- Spot on comments about religion - #1 Tracie Harris on the topic of arguments for god.

[gesres]

Whether something is or is not evidence for God is also an exercise in logic; the "evidence" is merely one of the premises which lead to the conclusion, so Tracie is wrong to say we have to choose between logic and evidence; clearly, we need both. However, even the silliest arguments for God's existence rely to some degree on evidence, but the arguments go awry elsewhere.



[namnack]

@gesres But she never says that. She only pointed out that agreeing on something doesn't spontaneously make things true. We could argue over the content of a closed box till the cows come home, but we need additional facts (evidence) to come to any sort of conclusion that would correspond with the real content of the box. But when the box is simply a notion with no testable properties as part of its premise, it would be asinine to think that there is more to achieve than simply to agree or not.

[namnack]

@gesres In other words, god is the exception to the rule about which you otherwise would have made a valid point: that in the process of gaining evidence, logic is needed to reach a conclusion. The premise of god simply doesn´t allow for this, hence her correct remark.

[s3oodDJ]

Mental masturbation? LOL I love this woman!

[thomasbreeden]

Go trace! Go Tracie!

[namnack]

You better turn that 'if ' into something more tangible for your comment to actually make some sense. Something we both know, you cannot.

Reality doesn't change with anyone's cavalier usage and or interpretation of language; apologists don't pull the faith card just for kicks you know...

You do now.

[98nafets]

That made no sense. If I prove that the universe requires a creator, how does that not tell you anything?

[TheTexanCanadian]

@98nafets

Her point is that the only way you'd be proving it is with logic, not fact. Even if we agree that your logic is sound, that still doesn't make it a factual argument. And even if we prove that the universe required a creator, there's no way to prove that it was the god of any particular religion.

[YY4Me133]

@98nafets She didn't say "prove," she said "convince." Her point is that we can be talked into believing of all sorts of things that aren't true. That's why evidence is so important. It's how we discern what's real from what isn't.

[UnitedKingdomify]

"Mental masturbation..." I'm now officially in love with Tracie Harris, and that term is now gonna make many appearances in conversations I have. lol

[Roper122]

That's what I'm talkin bout!

[mortskaew]

I love Tracie Harris. 

[namnack]

@mortskaew I hear she's quite fond of you too.

[D4R3W]

cs32aa owned..

-Someone has to prove to me there was a creation before i ever think about what or who created the universe.

[tiggerdodds]

We do NOT know that the universe had a start point- this is a tiny part of an innumerable number of theories as to why the universe is the way it is. I don't personally believe that there even was a 'StartPoint', I think the universe has always existed- not necessarily the same- but always been there.

[willzyx1980]

Matt is my favorite host, and I think Tracie is so funny and so pretty. I can't get enough of these two.

[HammandClov]

"mental masturbation." lol. Gotta use that but she is right. You really have to not use logic in order to understand Creationist theories and without logic, there is only ignorance and imagination.

[cs32aa]

firstly you can demostrate if that is correct by evaluating the claims of the religions, if you evaluate the quran you will know it cannoit be from a man its from the one and only god who does not beget nor is he begotten he is unlike anything else and he is the single force behind everything we know.

[ajsatchwell]

go on then demonstrate it

and after you do i will personally make it my lifes mission to make sure you win a nobel prize because no one has even come close yet

[cs32aa]

what is the alternatives to believing in a single intelligent creator/force:

1- that we created ourselves, this is absurd because you cannot create what you do not understand, if this was true this art could be mastered to the point of everlasting life.

2- that we came from nothing, now this is also absurd.

the least absurd is to believe in the probability of god however unlikely is irrelevant, so to deny god requires blind faith which you also need to justify. the quran is all evidence of god

[cs32aa]

i would demonstrate it but which signs of god will you deny? the quran delievered to an unlettered desert man containing statements such as easts and wests, and description of the world as round, describing moonlight as reflected light, stating the universe is expanding and detailing the development of an embryo. now what signs will you deny?

[namnack]

All these claims have not even been debunked to kingdom come as they normally would because your myth book makes no such statements to begin with. Anyone with an IQ over 80 can see that the verses your claims are based on have nothing to do with the claims in itself. Just visit miraclesofthequran. com and see for yourself how unbelievably puerile and absurd the claims in regard to the original texts are. It's so obvious, It's depressing that someone above 5 years old would still believe it.

[cs32aa]

so you deny the verses, it is said in the quran in chapter rahman w=and which verses of your lord will you deny? in this chapter it also refers to easts and wests which would only be the case if the world was round, the development of embryo is detailed in chapter 23:12-14, so dont say these statements are not made, you exceed the bounds of ignorance, debate on the points rather than saying only a five year old would believe this, disprove it then if you are smarter than a 5 yr old

[namnack]

Sorry, but others have gone out of their way to 'debunk' these apprehensively silly notions. I've read the claims, it made me nauseous and gave me a headache just contemplating that anyone would read into it what you apparently read into it as well..

It's much much worse than the US creationist who thinks the world is 6000 years old. After all, this is literally stated in the bible. But to think that the theory of relativity is mentioned in e.g. verse 22:47 is completely deranged.

[cs32aa]

And verily, a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you reckon

this is no more deranged than einsteins explanation of his own theory of relativity

[namnack]

As I don't create creationist as a rule, I don't debate you either. Whether or not you're willing to give reality a try concerning these claims in stead of endorsing utter nonsense, is entirely up to you. You don´t need anyone to show you why and how these claims are absurd, this information is readily available even here on Youtube.

Have a great day.

[namnack]

And I do mean literally depressing...

[cs32aa]

the feeling is mutual

[cs32aa]

the creator of the universe would know more than anyone else and as per this the quran is exact it makes many forecasts and statements which can be verified i have stated a few contact me personally and we can chat more if you want

[ajsatchwell]

@cs32aa

u missed a third option off, we dont know how the universe was created, and im gonna go with that.

and btw, whilst we're goin down the first cause root, did ur god/force/thing create itself, which is absurd, or come from nothing, which is absurd, cus according to you they're the only two options?

oh and if you go with, he existed forever/is a neccessary being/u dont know/doesnt need a cause/ then im just gonna say that about the universe k?

[cs32aa]

unlike the universe and anything else which has a start point, god is eternal in his existence he is not begotten and neither does he beget, he is self sufficient. study the concept of eternity/infinity to understand these properties even then you wont understand and may go mad trying to comprehend infinity as it exposes weaknesses in mathematics Leopold Kronecker even denied infinity when a child can understand it in abstraction, god does not have a start/end date everything else does get it?

[ajsatchwell]

@cs32aa

whoa whoa, i know its predictable but, if you think something can have the property of eternalness then we're done, we can be perfectly happy thinkin the universe eternal without resorting to a magic man in the sky behind it all.

god does not have a start date everything else does=what i find in the dictionary when i look up special pleading

[cs32aa]

its eternity not eternalness, are you saying the theory is flawed? you shoud study simple mathematics in that case. there was eternity before this point in time and there will be after this point also. something must have had eternal existence everything we know has a beginning and nothing comes from nothing. if you still deny this basic logic you need two things 1- a slap, 2- a brain transplant

[namnack]

Seriously, why do you even come here? No one who isn't biased himself is going to agree with you. You obviously have no idea of what the current state of knowledge of the Universe is, how logic works and what more. Move on, put your energy into something positive within your community. Give some money to a charity dedicated to fix something your god couldn't bother to take care of. And stop placing comments only to remove them seconds later, I'm not a janitor.

[cs32aa]

what you state is baseless and incorrect many people who are not biased study religion and atheism and they choose to believe in god.

[cs32aa]

people were biased toward atheism before the major religions spread

[namnack]

ehm, are you saying what I think you are saying? You honestly think believing in gods is something relatively new? ,  like only after the book-whispering of your or someone else's god?

Dude? wth?

[ajsatchwell]

if ur right and something had to have eternal existance its much more intellectually honest to say the universe possesed this quality, as we know the universe exists as we dont know tht ur god exists.

if u think tht something can have have the property of eternity/eternalness then i say it makes more sense to attach this property to the universe rather then god, as we know the universe exists and we dont know god exists

[cs32aa]

the theory of an eternal universe is not supported by science even, we know that the universe had a start point and a complex development process

[ajsatchwell]

@cs32aa

i wouldnt go down the 'whats supported by science' view when ur tryin to prove god, so far u've done nothing but a special pleading first cause argument, a circular argument from the koran and a semi appeal to authority to try and prove a concept that is unobservable and unfalsifiable and therefor unprovable.

what really isnt supported by science here is ur god im afraid.

[cs32aa]

so you atleast admit that god cant be disproven by science so why then are you prejudiced against those who believe in god, god is proven by all the detail in science that shows intelligent design. this is like explaining sound to someone who is deaf they will never understand. It is TOTALLY ILLOGICAL that you believe that ALL came from nothing, without complex coordination or design. your theory of no god is not supported by common sense and your interpretation based on flawed science

[namnack]

- God can not be disproven, you can not disprove a negative. Stop using this dumb canard.

- God is not proven nor does it need to be. Religion is based on faith, faith doesn't require evidence. Remember the Babel Fish?

- No one claims we came from nothing, that is actually what you believe.

- Complex systems can evolve from less complex states. We know this to be a fact.

[namnack]

-There is no such thing as a theory of no god. The term god can mean litteraly anything and to say 'no god' isn't saying anything. If my definition of god is the universe, than obviously god exists.

Man, stop being so obtuse..

[Averagegamer100]

@cs32aa Go back to Science class. You come across as someone who clearly has not read any of the arguments against good and knows nothing of what Science says.

[cs32aa]

@Averagegamer100 science shows detailed 'design' that can by probabilities not be random, it is enough evidence and i deem it proof in fact. an interesting thing about science, read up on the man who coined the term big bang, he later accepted that there was a god and stated that science proves god. now he was a bigger scientist than you i bet, he certainly knew science, even if i dont, i can name you many other prominent scientists who believe in god

[Averagegamer100]

@cs32aa Sir Fred Hoyle coined the term Big Bang. He was an atheist. He didn't agree with Evolution or the Big Bang. He actually used the term Big Bang in a derogatory way, but the term stuck anyway. He believed the Panspermia theory and the idea of a steady state cosmos respectively.

Go ahead and name the scientists. Still doesn't prove anything and the fact is that those scientists, out of all the scientists on the planet, are the minority among scientists.

[cs32aa]

you dont need to be afraid for me i am afraid for you, that you deny the one god to whom you belong, who has done you many favours, your science cannot reproduce your soul once, in gods hand is your soul and to him you will return. the angel of death comes many times every day to each living person to extract his soul including every time you sleep but they do not have permission fear the day the angel is permitted to take you soul u'l have nowhere to run when you are faced with your creator

[cs32aa]

god says in the quran do you think you came from nothing (as you believe)? or do you think that you created yourself? - if you think honestly you will know neither is correct and that you were indeed created. the quran, the bible, the torah and the prophets of god are signs enough as is everywhere you look, the complex systems in nature are designed by a countless times greater intelligence than us and this is undeniable

[namnack]

I hereby deny!

There...

[cs32aa]

you have the right to deny and i have the right to believe in that

[namnack]

Since when is this about rights?

[cs32aa]

@namnack how clever of you

[Averagegamer100]

@cs32aa

Hold on... Seems I made a mistake. Fred Hoyle did indeed become a theist... Even so. This is a guy that actually believed the steady state theory and panspermia. Even so, my other point remains.

Evolution cannot be used as your evidence for god because you still have not proven god exists. If you use evidence for your god... I could just use it as evidence for the celestial teapot or the flying spaghetti monster.

[Averagegamer100]

@cs32aa

All evolution is proof of... Is evolution. There is no way for you to know that there was a god behind it. Your argument is akin to saying "Nature if proof of god."

[DieselDownunder]

@cs32aa Take a look at the video labled "A New Kind of Science - Stephen Wolfram"

This PROVES your assertion that complex systems in nature require a designer is WRONG - pre warning thou to mentally digest this video DOES require great intelligence - you might want to watch with an adult and have them explain the "tricky" bits for you........Enjoy

[Antlers68]

@DieselDownunder

If the adult were like you I don't think it would clear anything up.

[DieselDownunder]

@Antlers68 that's correct.....you STILL wouldn't get it