I have changed my mind on certain things. Some things I said in this debate I would have left out, or added, but I still am, and have always been an agnostic once I relinquished faith in the supernatural. That aspect has changed little.
Sure I did. Every subject he switched to I bested him on, whether it's the Jesus coming from pagan religions, morality, Calvinism, or anything else. Plus, I was 17 at the time, speaking to a formally educated Pastor.
You just have a personal problem with me because I pwned the Nation of Islam.
Cook is a joke. There are plenty of books that predates Genesis of the Bible: Enuma Elish, Atra Hasis, Gilgamesh Epic, etc. If no writings about Creation predate the Bible or Genesis which was written by "Moses" how what was Moses taught when the Bible says, "Moses was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt". Some of that wisdom was about the origin of creation, the planets, etc. I dare any doubters to study what the Egyptian knew thousands of years before Moses wrote.
Anton you are a very well read man who asks valid questions. However your argument is a paradox. I am no religious scholar but you said you replaced faith with logic. But then you go on to attack religion. You reject faith because some religious principles may be suspect. You keep saying "prove it" and requiring "evidence", but your out is always that no one knows since they weren't there. Thats where faith comes in. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
@1tmproductions Faith is believing that is is the truth. If you say you have the best kid in the world and I say I do, is one true and the other false? The truth is simply do each of us believe what we are saying and thats faith. I believe you have more of an issue with the religious control aspects. I understand your analysis of Constantine, but how does this disprove God? He may have tried to advance his agenda, but you can't simply allow his actions to remove your faith.
You did a very good job exposing Mr. Cook's lack of historical knowledge and as someone blinded by faith. Minor comment: The G. Washington analogy fails for the following reasons: GW is not claimed to be anything but (1) an ordinary man (2) not a miracle worker (3) not a god who lives in the sky (4) contemporary (and plentiful) documentaton, none of which apply to Jesus. Believing GW existed is therefore a rational belief, not to mention who cares if you don't believe he existed? Good Job!
Correction...Actually Lee Strobles set out to disprove Christ and the evidence was overwhelming causing him to give his life....no im not trying to convince u...i was just telling u the Truth...its GOD who waters the seed and does the increase.....before i go..if u ever look into a babies eyes,hopefully yours..ur closer to GOD than u even know.......thank u sir
Mr.Batey..i was raised in church..and said forget it.....i thot if i was raised muslim i would be muslim..but then u begin to seek TRUTH for yourself...and the truth is u will never find GOD trying to disprove HIM...only when u humble yourself,realize what u know is a crumb next to the ALL KNOWING,realize that u have sinned and sin separates u from the CREATOR,only then can HE be found..ive been on both sides..the bible..stands!!
In opinion, all of this can be summed up in two words: Social Heredity
You were raised a certain way. That certain way was "trained" on you ever since you were a small child. Your parents, and others around you in your environment, put certain beliefs into your system, and as a cause, you accepted those beliefs as "truth". I agree with Anton 100% If Gene had been raised in a Mormon family as a child, he would absolutely no doubt be mormon. The same is true if his parents were racist. Anton?
lol, my opinion was changing throughout all whole videos and in the end, it seems like the whole conversation, or arguement, just went in a complete circle and started over again. Either way it was a good arguement, each side proving each other wrong and stuff, and it got me thinking. But in the end, my opinion didnt change from the beginning. Good videos!
Therefore it's logical to conclude that if we offend(sin) a holy, just, & ETERNAL God, then we deserve an ETERNAL punishment for our offence(sins). Please, Dont deny what is so plain to see, that even a child can see it. A creation DEMANDS a creator. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. Find a quiet place, cry out to your Creator & ask him to reveal himself 2 u, read his word, & he promises to do so. Repent & trust in Christ alone! God Bless!
If I was 2 lie 2 my son, what would happen? Nothing. If I lied 2 my wife, what would happen? Maybe sleep on my couch. if I lied 2 my boss? Id get fired. If I lied to the government? Thats called treason & Id go to jail.
So what does this mean? It was all the same offence(lying) but the offence was on different people. The punishment got worse the higher the authority but still the same offence. cont.....
kiwisunshine, understand that God does not throw people in hell for not believing or worshiping him. He condems them because of sin. God is so Holy, Rightious, and Just, that it is impossible for him to be around ANY sin. And thats why Jesus came. He paid the penalty on the believers behalf....Also you dont get to heaven by following rules. Read Romans 3:27-28 Let me give an example....
Irrelevant, I want the evidence for the proposition you have made that there is a god or an admission you have no intention of providing any. No more tangents.
CRM- Any evidence u give to Irish will just be reinterpreted. He is so stuck on 'producing evidence' that he doesn't understand that before one gets to the "evidence" one must have a philosophy of evidence. In reading many previous posts u seems to grasp this point well, but alas Irish is dull-minded. I know his ult starting point is his autonomous mind (atoms banging around, given his worldview) but I fear he will never admit this cause once he does the gig is up and I think he knows it.
False again. You seem to find it better to make things up about me rather than to discuss and defend your evidence. This is not big and this is not clever. Evidence must stand up to scrutiny or it is simply not evidence.
So you can keep your insults to yourself. Insults demean ONLY the insulter. Next.
I'm not name-calling I actually believe u 2 b "dull-minded" as I'm sure u prob think that of me. It is u who fail to grasp my (& CRM's) point.
Any evidence offered is not "neutral" that is un-interpreted. (Once again) we all [u & me and my aunt Edna, etc] will interpret data in light of our governing presuppositions. U seem to think that we come to the data w/o any previous dispositions or something. This is silly. For us to 'scrutinize' the 'evidence' we are gonna need some standard.
Again with name calling. Youre so used to it you dont even know thats what you do. And AGAIN with making assumptions about me. Do not do that, you do not know me. You said "Im sure u prob think that of me". Wrong. I do not think anyone dull because they disagree with me.
Either present your evidence or do not. You have failed to. I cannot discuss or consider evidence you refuse to present to me.
And neither do I think anyone to be dull because they disagree with me.
U appear to want to put God at the end of a syllogism w/o first beginning w/ Him. If so, you (again) beg the question. U assume at the outset that God cannot speak with Self-authenticating authority which is just to say that at the outset you won't let God be God.
What one starts w/, the method, and the conclusion are all intertwined. A worldview is a network of related presuppositions in terms of which one interprets.
False again. I make no such assumption about a god as I see no evidence that there is one to make assumptions about. Try again. You are continually wrong about me.
Maybe try and present your evidence for a god instead of making a fool of yourself by making one false assumption about me after another. You DO NOT KNOW ME so stop talking as if you do and present the evidence that I am beginning to doubt you even have.
I see a double standard here. With me you have made claims about me knowing stuff that I don't know or believe and did not respond when I pointed it out. Does that mean you are "making a fool of yourself?" You said to dbertube "So you can keep your insults to yourself. Insults demean ONLY the insulter." And then you insult him by saying he is "making a fool" of himself. Does that mean you have been "demeaned" by yourself?
If you go back and read the context you will see that I was responding to what you said to dbertube. So stick with the context of each post if you can. And why don't you address my response as well while your at it!
My bad for some reason Im having problems replying. It won't post. Sorry for the assumption "When quesions can't be answered just ban the person asking them." Thats what happens when you assume like I just did. Again I apologise.
What a stupid comment to post. If you are banned then it would never get through so why post it? If you are not banned then it will get through and the very fact of it getting through makes it a stupid comment as it refutes itself by its very presence.
Really, you should think these things out before you post them.
Well, duh. Read my comments below. It was not letting me post on several attemps so the above was another test that got through hence the additional comments below. I was believing that since it was not letting me post that it was going to continue to not let me post. But what do you know I was wrong.
"Duh"? Wow, how eloquant. I wish I had your education in the english language so I could use such wonderful and amazing words.
It clearly wasnt so "well duh" was it, or you wouldnt have done it. If the post did not get through then it was pointless and if it did it would appear to be a self refuting stupid post.
It was a test that got through that I did not think would go through. Yup, I did and explained why afterward. And I admited that it was "my bad" so stop making such a big deal. I see no point in quibbling over this it's not very eloquant.
You explained the test, not your choice of words for the test. I was pointing out my impression of the choice of words for the test, especially since it contained a flat out accusation of the actions of the owner of the video.
I just pointed out what I thought and was happy to let it be at that, not to make a big deal of it. So it is you and I that then went into quibbling and making a deal of it. Turn that mirror on yourself before commenting at me ok.
What of your recent comment saying that I got Antons account suspended. What a silly comment especially since it was not true. Now that was a flat out lie. And you did not have the guts to post that here but send it to me personally saying that I was scared of your arguments. Get real. I like this post and showing you your folly. Thank you Anton.
If you cannot stick to the conversation at hand then thats not my problem. My point here is and only is that it was a stupid comment to make, especially in case it did in fact get through. You accuses Anton of doing something he didnt and you refuted your own lie by the very fact the comment got through. I actually find it very funny that you showed yourself up in such a complete way.
Yah, I already agreed to your point. And that it was foolish of me, so no need to repeat yourself. And there is a difference between a lie and a misunderstanding. NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again you can argue this same point ad infinitum as well, the question is how can you have reason and logic in arbitrary (subjective) world. How does it mean anything at all given your worldview? It means only what you what it too. Don't you see this? Dan Barker has admitted it in the debate with Paul Manata.
Not sure why you replied in a new comment instread of directly. Its not helpful as I do not know what you are replying to here.
However as I said, we evolved in this universe and have been subject to its rules since the beginning. So the reason and logic has been shaped by it.
You are like someone who forges a shape in a mould, takes it out, and then starts wondering why the shape fits back into that mould when it is pretty obvious why.
You say "we evolved in this universe and have been subject to its rules since the beginning." This is an assumption, where is the proof. There are no rules in a world where things are arbitrary.
You say "So the reason and logic has been shaped by it." Reason and logic can mean whatever you want to in an arbitrary world.
As far as forging and shaping molds you are right, but difference is that I can see mine when you seem not to be able to see yours.
False. I do see mine. I am here in a universe. I was shaped by that universe around me. Here I am in it after all. So... as I said.... if I am moulded by the universe around me then why wonder at the ability to fit into that mould? Youre not making any sense to me here.
Can I see the universe? Errrrr are you just trying to ask silly questions now to obfuscate the fact you have not presented the evidence despite me asking for it for days?
And I thought we were getting somewhere. Of course you can see the universe. That was not my claim. No I am not trying to ask silly questions, I am asking a serious philosophical question. If you think that it is silly and that is your answer then that is the true obfuscation. I will not attempt to show you the evidence until you can see your presuppostional starting point. Then I will attempt to present it.
You wont present it because you have none to present. As I said this bores me now and I will not pander to it anymore. Present it, or get off lying about it.
Another unfounded assumption of yours that you seem to be very good at. How do you know what I have to present or not? Please show me how you know this! Where is the evidence for this? Then you accuse me of lying! I'm insulted! "Someone once said Insults demean ONLY the insulter." I wonder who that was? Your inability to not account for anything including evidence for your starting point, but arbitrarily making things up as you go a long I think will suffice.
As I said before, the evidence for you having no evidence is your many day long campaign now to try not to present any. If you had it Im sure youd present it. I therefore reach the conclusion you do not have it.
Still no evidence here again, As I said you can make up what you like about my word view. It doesnt make it true and Im bored with it now until you actually show some of the evidence Ive been asking for.
The evidence is for all to see by reading the this post that you went in circles when asked about your world view starting point. Everying I asked you was just repeated in a cirle. Again before typing about something which you seen to know nothing about go listen to the Bahnsen Vs. Gordon Stien debate so you can understand the argument.
If the evidence is there for all to see why have you been unable to give me any of it for many days now? If there is so much of it, present it!!! Still waiting.
You sure accuse me of lying a lot which I don't believe I have. Stop trying to poison the well. Instead of arguing with you in your circle which just gets back to the begining again and we start over I'll let the readers of this thread decide if that is the case. If they agree with me then so be it, if they agree with you then so be it.
I do not care what readers believe. I am on a question for information and knowledge in my own time. I want to hear everyone evidence for what they claim to be true. You refuse ad infinitum to provide me with any.
I don't think I will convince you. I believe that I have provided it. If you want to start from the beginging I am willing but this is not the forum. Would you like my email and I could go into more detail? But only if you are serious becasue I don't want to waste more of my time?
You believe a lot of things as well. I have asked for evidence from you as well not what you believe. I have gotten nothing but circular arguments. I'm am challenging your world view as well and looking for reasons on which I should believe them as well.
CRM- God speaking w/ self-authenticating authority [how else could He speak?] is just something that Irish will not allow. God cannot be GOD in his autonomous system. It is "useless" to him. But he will still give an account to Him.
Its called the impossibility of the contrary. You borrow from my world view to make yours work. You chide me for not giving you proof when you don't even have proof for your own world view that pulls the rug out of everything that you stand on. And you seem not to be able to see that....
Another one of your assumptions. Atheist scholar Michael Martin author of "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" and "The Case Against Christianity" has taken the time to give a response to this
argument and had 2 written debates with both Dr. John Fame and the other Michael Butler. But the GREAT irishmauddib refutes it by saying there is "no evidence here." ..........
I did it's called the transendental argument for God's existence. And you haven't given a convincing argument against it. Just repeating yourself does not answer the argument. Do yourself a favor and go learn about it instead of playing silly!
A bogus argument where you declare something true without evidence and say it proves you right
In other words you just SAY that "logic, science, ethics" wouldnt make sense without god. You give no reason why nor back this up, you just say it
Then, having made this assumption you just declare based on nothing that it proves your case. In other words you assume god, assume your statement, and assumption A proves B
I have no time for arguments that prove themselves by assuming themselves. Next.
I reject that assertion, they can be proved independantly. I am not going down this tanget with you. You use tangent after tangent to obfuscate the fact you have not offered me any evidence for this god entity. I am not about to embark down yet another tangent with you until you have the decorum to offer the evidence you have avoided offering for days.
"they can be proved independantly" Are you seriously maintaining that when you go about demonstrating the validity of the laws of logic that you are not at the same time employing them? How exactly do you detach yourself from the principle of non-contradiction?
I said I am not going to allow myself to be pushed down a tangent by you or your sock puppet account. I mean this. If you want citations of books by people who have engaged in proving the laws of logic independantly, and in some cases books about proving things as low level as 1+1=2 then PM me and I will provide you a reading list.
Again go learn about the argument first, look at the claims and then come back with something to discuss with some substance. What I pointed out for readers of this thread is that you hold to an argument that proves itself by assuming itself as well. The argument is which one of these two postions in this case accounts for logic, science, ethics. Again you should go study the argument and download the debate for a great example.
My response to the argument is plain, simply and I am happy with it. The whole argument is based on asserting something without evidence and then using that assertion to prove itself. Useless.
Also what do you mean "What I pointed out for readers of this thread". Are you also dbertube? It was him that just tried to assert that. Do not tell me that on top of all your other dishonesties you are using sock puppets as well? Say it aint so.
Self-authentication for ultimate authorities is logically inescapable, not "useless." You just don't seem to recognize that you too have an ult. authority or starting point that you begin apart from any external "evidence."
Unless and until you realize this all of your responses are futile.
By your response you show that you don't understand the argument. What I mean is that what you chide me for in asserting something without evidence and using that assertion to prove itself is somethig that you yourself have commited without even being able to see it, but I SEE IT when it comes to myself. It shows a double standard. No I am not dbertube. You assume just because he sees the samething I see we are the same people. This is similar to what you do with the evidence with evolution.
Still no evidence for your claims in this comment here. I have no interest in continuing this if you have no intention of either presenting some or admitting you cant.
continued...Listen to the Bahsen and Stein Debate to see what my argument is if you don't understand what an impossibility of the contrary argument is. And you still can't prove your starting point!!
I can see my presupposition. I know where I start and know that it is a presuppostion. I may not be able to prove it to you but it is a given for me. I believe that God set the laws of nature in motion yes. We live in a universe that is running down though. I can see God's fingerprints(figurative). Would you like me to point you in the right direction?
Is that not what I have been asking you for days? Point me to this god. I cant see it like you seem to imagine you can. Where is your evidence? Present it.
There would be no objectivity everything would be subjective and each person would be their own standard. That's why in the grand scheme of things guys Dan Barker can claim that we are no different objectively then a piece of broccoli, but to us subjectively try to make meaning out of things. We really don't know if this is true because it is only his subjective opinion trying to make sence of things.
Again you can argue this ad infinitum, however you are attempting an argument from implication. You say everything is subjective. Yes, so what? We work together and do the best we can with that. Sitting there with this attitude of "Its subjective.... I do not like that.... therefore it has to be objective.... therefore there is a god" is just useless argument from implication coupled with pointless wish thinking. It is of no use to me.
I would agrue that if I did start of with assumption that there is no god and that if that were really true than I really coundn't even argue. It's like starting off with the premise that there is no air while all the while you are breathing it. If it is the case that we arose without any interference from an outside intelligence or that there is no outside intelligence then reason an abstract concept is something that man just "made up" as well, and really means nothing but what you want it too
False analogy. Air can be shown to be required for continued living. Air can be shown to exist too.
You are assuming the existence of a god and then assuming the necessity of its existence to even argue about it. This is circular reasoning as you have one assumption supporting the second supporting the first ad infinitum.
How can you have logic and reason in an arbitrary world? That is the point. You circular reason at this point as well. Eveyone circular reasons when you get to the starting presupposition.
False, I am making no such assumption, I am merely going where the evidence leads and making the best interpretation based on the evidence. The evidence suggests we evolved hence that is the conclusion I must work with. I cannot assume a creator or designer as I have no evidence available for such.
Totally unlike circular reasoning which, in theist terms, involves assuming a creator there is no sign of and then fitting the evidence to that. You are really failing to equate the two totally.
Your "best interpretation" is an assumption that is based on the evidence. Given the evidence how do you know your interpretation is the "best?" The evidence does not suggest that we evolved and you haven't shown that yet.
Of course it is an assumption based on the evidence. This however is completely different to you basing an assumption on something you have NO evidence for. Or if you have it, you seem to be too scared to give it after days of asking. I tire of this and I will not proceed with this conversation now except to repeatedly ask you for your evidence.
Your squirming and backflips to avoid having to give it were fun for about 2 days to watch but I tire of it now.
Your admission destroys your claim. If its an assumption it hasnt been proven. I dont believe the evidence shows what you assume it does. From my view you have NO evidence for what you believe it proves. I tire as well in asking you to give me evidence for your starting point which you *HAVE NOT* so I guess I will do the same. You believe I was "squirming" & backfliping? You assume to much thats the problem....
If one starts off with the unproven assumption that there is no God because it hasn't been proven to me yet argument, the conclusions that are reached will be greatly affected in the wrong direction. I admit that this is true for those who start with God as an assumption as well. Having the wrong starting point changes everything.
CRM- good luck in getting an answer from these guys as to their ult. starting point. They'll probably just dismiss it as meaningless and then turn around and ask u for urs or something. I think they know that once they do the jig is up. From that starting point will lead to incoherence since "all" they have to work with (if they were consistent) is only the present moment b-c philosophically (given their worldview) they really can't know anything-even evolution. They destroy epistemology.
False, you must start from the point that the only things you can work with are the things you can show to exist. Therefore god doesnt come into it until you can show it exists.
This is not to start with an assumption that it doesnt exist, it just starts with the assumption that you can only work with what is available to you.
This does not answer the question. If you can "show me" why this premiss is the truth of where I must start, I am ready to hear it as well. If all things are subjective then thats only subjective.
Of course it doesnt answer the question, the question is not answerable. I can only work with what is available to me and what I can see exists. Subjective it always will be yes, but its subjectivity based on whats real. It is not to assume something we have no evidence for and base assumptions on that. Not good. Not clever.
So yes, I must start only with things I can work with, until you can show me how to start with things that are not real.
You tell me that we must start with "only what is available" to us, I ask why and for you to prove it and you say "the question is not answerable." Ok, how would you like it if I agrued like that.
CRM: We must start with God.
irish: Why should I start with God when he is not been proven?
CRM: That question is not answerable!
At this point you repeat yourself again the very thing I ask you to prove.
False again. Theres a difference between "what is available to us" and a god that you have not provided ANY evidence for and you know it.
Ive asked for days for evidence for this god on which you wish to start. You cant do it. You are doing backflips to avoid having to admit you cant do it. I tire of it. If you have no evidence then be the big man and admit it.
You missed the point. Im not asking you to prove "what is availble to us" I asking you to prove that that is where one must start. What is your evidence for that. How do you know that I know that I haven't provided any evidence? Prove that you know what is going on in my head. How do you know I can't give any evidence? What is your evidecne for that claim? I am in the process of showing the evidence I'm just waiting for you to be the "big man" and admit that you have a presupposition as well.
Again, if you can show me how we can use what is not available to us then you have a point. However since we cannot use what is not available to us, then a starting point of what is available to us is the only one we have.
The evidence for my claim that you can not provide evidence is your constant backflips to avoid providing any. Provide it or not, as I am bored now.
Then you say "Subjective it will always will be yes." You agreed. Then you say "but its subjectivity based on whats real." I said given your position "all things are subjective." Whats real to you may not be real to someone else if it is subjective. In other words what's real is subjective.
Yes it is true that "even the most basic communication would be impossible to us" if your world view is true.
You say "which apparently it is." I hope thats not what you believe because that really would be silly. I'll keep on working to show you your presuppositon and if successful will attempt showing the evidence. The reason is because this is the crux of the issue which "apparantly" you cant see.
Ah nothing like twisting my words rather than addressing them huh? It is clear this is not what I was saying. I was saying that if what is real to me was not real to someone else all the time then even basic communication would not be possible.
This is evidence therefore that since we can communicate there must be a certain amount of shared reality.
I was not twisting your words, and I did address them. If you go back and read what you wrote you'll see that it is equivocal. That's why I said "hope" which is a qualifier. I agree that it it must be "all the time" but given your world view this cannot be accounted for and can mean anything anyone one wants that is the point. Yes there is shared reality but given your world view you cannot account for that.
False, you did twist my words, from what I did say into what I did not.
Again I am bored, I will pander to nothing you say now until such time as you present your evidence that all appearances suggest you are lying about and do not have.
If you say so irishmauddib it must be true. The great irishmauddib has spoken again. Again I can't argue against that powerful of an argument. Lets see if you keep to your words "I will pander to nothing you say now ."
It's been given, why should I repeat it? It's your answer that continues to be the same. So I'm still waiting for an intelligent answer instead of claiming I gave no evidence.
Like I said I'll let the readers of this thread decide. But you really should go brush up on what the argument is as a whole before you go making short little comments saying that you refuted it when scholars have written whole papers trying to refute it.
And like I said I do not care what the readers think. I am asking YOU for evidence simply for MY benefit, not theirs. You havent presented me with any which is a shame but I will cope with it.
Many of the great scientific minds of the not so distant past were believers in God and practiced science with the understanding that it would work because God instituted laws that govern the universe(hence the uniformity of nature). You guys have changed the rules as to how we are to understand science. Science is not possible without the uniformity of nature. You would not be able to come to any conclusions if tomorrow would not be like the past.
It is nothing to do with changing the rules. It is occams razor. If things work then do not introduce extra superflous elements to explain it. All scientific discovery works without the assumption of god, just like in laplaces famous quote, so we just cut it out. My garden grows without me having to add the assumption of garden fairys.
Yes it does. I disagree as stated above. Just to say that "things work" does not answer the question. Scientific discovery works because of the assumption of the uniformity of nature. Which given your world view cannot account for it as well. Why sould I accept your starting point, it's all subjective anyway according to your position?
Theres no such assumption. It is in fact a statistical analysis. If it worked one way before and appears to have always worked that way, then statistically the safest prudent course is to act as if it will continue to work that way.
This is far from an assumption that it WILL stay uniform, it is instead simply doing what I keep asking you to do! That is: Work only with what we have available to us.
Right now all we have available to us is a universe that to our knowledge has only acted one way
This is semantics. Are you trying to say that there is no assumptions in a statistical analysis? Of course there is! Are you saying that there are no assumptions in taking "safest prudent course?" Of course there is! This is a cop-out. If you can't see the assumption in the last statement I really don't know how else to point it out.
In this debate you appear to be more agnostic. Has anything change since then?
whisperingpines2010 2 months ago in playlist More videos from AntonBatey
@whisperingpines2010
I have changed my mind on certain things. Some things I said in this debate I would have left out, or added, but I still am, and have always been an agnostic once I relinquished faith in the supernatural. That aspect has changed little.
AntonBatey 2 months ago
@AntonBatey understood.
whisperingpines2010 1 month ago in playlist More videos from AntonBatey
final thougts you did not sound to sure of yourself talking to the Rev.mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Check, your an historian right go to kemet
jimmy321ization 9 months ago
@jimmy321ization
Sure I did. Every subject he switched to I bested him on, whether it's the Jesus coming from pagan religions, morality, Calvinism, or anything else. Plus, I was 17 at the time, speaking to a formally educated Pastor.
You just have a personal problem with me because I pwned the Nation of Islam.
AntonBatey 9 months ago
everything is not just logic
jimmy321ization 9 months ago
How does Gene Cook know that god exists?
sigurjong 1 year ago
Cook is a joke. There are plenty of books that predates Genesis of the Bible: Enuma Elish, Atra Hasis, Gilgamesh Epic, etc. If no writings about Creation predate the Bible or Genesis which was written by "Moses" how what was Moses taught when the Bible says, "Moses was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt". Some of that wisdom was about the origin of creation, the planets, etc. I dare any doubters to study what the Egyptian knew thousands of years before Moses wrote.
Danyulel 1 year ago
Anton you are a very well read man who asks valid questions. However your argument is a paradox. I am no religious scholar but you said you replaced faith with logic. But then you go on to attack religion. You reject faith because some religious principles may be suspect. You keep saying "prove it" and requiring "evidence", but your out is always that no one knows since they weren't there. Thats where faith comes in. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
1tmproductions 1 year ago
@1tmproductions
If that is true than all faiths are true.
AntonBatey 1 year ago
@1tmproductions Faith is believing that is is the truth. If you say you have the best kid in the world and I say I do, is one true and the other false? The truth is simply do each of us believe what we are saying and thats faith. I believe you have more of an issue with the religious control aspects. I understand your analysis of Constantine, but how does this disprove God? He may have tried to advance his agenda, but you can't simply allow his actions to remove your faith.
1tmproductions 1 year ago
@1tmproductions I appreciate your wisdom. May wisdom grow with you as time goes on. Peace.
whisperingpines2010 2 months ago in playlist More videos from AntonBatey
@whisperingpines2010 Thanks you
1tmproductions 1 month ago
@1tmproductions well said.
whisperingpines2010 2 months ago
You did a very good job exposing Mr. Cook's lack of historical knowledge and as someone blinded by faith. Minor comment: The G. Washington analogy fails for the following reasons: GW is not claimed to be anything but (1) an ordinary man (2) not a miracle worker (3) not a god who lives in the sky (4) contemporary (and plentiful) documentaton, none of which apply to Jesus. Believing GW existed is therefore a rational belief, not to mention who cares if you don't believe he existed? Good Job!
JohntheRealProphet 1 year ago
maybe we can talk about one day....im from Oakland..peace
Goodlife51 1 year ago
Correction...Actually Lee Strobles set out to disprove Christ and the evidence was overwhelming causing him to give his life....no im not trying to convince u...i was just telling u the Truth...its GOD who waters the seed and does the increase.....before i go..if u ever look into a babies eyes,hopefully yours..ur closer to GOD than u even know.......thank u sir
Goodlife51 1 year ago
@Goodlife51
I don't see the evidence and I have read most of those books.
AntonBatey 1 year ago
Mr.Batey..i was raised in church..and said forget it.....i thot if i was raised muslim i would be muslim..but then u begin to seek TRUTH for yourself...and the truth is u will never find GOD trying to disprove HIM...only when u humble yourself,realize what u know is a crumb next to the ALL KNOWING,realize that u have sinned and sin separates u from the CREATOR,only then can HE be found..ive been on both sides..the bible..stands!!
Goodlife51 1 year ago
@Goodlife51
Yeah.....um......is that supposed to convince me or something?
AntonBatey 1 year ago
In opinion, all of this can be summed up in two words: Social Heredity
You were raised a certain way. That certain way was "trained" on you ever since you were a small child. Your parents, and others around you in your environment, put certain beliefs into your system, and as a cause, you accepted those beliefs as "truth". I agree with Anton 100% If Gene had been raised in a Mormon family as a child, he would absolutely no doubt be mormon. The same is true if his parents were racist. Anton?
GreenRhythm85 1 year ago
@GreenRhythm85
Yeah, I agree with you 100%.
AntonBatey 1 year ago
i dont understand.. why would 'god' throw people in hell if he is almighty, just, ritgheous etc. etc. etc. that seems like a pretty mean thing to do
AdderApple 2 years ago
debating christians.. is like trying to walk through melted swiss cheese
xelenty 2 years ago
lol, my opinion was changing throughout all whole videos and in the end, it seems like the whole conversation, or arguement, just went in a complete circle and started over again. Either way it was a good arguement, each side proving each other wrong and stuff, and it got me thinking. But in the end, my opinion didnt change from the beginning. Good videos!
Chapizisdabest 2 years ago
Therefore it's logical to conclude that if we offend(sin) a holy, just, & ETERNAL God, then we deserve an ETERNAL punishment for our offence(sins). Please, Dont deny what is so plain to see, that even a child can see it. A creation DEMANDS a creator. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. Find a quiet place, cry out to your Creator & ask him to reveal himself 2 u, read his word, & he promises to do so. Repent & trust in Christ alone! God Bless!
djvdiddy 2 years ago
If I was 2 lie 2 my son, what would happen? Nothing. If I lied 2 my wife, what would happen? Maybe sleep on my couch. if I lied 2 my boss? Id get fired. If I lied to the government? Thats called treason & Id go to jail.
So what does this mean? It was all the same offence(lying) but the offence was on different people. The punishment got worse the higher the authority but still the same offence. cont.....
djvdiddy 2 years ago
kiwisunshine, understand that God does not throw people in hell for not believing or worshiping him. He condems them because of sin. God is so Holy, Rightious, and Just, that it is impossible for him to be around ANY sin. And thats why Jesus came. He paid the penalty on the believers behalf....Also you dont get to heaven by following rules. Read Romans 3:27-28 Let me give an example....
djvdiddy 2 years ago
Great debate here, really enjoyed it, however Batey did meet his match on this one.
kenny662 2 years ago
Irish- who or what is your ultimate authority?
dbertube 3 years ago 2
Irrelevant, I want the evidence for the proposition you have made that there is a god or an admission you have no intention of providing any. No more tangents.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
"DEAD MEN DO BLEED"
CRM0001 3 years ago
And you accuse me of non sequitar?
No evidence here either.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
This is another false conclusion based on your flawed method. Google "dead men do bleed" and you might learn something.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Non sequitar again and no evidence presented again. Keep trying.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Anton,
I can't believe that you actually think that you did good in this exchange. Wow? Just goe to show you how strong self deception can be.
Gene
unchainedradio 3 years ago 2
Fraid not, I think he did really well too.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
CRM- Any evidence u give to Irish will just be reinterpreted. He is so stuck on 'producing evidence' that he doesn't understand that before one gets to the "evidence" one must have a philosophy of evidence. In reading many previous posts u seems to grasp this point well, but alas Irish is dull-minded. I know his ult starting point is his autonomous mind (atoms banging around, given his worldview) but I fear he will never admit this cause once he does the gig is up and I think he knows it.
dbertube 3 years ago 7
False again. You seem to find it better to make things up about me rather than to discuss and defend your evidence. This is not big and this is not clever. Evidence must stand up to scrutiny or it is simply not evidence.
So you can keep your insults to yourself. Insults demean ONLY the insulter. Next.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I'm not name-calling I actually believe u 2 b "dull-minded" as I'm sure u prob think that of me. It is u who fail to grasp my (& CRM's) point.
Any evidence offered is not "neutral" that is un-interpreted. (Once again) we all [u & me and my aunt Edna, etc] will interpret data in light of our governing presuppositions. U seem to think that we come to the data w/o any previous dispositions or something. This is silly. For us to 'scrutinize' the 'evidence' we are gonna need some standard.
dbertube 3 years ago
Again with name calling. Youre so used to it you dont even know thats what you do. And AGAIN with making assumptions about me. Do not do that, you do not know me. You said "Im sure u prob think that of me". Wrong. I do not think anyone dull because they disagree with me.
Either present your evidence or do not. You have failed to. I cannot discuss or consider evidence you refuse to present to me.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
And neither do I think anyone to be dull because they disagree with me.
U appear to want to put God at the end of a syllogism w/o first beginning w/ Him. If so, you (again) beg the question. U assume at the outset that God cannot speak with Self-authenticating authority which is just to say that at the outset you won't let God be God.
What one starts w/, the method, and the conclusion are all intertwined. A worldview is a network of related presuppositions in terms of which one interprets.
dbertube 3 years ago
False again. I make no such assumption about a god as I see no evidence that there is one to make assumptions about. Try again. You are continually wrong about me.
Maybe try and present your evidence for a god instead of making a fool of yourself by making one false assumption about me after another. You DO NOT KNOW ME so stop talking as if you do and present the evidence that I am beginning to doubt you even have.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I see a double standard here. With me you have made claims about me knowing stuff that I don't know or believe and did not respond when I pointed it out. Does that mean you are "making a fool of yourself?" You said to dbertube "So you can keep your insults to yourself. Insults demean ONLY the insulter." And then you insult him by saying he is "making a fool" of himself. Does that mean you have been "demeaned" by yourself?
CRM0001 3 years ago
You see a lot of things sir, this doesnt make them true.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Not only did I see it I showed it!!!!
CRM0001 3 years ago
False. You have not shown one bit of evidence even though I have asked you for it over and over. So you showed no such thing.
As I said, post your evidence or dont. But do not keep claiming you have some and then refusing to show it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Stay in context irish. I'll show it again here:
irish: So you can keep your insults to yourself. Insults demean ONLY the insulter
Then you insult dbertube by by saying he is "making a fool" of himself.
There!!! Again for the second time. It's okay for you but not for him. Hence double standard.
CRM0001 3 years ago
My context is fine and I am still waiting for this evidence you say there we all can see!
irishmauddib 3 years ago
If you go back and read the context you will see that I was responding to what you said to dbertube. So stick with the context of each post if you can. And why don't you address my response as well while your at it!
CRM0001 3 years ago
Still no evidence that is there for all to see in this response. Still waiting.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
non sequitur
CRM0001 3 years ago
Still no evidence here as I see, still waiting for some.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
My bad for some reason Im having problems replying. It won't post. Sorry for the assumption "When quesions can't be answered just ban the person asking them." Thats what happens when you assume like I just did. Again I apologise.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Well for some reason it let me post here but not in the reply sections. I'll try again.
CRM0001 3 years ago
It seems that I have been banned so I guess that is the end of the discussion.
When quesions can't be answered just ban the person asking them.
CRM0001 3 years ago
What a stupid comment to post. If you are banned then it would never get through so why post it? If you are not banned then it will get through and the very fact of it getting through makes it a stupid comment as it refutes itself by its very presence.
Really, you should think these things out before you post them.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Well, duh. Read my comments below. It was not letting me post on several attemps so the above was another test that got through hence the additional comments below. I was believing that since it was not letting me post that it was going to continue to not let me post. But what do you know I was wrong.
CRM0001 3 years ago
"Duh"? Wow, how eloquant. I wish I had your education in the english language so I could use such wonderful and amazing words.
It clearly wasnt so "well duh" was it, or you wouldnt have done it. If the post did not get through then it was pointless and if it did it would appear to be a self refuting stupid post.
So "duh" it might be, but it was you who did it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
It was a test that got through that I did not think would go through. Yup, I did and explained why afterward. And I admited that it was "my bad" so stop making such a big deal. I see no point in quibbling over this it's not very eloquant.
CRM0001 3 years ago
You explained the test, not your choice of words for the test. I was pointing out my impression of the choice of words for the test, especially since it contained a flat out accusation of the actions of the owner of the video.
I just pointed out what I thought and was happy to let it be at that, not to make a big deal of it. So it is you and I that then went into quibbling and making a deal of it. Turn that mirror on yourself before commenting at me ok.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
What of your recent comment saying that I got Antons account suspended. What a silly comment especially since it was not true. Now that was a flat out lie. And you did not have the guts to post that here but send it to me personally saying that I was scared of your arguments. Get real. I like this post and showing you your folly. Thank you Anton.
CRM0001 3 years ago
If you cannot stick to the conversation at hand then thats not my problem. My point here is and only is that it was a stupid comment to make, especially in case it did in fact get through. You accuses Anton of doing something he didnt and you refuted your own lie by the very fact the comment got through. I actually find it very funny that you showed yourself up in such a complete way.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Yah, I already agreed to your point. And that it was foolish of me, so no need to repeat yourself. And there is a difference between a lie and a misunderstanding. NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CRM0001 3 years ago
If you had let it go after I made my point then I would have had no need to repeat myself. If you wont let it go then you force me to.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Again you can argue this same point ad infinitum as well, the question is how can you have reason and logic in arbitrary (subjective) world. How does it mean anything at all given your worldview? It means only what you what it too. Don't you see this? Dan Barker has admitted it in the debate with Paul Manata.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Not sure why you replied in a new comment instread of directly. Its not helpful as I do not know what you are replying to here.
However as I said, we evolved in this universe and have been subject to its rules since the beginning. So the reason and logic has been shaped by it.
You are like someone who forges a shape in a mould, takes it out, and then starts wondering why the shape fits back into that mould when it is pretty obvious why.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
You say "we evolved in this universe and have been subject to its rules since the beginning." This is an assumption, where is the proof. There are no rules in a world where things are arbitrary.
You say "So the reason and logic has been shaped by it." Reason and logic can mean whatever you want to in an arbitrary world.
As far as forging and shaping molds you are right, but difference is that I can see mine when you seem not to be able to see yours.
CRM0001 3 years ago
False. I do see mine. I am here in a universe. I was shaped by that universe around me. Here I am in it after all. So... as I said.... if I am moulded by the universe around me then why wonder at the ability to fit into that mould? Youre not making any sense to me here.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I understand a mold as a presupposition that one starts with to interpret all things. Are you saying that you see your presupposition(mold)?
This is your non answerable question. The thing you hold to be true and interpret all things by. It's not proven but a given. At least in your view.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Can I see the universe? Errrrr are you just trying to ask silly questions now to obfuscate the fact you have not presented the evidence despite me asking for it for days?
irishmauddib 3 years ago
And I thought we were getting somewhere. Of course you can see the universe. That was not my claim. No I am not trying to ask silly questions, I am asking a serious philosophical question. If you think that it is silly and that is your answer then that is the true obfuscation. I will not attempt to show you the evidence until you can see your presuppostional starting point. Then I will attempt to present it.
CRM0001 3 years ago
You wont present it because you have none to present. As I said this bores me now and I will not pander to it anymore. Present it, or get off lying about it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Another unfounded assumption of yours that you seem to be very good at. How do you know what I have to present or not? Please show me how you know this! Where is the evidence for this? Then you accuse me of lying! I'm insulted! "Someone once said Insults demean ONLY the insulter." I wonder who that was? Your inability to not account for anything including evidence for your starting point, but arbitrarily making things up as you go a long I think will suffice.
CRM0001 3 years ago
As I said before, the evidence for you having no evidence is your many day long campaign now to try not to present any. If you had it Im sure youd present it. I therefore reach the conclusion you do not have it.
Present it or do not, I am bored asking for it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Since your world view does not comport with reality the evidence is the impossibility of the contrary.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Still no evidence here again, As I said you can make up what you like about my word view. It doesnt make it true and Im bored with it now until you actually show some of the evidence Ive been asking for.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
The evidence is for all to see by reading the this post that you went in circles when asked about your world view starting point. Everying I asked you was just repeated in a cirle. Again before typing about something which you seen to know nothing about go listen to the Bahnsen Vs. Gordon Stien debate so you can understand the argument.
CRM0001 3 years ago
If the evidence is there for all to see why have you been unable to give me any of it for many days now? If there is so much of it, present it!!! Still waiting.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I have, it's called the transendental argument. I presented it and I havent really seen any serious interaction with it.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Then you ignored it. I gave an answer to this comment. So saying that I did not address it is yet another lie on your part.
Let me help you, the comment started with "A bogus argument ....." so go find it and read it again.
So nope, no evidence in this comment here for me to reply to either.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
You sure accuse me of lying a lot which I don't believe I have. Stop trying to poison the well. Instead of arguing with you in your circle which just gets back to the begining again and we start over I'll let the readers of this thread decide if that is the case. If they agree with me then so be it, if they agree with you then so be it.
CRM0001 3 years ago
I do not care what readers believe. I am on a question for information and knowledge in my own time. I want to hear everyone evidence for what they claim to be true. You refuse ad infinitum to provide me with any.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I don't think I will convince you. I believe that I have provided it. If you want to start from the beginging I am willing but this is not the forum. Would you like my email and I could go into more detail? But only if you are serious becasue I don't want to waste more of my time?
CRM0001 3 years ago
You believe a lot of things. Alas I am asking for evidence, not what you believe. I am looking for reasons on which I should believe it too.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
You believe a lot of things as well. I have asked for evidence from you as well not what you believe. I have gotten nothing but circular arguments. I'm am challenging your world view as well and looking for reasons on which I should believe them as well.
CRM0001 3 years ago
No evidence offered in this comment either. Bored with responding until you do so.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
ditto
CRM0001 3 years ago
No evidence here either, keep trying.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
CRM- God speaking w/ self-authenticating authority [how else could He speak?] is just something that Irish will not allow. God cannot be GOD in his autonomous system. It is "useless" to him. But he will still give an account to Him.
dbertube 3 years ago
False. You prove there IS a god and then I will consider in all honesty the words this god has said.
Until you prove it exists, what use are its words to me?
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Its called the impossibility of the contrary. You borrow from my world view to make yours work. You chide me for not giving you proof when you don't even have proof for your own world view that pulls the rug out of everything that you stand on. And you seem not to be able to see that....
CRM0001 3 years ago
Again no evidence here and I am bored asking for it. Present it or stop lying that you have it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Another one of your assumptions. Atheist scholar Michael Martin author of "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" and "The Case Against Christianity" has taken the time to give a response to this
argument and had 2 written debates with both Dr. John Fame and the other Michael Butler. But the GREAT irishmauddib refutes it by saying there is "no evidence here." ..........
CRM0001 3 years ago
So no, you are not giving me your evidence here either. Still waiting.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
continued...You win I haven't figured out how to beat this great argument of yours. I think I'm about done with you.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Of course you know how. You just have to give evidence. Im waiting for it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I did it's called the transendental argument for God's existence. And you haven't given a convincing argument against it. Just repeating yourself does not answer the argument. Do yourself a favor and go learn about it instead of playing silly!
CRM0001 3 years ago
A bogus argument where you declare something true without evidence and say it proves you right
In other words you just SAY that "logic, science, ethics" wouldnt make sense without god. You give no reason why nor back this up, you just say it
Then, having made this assumption you just declare based on nothing that it proves your case. In other words you assume god, assume your statement, and assumption A proves B
I have no time for arguments that prove themselves by assuming themselves. Next.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
"I have no time for arguments that prove themselves by assuming themselves."
So you have no time for demonstrating the laws of logic? One must employ them even in demonstrating them.
dbertube 3 years ago 3
I reject that assertion, they can be proved independantly. I am not going down this tanget with you. You use tangent after tangent to obfuscate the fact you have not offered me any evidence for this god entity. I am not about to embark down yet another tangent with you until you have the decorum to offer the evidence you have avoided offering for days.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
"they can be proved independantly" Are you seriously maintaining that when you go about demonstrating the validity of the laws of logic that you are not at the same time employing them? How exactly do you detach yourself from the principle of non-contradiction?
dbertube 3 years ago
I said I am not going to allow myself to be pushed down a tangent by you or your sock puppet account. I mean this. If you want citations of books by people who have engaged in proving the laws of logic independantly, and in some cases books about proving things as low level as 1+1=2 then PM me and I will provide you a reading list.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Again go learn about the argument first, look at the claims and then come back with something to discuss with some substance. What I pointed out for readers of this thread is that you hold to an argument that proves itself by assuming itself as well. The argument is which one of these two postions in this case accounts for logic, science, ethics. Again you should go study the argument and download the debate for a great example.
CRM0001 3 years ago
My response to the argument is plain, simply and I am happy with it. The whole argument is based on asserting something without evidence and then using that assertion to prove itself. Useless.
Also what do you mean "What I pointed out for readers of this thread". Are you also dbertube? It was him that just tried to assert that. Do not tell me that on top of all your other dishonesties you are using sock puppets as well? Say it aint so.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Self-authentication for ultimate authorities is logically inescapable, not "useless." You just don't seem to recognize that you too have an ult. authority or starting point that you begin apart from any external "evidence."
Unless and until you realize this all of your responses are futile.
dbertube 3 years ago
Still a tangent and still no evidence for your claim there is a god. Can you present such evidence or not?
irishmauddib 3 years ago
"DEAD MEN DO BLEED" look it up!!!
CRM0001 3 years ago
"Can you present such evidence or not?"
irishmauddib 3 years ago
By your response you show that you don't understand the argument. What I mean is that what you chide me for in asserting something without evidence and using that assertion to prove itself is somethig that you yourself have commited without even being able to see it, but I SEE IT when it comes to myself. It shows a double standard. No I am not dbertube. You assume just because he sees the samething I see we are the same people. This is similar to what you do with the evidence with evolution.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Still no evidence for your claims in this comment here. I have no interest in continuing this if you have no intention of either presenting some or admitting you cant.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"DEAD MEN DO BLEED" look it up!!!
CRM0001 3 years ago
Even the system is bored with you now and is marking you as spam.
Evidence or not?
irishmauddib 3 years ago
continued...Listen to the Bahsen and Stein Debate to see what my argument is if you don't understand what an impossibility of the contrary argument is. And you still can't prove your starting point!!
CRM0001 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Still I see no evidence here and Im bored asking for it. Present it or stop lying that you have it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
also what do you mean you can see yours? You are the one who thinks the uniformity comes from god arent you? Or have I mistaken that?
You can see yours? You can see this god? Oh pray tell where it is then.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I can see my presupposition. I know where I start and know that it is a presuppostion. I may not be able to prove it to you but it is a given for me. I believe that God set the laws of nature in motion yes. We live in a universe that is running down though. I can see God's fingerprints(figurative). Would you like me to point you in the right direction?
CRM0001 3 years ago
Is that not what I have been asking you for days? Point me to this god. I cant see it like you seem to imagine you can. Where is your evidence? Present it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
There would be no objectivity everything would be subjective and each person would be their own standard. That's why in the grand scheme of things guys Dan Barker can claim that we are no different objectively then a piece of broccoli, but to us subjectively try to make meaning out of things. We really don't know if this is true because it is only his subjective opinion trying to make sence of things.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Again you can argue this ad infinitum, however you are attempting an argument from implication. You say everything is subjective. Yes, so what? We work together and do the best we can with that. Sitting there with this attitude of "Its subjective.... I do not like that.... therefore it has to be objective.... therefore there is a god" is just useless argument from implication coupled with pointless wish thinking. It is of no use to me.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I would agrue that if I did start of with assumption that there is no god and that if that were really true than I really coundn't even argue. It's like starting off with the premise that there is no air while all the while you are breathing it. If it is the case that we arose without any interference from an outside intelligence or that there is no outside intelligence then reason an abstract concept is something that man just "made up" as well, and really means nothing but what you want it too
CRM0001 3 years ago
False analogy. Air can be shown to be required for continued living. Air can be shown to exist too.
You are assuming the existence of a god and then assuming the necessity of its existence to even argue about it. This is circular reasoning as you have one assumption supporting the second supporting the first ad infinitum.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
How can you have logic and reason in an arbitrary world? That is the point. You circular reason at this point as well. Eveyone circular reasons when you get to the starting presupposition.
CRM0001 3 years ago
We because we evolved in the universe by its rules, so why would we not be subject to its rules and context?
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Here it is again, you are assuming that "we evolved in the universe by its rules"
This is circular reasoning as you have one assumption supporting the second supporting the first ad infinitum.
CRM0001 3 years ago
False, I am making no such assumption, I am merely going where the evidence leads and making the best interpretation based on the evidence. The evidence suggests we evolved hence that is the conclusion I must work with. I cannot assume a creator or designer as I have no evidence available for such.
Totally unlike circular reasoning which, in theist terms, involves assuming a creator there is no sign of and then fitting the evidence to that. You are really failing to equate the two totally.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Your "best interpretation" is an assumption that is based on the evidence. Given the evidence how do you know your interpretation is the "best?" The evidence does not suggest that we evolved and you haven't shown that yet.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Of course it is an assumption based on the evidence. This however is completely different to you basing an assumption on something you have NO evidence for. Or if you have it, you seem to be too scared to give it after days of asking. I tire of this and I will not proceed with this conversation now except to repeatedly ask you for your evidence.
Your squirming and backflips to avoid having to give it were fun for about 2 days to watch but I tire of it now.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Test
CRM0001 3 years ago
Your admission destroys your claim. If its an assumption it hasnt been proven. I dont believe the evidence shows what you assume it does. From my view you have NO evidence for what you believe it proves. I tire as well in asking you to give me evidence for your starting point which you *HAVE NOT* so I guess I will do the same. You believe I was "squirming" & backfliping? You assume to much thats the problem....
CRM0001 3 years ago
Again I repeat provide your evidence as I am bored even talking to you since you constantly refuse to do it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
continued...It was fun to watch you not being able to account for reason given your world view.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Still refusing to provide your evidence. Come on, do you have any or not? I am agog to hear it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I've been asking you the same question!!!!
CRM0001 3 years ago
Still no evidence then?
irishmauddib 3 years ago
If one starts off with the unproven assumption that there is no God because it hasn't been proven to me yet argument, the conclusions that are reached will be greatly affected in the wrong direction. I admit that this is true for those who start with God as an assumption as well. Having the wrong starting point changes everything.
CRM0001 3 years ago
CRM- good luck in getting an answer from these guys as to their ult. starting point. They'll probably just dismiss it as meaningless and then turn around and ask u for urs or something. I think they know that once they do the jig is up. From that starting point will lead to incoherence since "all" they have to work with (if they were consistent) is only the present moment b-c philosophically (given their worldview) they really can't know anything-even evolution. They destroy epistemology.
dbertube 3 years ago 4
False, you must start from the point that the only things you can work with are the things you can show to exist. Therefore god doesnt come into it until you can show it exists.
This is not to start with an assumption that it doesnt exist, it just starts with the assumption that you can only work with what is available to you.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Where is the proof that you "must start" the way you say we "must start?" That is the assumption!
CRM0001 3 years ago
As I said, if you can show me how to use things that dont exists, or use things that are not available to me, I am ago to hear it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
This does not answer the question. If you can "show me" why this premiss is the truth of where I must start, I am ready to hear it as well. If all things are subjective then thats only subjective.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Of course it doesnt answer the question, the question is not answerable. I can only work with what is available to me and what I can see exists. Subjective it always will be yes, but its subjectivity based on whats real. It is not to assume something we have no evidence for and base assumptions on that. Not good. Not clever.
So yes, I must start only with things I can work with, until you can show me how to start with things that are not real.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
You tell me that we must start with "only what is available" to us, I ask why and for you to prove it and you say "the question is not answerable." Ok, how would you like it if I agrued like that.
CRM: We must start with God.
irish: Why should I start with God when he is not been proven?
CRM: That question is not answerable!
At this point you repeat yourself again the very thing I ask you to prove.
CRM0001 3 years ago
False again. Theres a difference between "what is available to us" and a god that you have not provided ANY evidence for and you know it.
Ive asked for days for evidence for this god on which you wish to start. You cant do it. You are doing backflips to avoid having to admit you cant do it. I tire of it. If you have no evidence then be the big man and admit it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
You missed the point. Im not asking you to prove "what is availble to us" I asking you to prove that that is where one must start. What is your evidence for that. How do you know that I know that I haven't provided any evidence? Prove that you know what is going on in my head. How do you know I can't give any evidence? What is your evidecne for that claim? I am in the process of showing the evidence I'm just waiting for you to be the "big man" and admit that you have a presupposition as well.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Again, if you can show me how we can use what is not available to us then you have a point. However since we cannot use what is not available to us, then a starting point of what is available to us is the only one we have.
The evidence for my claim that you can not provide evidence is your constant backflips to avoid providing any. Provide it or not, as I am bored now.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Then you say "Subjective it will always will be yes." You agreed. Then you say "but its subjectivity based on whats real." I said given your position "all things are subjective." Whats real to you may not be real to someone else if it is subjective. In other words what's real is subjective.
CRM0001 3 years ago
If this were true then even the most basic communication would be impossible to us.
Which apparently it is as Ive asked for evidence for days and you cant answer.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Yes it is true that "even the most basic communication would be impossible to us" if your world view is true.
You say "which apparently it is." I hope thats not what you believe because that really would be silly. I'll keep on working to show you your presuppositon and if successful will attempt showing the evidence. The reason is because this is the crux of the issue which "apparantly" you cant see.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Ah nothing like twisting my words rather than addressing them huh? It is clear this is not what I was saying. I was saying that if what is real to me was not real to someone else all the time then even basic communication would not be possible.
This is evidence therefore that since we can communicate there must be a certain amount of shared reality.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I was not twisting your words, and I did address them. If you go back and read what you wrote you'll see that it is equivocal. That's why I said "hope" which is a qualifier. I agree that it it must be "all the time" but given your world view this cannot be accounted for and can mean anything anyone one wants that is the point. Yes there is shared reality but given your world view you cannot account for that.
CRM0001 3 years ago
False, you did twist my words, from what I did say into what I did not.
Again I am bored, I will pander to nothing you say now until such time as you present your evidence that all appearances suggest you are lying about and do not have.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
If you say so irishmauddib it must be true. The great irishmauddib has spoken again. Again I can't argue against that powerful of an argument. Lets see if you keep to your words "I will pander to nothing you say now ."
CRM0001 3 years ago
So no evidence for the existence of god here either? Im still waiting.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
It's been given, why should I repeat it? It's your answer that continues to be the same. So I'm still waiting for an intelligent answer instead of claiming I gave no evidence.
CRM0001 3 years ago
Nope no evidence contained within this comment either.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
This is just a repeat of your same claim. The transcendental argument is the evidence and proof. Now interact with it.
CRM0001 3 years ago
I already did in another comment, go read it.
So nope, no evidence in this comment here either.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Like I said I'll let the readers of this thread decide. But you really should go brush up on what the argument is as a whole before you go making short little comments saying that you refuted it when scholars have written whole papers trying to refute it.
CRM0001 3 years ago
And like I said I do not care what the readers think. I am asking YOU for evidence simply for MY benefit, not theirs. You havent presented me with any which is a shame but I will cope with it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Like I said I am willing to get down and dirty with this, do you want my email? We could start where I believe I showed my points?
CRM0001 3 years ago
I keep email and youtube seperate. You tube has a PM system. You are welcome to use it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago 2
Many of the great scientific minds of the not so distant past were believers in God and practiced science with the understanding that it would work because God instituted laws that govern the universe(hence the uniformity of nature). You guys have changed the rules as to how we are to understand science. Science is not possible without the uniformity of nature. You would not be able to come to any conclusions if tomorrow would not be like the past.
CRM0001 3 years ago
It is nothing to do with changing the rules. It is occams razor. If things work then do not introduce extra superflous elements to explain it. All scientific discovery works without the assumption of god, just like in laplaces famous quote, so we just cut it out. My garden grows without me having to add the assumption of garden fairys.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Yes it does. I disagree as stated above. Just to say that "things work" does not answer the question. Scientific discovery works because of the assumption of the uniformity of nature. Which given your world view cannot account for it as well. Why sould I accept your starting point, it's all subjective anyway according to your position?
CRM0001 3 years ago
Theres no such assumption. It is in fact a statistical analysis. If it worked one way before and appears to have always worked that way, then statistically the safest prudent course is to act as if it will continue to work that way.
This is far from an assumption that it WILL stay uniform, it is instead simply doing what I keep asking you to do! That is: Work only with what we have available to us.
Right now all we have available to us is a universe that to our knowledge has only acted one way
irishmauddib 3 years ago
This is semantics. Are you trying to say that there is no assumptions in a statistical analysis? Of course there is! Are you saying that there are no assumptions in taking "safest prudent course?" Of course there is! This is a cop-out. If you can't see the assumption in the last statement I really don't know how else to point it out.
CRM0001 3 years ago