3. The fact that god, or acts of god, never been seen in this world, for real. Hearsay, testimonials, yes. Proof that they are factual and true? Nope.
simonwidmark 2 years ago 3
great way to end part 1 of this vid. made me chuckle.
Tigreen555 2 years ago
Check that--make that Six Thousand...
Congrats!
timbarrus 2 years ago
zing!
thrivesurvive 2 years ago
When you talk about the "Problem of Evil", are you talking about the Riddle of Epicurus? That is a good analysis of the illogic of the standard definition of the omnigod - an analysis of its logical inconsistencies.
There is another problem of evil not addressed by this argument. How can a perfect being create imperfection (evil is, of course, an imperfection). Perfection, by definition, contains no imperfection. That was the argument that persuaded me in my youth.
pirbird14 2 years ago
A perfect being creates evil because this is exactly what the perfect being wants. God CREATED Satan. God, who knows all (omniscient) and is all powerful (omnipotent) saw at the moment of creating Satan all that Satan would do...the rebellion, the temptation in the garden, all of it. Yet God, who is also OMNIPOTENT and therefore has no limits on his power creates Satan anyway? Why? Because he WANTED Satan to do what he saw Satan would do. What other explanation is there?
Wonko101 2 years ago
If you'd actually read the Riddle of Epicurus (goodle it), you'd know that this issue is already addressed. If God created evil, despite knowing what the result would be (omniscience), and refuses to do anything to lessen evil (omnipotent), then he is not all-good (omnibenevolent).
But my question is - where did the evil come from? If god is perfect, he had no evil in him. How can he produce evil if he has no evil in him?
pirbird14 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I HAVE read the riddle and used it many times to blast theists. MY point was that god CREATED evil. Remember, not just OMNISCIENT but OMNIPOTENT. While we can try to say god has no evil in him, he has no limits on his power, so if he wants to create evil, poof, there it is.
Wonko101 2 years ago
If God is perfect, he has no evil in him. Where does it come from? If he wants evil to exists, his desire or thought is evil - but he's perfect; so, the evil/thought cannot arise in him in the first place. Where does it come from?
pirbird14 2 years ago
Gods desire to have evil in the universe does not need to spring from an evil desire within. Rather, God can simply see evil as a tool to serve his ends. Look, if you accept that god is both omniscient and omnipotent then evil can only come FROM god as there is no power greater than his.
Wonko101 2 years ago 2
"evil can only come FROM god as there is no power greater than his." I repeat: if evil comes from God, he was not omnibenevolent (all-good) when he created the universe.
"Gods desire to have evil in the universe does not need to spring from an evil desire within." Where does the evil desire come from when God is all that exists (in the Beginning)?
Remember that biblical evil is some kind of metaphysical "substance".
pirbird14 2 years ago
Again, does not need to be evil to have evil in the universe. God can see evil as a tool to serve his ends. Further, I agree with the riddle of epicurus. If god desired evil to be in the universe then he can't be all good. Yet, clearly, since god is omnipotent, there is nothing in the universe that god DIDN'T desire when he created it. If we try to blame Satan we come upon another riddle:How can a lesser being, Satan, possibly introduce into creation that which God did not want?
Wonko101 2 years ago
This is, of course, impossible. So, we come back to the conclusion that God wished evil to be in the universe to serve his ends. If god is the originator of evil, then he isn't all good and so on.
Isn't the problem of evil fun for theists?
Wonko101 2 years ago
it was lagging in the room but matt seemed to suggest that you didnt have a grasp of logic
oh and he didnt seem to have watched your video you made to him yet, so i played it for him, im not sure if he actually listened to all of it
the room loved how you pwned him and we laughed as he tried to sluff it off and suggest we needed to study like he did and what he has for the last 30 some yrs
AtheistAtLARGE 2 years ago
just to further the conversation a bit, i'd say you look like a mix between ben affleck and dane cook.
carry on!
yamaha893 2 years ago
Of course Matt will not respond! He is a bold face back stabiing liar! Really! He is a liar!
wmgroutofthebox 3 years ago
What this Guy fails to understand is that the purpose of agologetics or any Argument for God's existence is not to win converts Apologetics dont produce persuasion that not what it is meant for , the purpose of agologetics is to defend what christian believe, that is what Apologetcs mean ' The defense of the christian faith"
brian3413 3 years ago
Thanks. There are many bad atheist arguments: Omnipotence vs Omniscience, Square Circles, Can God make something he cannot lift etc but NOTHING, NOTHING comes even remotely close to the absolute MESS that is the TAG argument.
templarart 3 years ago
How is omnipotence vs omniscience a bad argument?
hydralisk125 2 years ago
First, we have to imagine a being with true omnipotence and omniscience - not something like Jehovah or Allah. A being like this would be unrecognizable as sentient: Every star, every blackhole, every flower would behave in precisely the way that they should behave. "What if this being WANTED it to be different." Answer: "It WOULDN'T want it to be different since that would not be the way everything SHOULD be." Note: No prayers, no emotions, virtually no life just omnipotence & omniscience.
templarart 2 years ago
A MUCH better argument is: "Does Jehovah behave like an omniscient or omnipotent being?' and the answer is clearly "NO!" - he didn't know what happened to Abel, couldn't fight iron chariots, can't forgive people without a human sacrifice, doesn't know the future behavior of Job or else torture would've been unnecessary, cannot abide (exist with) sin, regrets making humans (didn't see what they would do), could not get the angel Gabriel to Daniel because of interference... etc etc.
templarart 2 years ago
What do you mean by should behave? Why would everything behave a particular way if a being that is both omnipotence and omniscient exists?
hydralisk125 2 years ago
We're assuming that if this being is omnipotent - it is necessarily responsible for everything. Omnipotence can't come from nor be subject to non-infinite power. Add omniscience and we must come to the conclusion that everything is a product of, subject to and in fact, an extension of the being. Omniscience doesn't foil omnipotence it simply foils the illusion of "free will". We make decisions because we don't have perfect knowledge. An OS being wouldn't ever decide - it would simply act.
templarart 2 years ago
Your argument seems pretty solid. Thanks for explaining it - I've never run into this before.
hydralisk125 2 years ago
hey if youve got some time i would love to hear and understand your side of all of these as i am not exactly sure what all of these refer too
stevothegreat181@yahoo if you wanna email or stevothegreat181 if you want AIM
either way it would be much apreciated
GibsonRock4All 2 years ago
Hey, Scott!
You mention the concept of 'sound' speaking of arguments. What do you mean by that?
Thnx
valyok 3 years ago
Hey Valyok,
An argument is "sound" if it's premises are known (or shown) to be true, in addition to having a conclusion which follows from them.
By comparison, an argument is "valid" just when it's conclusion follows from it's premises, even if those premises are not necessarily true.
TheoreticalBullshit 3 years ago
Thnx, Scott!
I will keep that in mind when I assess your argument from non-belief. I will be replying to that, probably in a video.
valyok 3 years ago
Keep up the good work and continue to present your arguments in a logical manner as you do so well. The truth always comes out - If there were a God, then we wouldn't be on line arguing about it. He/She/It would be there in front of us...and there is no proof today. There is only humans trying to convince us of this God with no proof. Truly the best Marketing concept in the history of the world!!!! Create a concept (God), make it believable (books), and persuade people to buy into it (control).
robertgmg 3 years ago