He's comparing apples and oranges. We can prove that 2+2=4, but the problem with a deity is that it one existed, it would not necessarily conform to any convention of logic we know. That is not the same as claiming nonexistence; that is claiming there *might* be something out there somewhere that we cannot comprehend with our usual methods. The agnostic does not say "nothing is certain"; the agnostic says the existence of a deity is uncertain.
You know, people really need to know philosophy. I went and watched all the philosophical videos from the beginning, because I wanted what was promised - truth from first principle. I had never heard of this concept before. Somebody could actually tell me not only the truth, but how to discern truth from non-truth? Mindblowing. People are really crippled without this knowledge. I used to believe "nothing is certain" for awhile, was my head ever in a mess.
Philosophy, and science aside, I'd like to make a point. Atheism is too much of an "I Hate God Club". They resent religion, and even believers. I rarely see an atheist take a live and let live stance. Tends to attract very arrogant, snooty, smart ass, self righteous know it alls. It actually reminds me of a religion. This is part of the reason why many agnostics refuse to identify with atheists. Atheists suck!! Agnostics Rule!! Hahaha
Numbers are mere concepts, nothing real in our universe. If I had 2 rocks and ask the sum of them did you think is 1 + 1 = 2? That is a mistake because of them might be bigger than the other, which it leads us to think that the correct answer is either less than 2 or more than 2 depend on the reference rock used as the parameter for the number 1.
No“Nothing is certain” is a LOGICAL contradiction?
Then if I told you “do whatever you want”; and you do whatever you want, then you are not doing whatever you want because you are following my orders?? Sounds stupid for me.
If you think everything is certain then check for Newton’s 2nd law; which failed to describe spectrophotometry, heat transfer, the atom behavior, electron trajectory, etc.
Okay, its perfectly fine to be Agnostic. Why are people so hung up on labels ? have people lost their individualism ? Yeah sure i am agnostic, if you want to call it that, i believe at this present time theres not enough proof for existence of God, but i am open to the possibility of one existing, just like i am open to the possibility of one not existing, is that so bad ?
@justmyselfatalltimes I don't know that it's inherently bad, but a failure of logic in one area can translate to a failure of logic in another.
The agnostic approach will leave you susceptible to a lot of tricks. I mean when you hear a bump in the night, you have to wonder if it might be a ghost, even though ghosts do not exist.
When the government steals from you, you can't be certain that it's immoral, even though it is.
i'm called an idiot for believing in god, i'm called an idiot for not believing in god. i'll continue living with my agnostic beliefs and stop giving a shit if there is or not.
Strong agnosticism is the rejection of gnosticism. The spagetti monster argument is silly in this context. Truth value is moot. To say "I have knowledge of the missing elements of the table of elements" would invite a strong agnostic challenge. This is because the assertion is over the unknown is without consensus. Strong agnostic argument discounts the missing piece of the puzzle... not the puzzle.
The statement is not that "nothing is certain." The statement is that "you can rely on Empiricism, while at the same time allowing for the possibility that, however minimal, there may be something that exists while at the same time being unmeasurable at the current time." Stephan, you do come across as an obnoxious pedant akin to conservative Christians in this one. Sorry.
Stephan Molyneux is obviously highly intelligent and a brilliant thinker. However, I don't understand his logic in relation to Agnosticism. Even if it the probability (which Dawkins has argued) that a God or Gods do not exist is 99.9 percent, this does not bump it up to 100 percent. I don't understand people arguing for complete logic when they don't seem to employ it.
You misrepresent agnosticism by making it absolute. Being agnostic towards a specific concept, just like the concept of god, does not equal being agnostic about the whole universe. Quantum physics are agnostic towards the exact position AND speed of any given electron. You cant know both of them, out of a given set of problems.
What do you think about string theory? As some physicist said: "Is that a theory of physics or philosophy?" In some sense, we cannot have direct experimental proof for that theory, except mathematics (like: ok, that works). How we can be certain about other things? Extra dimensions? Again, in mathematics. We are very limited, as we all know, we make errors on daily basis (myself maybe in the moment of writing this text :D) And what if there is something beyond our logical reasoning?
I believe it is false to say that agnosticism is based on error = truth.
This seems like the ultimate strawman.
Agnosticism is simply the idea that it would have been possible for a creator to bring this universe into being and choose to remain secret to all or most of its living creation. God may even have died.
While I find agnosticism weak, there's nothing irrational about it. It's possible.
Humans may one day soon be able to create universes in our laboratories. We will be Creators.
@ChristophDollis The problem is that god has been falsified, and if you take all his properties away (or put him into another universe) then you are left with an empty claim.
If this "god" creature lives in another universe we cannot interact with or understand, then that proves all the religious con-men to be liars, that made it up anyway.
This is an idea quite in vogue by many of the mainstream physicists today, that there may indeed be a very large number of universes outside of ours (and there is no reason they couldn't occasionally intersect, incidentally, albeit such intersections may also be catastrophic), each existing on a different "brane". These universes may have radically different physical laws including mathematical. YouTube's comment length doesn't permit me to go into more, but it's a start.
Man, I REALLY enjoyed this video. You're one of the few who don't sit around trying to impress everyone with your grasp of latin words in philosophy hah. I agree with 99.999% of everything you say (and I love your style of presentation), yet I still stand as a proud agnostic :) Most agnostics, I think, enjoy philosophical discourse - but the moment they open their mouths (and make statements), they cease being agnostic.For an agnostic to make *any* statement, they suddenly become hypocrites.
i love all of your videos, i agree with just about all of the facts you present.
the only thing is that since you seem to like physics and what not then you must believe in gravity, but we can't detect it... we only see the effects of it. the static you refer to isn't outside... its here... we just don't fully understand it. and never will and can't its analog to digital.
So have you been to every inch of this universe to determine that all these things you say don't exist cause they don't have mass, energy, or effect according to you aren't really there? Or are you just all knowing and omnipotent? Seems to me you think it only exists if you can see it. Yet you are on this little spec we call Earth and you really have seen shit of the universe...Are you aware the many different frequencies in the universe that are undetectable yet our eyes only see 7.
If "Nothing is Certain" is an invalid or untrue statement how bout the opposite "Everything is Certain" is that a valid or true statement cause if it is... guess what 2+2= titties. Maybe "Somethings are Certain and Something are not Certain" Your logic is epically flawed. Your talking bout this is not something new its been around forever. Well Socrates said "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance." This wisdom seems to have eluded you friend. Yeah and read some Einstein.
You wouldn't. Well, I guess you could look at the hormone/genome of the gay person but that is aside the point. Just because there is no direct indicator of being gay doesn't mean the person isn't gay.
I am an agnostic in the same way Richard Dawkins is technically an agnostic. I am a 99% leaning athiest agnostic but any rational person can't be an athiest because there is no way of disproving the existence of a deity. That is not to say that the probability of a deity is very probable, quite the contrary.
@cachimadrid Not really. Being gay is not a choice, it is not an ideology, it is not achieved by rational thinking, it is not achieved by evidence and rigor and it is a frivolous comparison to my comment..
@trentstrong So...you´re going to say that you are 99% leaning to you don´t know. And I´m sorry to disagree with you but, how would you ever know if someone is gay if never CHOOSES to demonstrate that way. And besides that, it is a choice of their organism.
@trentstrong What is in question here, is not a God, is the idea of a God...Does the idea of God exists or doesn´t? If you doubt about the existence of a God, you are already assuming there is one without first analyzing the feasibility of the idea. First you have to prove the possibility of the idea of a God, and then discuss, based on what you got, if there is or isn´t the possibility of the existence of a God. I think agnosticism doesn´t fit anymore when speaking of Gods.
This guy's a half step above the Kent Hovinds... No agnostic person describes themself as that because they think there's no such thing as truth.. Simply that they, and humanity, currently do not have the means to adequately answer the question and subject with which they have deemed themselve agnostic about. There you go... A refutation for this video in one comment.
Honestly, this guy is the smartest sounding dumbass I've wasted my life watching in a long time. He's just another "believer" that tries to discount logic in favor of that nice little box he's put himself in.
What is beyond death cannot be known by humans at this point in time (possibly any point in time). What is beyond the universe we reside is also not known, and given the size of the universe, probably won't be known.
True knowledge is knowing that you know nothing (for sure).
Oh, and the argument that "nothing is certain" is nowhere near to being a logical contradiction. The argument, properly stated, is that certainty in regard to objective truth is impossible. Humans can know their own subjective truth to be true - for example, I know that I am thinking - but I cannot know that God exists, or that this keyboard exists, because I could very well be a brain in a vat.
Whats interesting is how can you say there is no life after death.Since death means nonexistence,this means you came out of nonexistence into existence because a 150 years ago you did not exist.
While I would really like to get the point, why can't the statement simply be "We might not be able to state a truth because error might equal truth" instead of the definitive "cannot"?
Both concepts presupose that Existence is what it is. Truth is a specific relationship between whats in your mind and what exists. Like wise Error is synoymous with false.
False=Truth. Might as well not open your mouth, stick your head in a hole and pray for a savior.
Maybe you should enlighten we feeble minded atheist who can't be certain of anything and must rely on our feelings for judging reality. Enlighten us MrHuzzah on what the agnostic position is.......
@MrHuzzah some folks can only see a small amount of the picture and think they have it all figured out, but i feel as agnostics we see the whole picture and realize that we cannot figure it out 100% as it's mere size is to large for our mind to comprehend presently. i hope that little metaphor is decent.
@stefbot Charlatan... Agnostics don't believe truth doesn't exist. They don't believe they, or anyone, currently has adequate knowledge and means to take an objective stance or opinion on the subject of God, etc ... You fail. But you've succeeded at the art of bullshit which makes you appear smart, because you're fairly articulate. But you're not. And your views on free will, if I recall, were self-defeating and entirely faith-based.
He might be in doubt of your point... which I am also in doubt of. Everything in science is a probability, and you're trying to impose certainty in a very... strange way, that even when I was agnostic I had never heard of or considered. I'm currently an atheist based on the probability of god(s) being so low... but your argument seems to be a bit illogical and opinionated, taking things to an uncomfortable place, while being VERY smug about it.
The only thing he said that sounded reasonable was that there is little doubt that most agnostics are intelligent.
I suggest that he learns about quantum mechanics where NOTHING is certain. In REALITY, we actually have one foot in the future and one in the past. He should put that in his pipe and smoke it.
For some reason, it is very disconcerting to most individuals to not know. In this respect, athiests and the religous alike have something in common.... belief.
DUDE! YES! You took the words right out of my mouth about atheists (just like theists) have beliefs. I give you props, finally someone else agrees with me.
If "Nothing is certain" then how could he learn about quantum mechanics? Be no point. If nothing is certain then there is no past and no future, in fact me stating this and you trying to argue against is pointless. You contradict yourself by opening your mouth, by breathing, by drinking your water, By Living.
I can see how he might have misinterpreted the merriam-webster dictionary of agnosticism, but still, that's a pretty big jump from "some things are uncertain" to "nothing is certain."
Moreover, he says that if God is unknown, God cannot have any properties. Yet then he attributes God as having the property of nonexistence (which is a property in itself).
He also made many reductio ad ridiculum fallacies as well by bringing up "elves, dwarves, etc.. It doesnt strengthen his argument.
Wait? What? There are WAY too many things that are fallacious and not true in this video.
Agnosticism pertaining to theism is completely different than agnosticism pertaining to reality. Agnosticis of theism simply attribute that god is uncertain. I dont know how he came up with "nothing is certain" when agnostics of theism say that "only some things, such as God, are uncertain." Thats a straw man fallacy, because he's misrepresenting every agnostic of theism as an agnostic of reality.
As an agnostic I believe that we are a creature that can not and will not know why we are and just understand that we are. To every answer to a question there will be another question to answer. And I guess if we answer the final question we will be God, but understanding the creature that we are, i doubt we will get that far. but then as an agnostic..I could be wrong =)
Honestly, I just say everything is simply concepts. God doesn't exist if everything we percieve is indeed real, BUT it is impossible to validate that what we sense is real and that I or anyone else is not simply hallucinating this or whatever. We can't say, "Oh, that's impossible," because (as far as we know) no one knows what it's like to BE a hallucination or fictional character. My belief in a god also depends on definition. I think too much. :(
if saying nothing a certain is a failure on somebodies part then u even saying its a failure is a fail...any statement about certainty is bound by that same logic...if u even consider that logic. the fact that nothing is certain isnt really valid anyway cuz on our everyday lvl 2+2=4 all the time...thats certain. saying nothing is certain on a scale much larger id say it would be a fair statement to say nothing was certain. btw im agnostic and i dont believe it til i see it bitch!
Why do you imply that our agnostic statements are all statements of truth. Personally, my personal statements are all considered THEORY. Why would my statements be considered illogical contradictions if I am not claiming to state truth.
ur consistancy argument as properties ofthis universe is illogical since you dont know if the other universe is like this universe. u CAn ascribe properties to something unknown becuase you dont know it yet, ppl do it all the time.|we can correct people based on what works best| it doesnt need to be 100% accurate|again existence isnt a property of subjective reality but objective| i dont think agnositcm is nonsense a true scientist is on the bench till it
can be proven till then he cannot make a statement for something he thinks up exist or not to exist because he simply doesnt know| ur agnositc integrity part is incorrect because the probability of your statements being correct are great| the last part is insulting really.
since you cant either make truth statements like us yet you do it| i would refrain from telling people to shut up publicly, since not everyone unlike me tells you to shut up. lastly your part about making truth statements and living them, well many people have their own truth statements and live them and they can be good for the rest of us or REALLY BAD. so your last argument is not smart but it is logical. u cant see though where you contradict yourself. well im done.
im not versed in philosophy, but that doesnt make me stupid, just incase. who exactly claimed concepts cant be extended to another conceptual universe. thats not very smart. u keep presuming facts yet, the act of measuring anything changes it properties slightly, so you arent getting your intened goal which is 100% knowledge yet u still claim this. if you want to claim this someone would have to make you a quantum measuring device that measures probability 100%
ok static things.. yes nothing is static from what we know, no1 has ever proven anything static in nature. what exists as measurement is probability. as for existence and non existence. thats pretty stupid for anyone to claim non-existence, and no its not a contradiction, its pragmatism. but cmon here REALLY whos THAT stupid so say non-existnce exists! also, your argument that is native to this universe i see no problem using it for another conceptual universe, since we are comparing universes.
no 1 has ever proven either, so ppl can play these language games all they want but theyre forgetting about practicality/pragmatism. you cannot prove everything through just words, i would say this is a failure of defining words/what has not been defined yet or conceptualized. a language deficiency.
i hate it when utube doesnt post properly. >:(. what were my other points so far.. somethig may exist but according to you if it hasnt been measured it doesnt exist. is that (not personal) ignorance or the failure of deficient methods of measurement, bad science/methods that havnt been created yet., also there is empirical evidence (everything is questionable always[no static fact exists because of subjective reality and the nature of measurement] that ghosts do exist. but the leap from ghost
to god is REALLY BIG, since the concepts of ghosts gods and santa clause are VERY different, god (master of universe, santa fat red guy on sleigh, ghost [thats more complicated but not as the god concept].
hmm. if the measurement to detect somemthing does not exist meaning it maybe hasnt been created yet does the object being searched for not exist. no. the same concept applies to things like "ghosts" etc.; nothing is certain. if that is nonsense then prove that something is certain. you cant, its just language "games". neither than can i prove that something is certain.
A few thousand years ago, tribes man living on secluded islands had 'explored' what they throught to be the entire universe (their island). As the sea was rough and they had never seen other land, they made conclusions on the knowledge of their universe. 1. We are the only civilisation on earth. 2. We are the most advanced civilisation. 3. et, etc. Then one day, a boat turned up with foreign exporers on board. Immediately their views on the universe changed. This guys argument is invalid.
You fail to understand that some statements that are in principle verifiable can not be shown to be false (are not falsifiable). We may be inclined to believe that the statement 'There are, or once were, unicorns' is false, but in fact we cannot show it to be so. In fact many claims similar to this can neither be falsified nor verified, and, are therefore impossible to know the truth of. Existence claims need to be treated carefully. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.
Belief in order to be rational must be proportioned to the evidence, and when speaking of claims for which there can never be evidence, agnosticism is the only rational position. Of course, when a logically inconsistent set is postulated; such as an all loving, knowing & powerful God in a world that contains evil, then we must proportion our belief accordingly, and, it here that we can be both an atheist and rational at the same time. Naturally this is not the only example.
One last point for the time being regarding the definition of existence that you endorse. It is clearly not very liberal, and you are welcome to define it however you like, unfortunately you will fall into problems of equivocation with people by virtue of your definition differing in critical ways to theirs. There is really a lot to be said here, but my advice is to reconsider your definition of existence since it doesn't hold much resemblance to the way it is predicated of things. Good luck.
We can judge unicorns unlikely--more than we can do for god as broadly defined.
Absence of evidence is NEVER evidence of absence on its own. Only when we combine it with the fact that we'd expect evidence is concluding nonexistence not Argument From Ignorance.
Are u SURE 'I love u but sometimes I let u suffer' is incoherent? Yer SURE that's what love means from the divine perspective? Is it really this, & not the likelihood of Bible being made-up, which leads you (and I) to reject it?
winocologist, you said "We can judge unicorns unlikely--more than we can do for god as broadly defined."
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Probability is a different concern all together. Like I have already said you might feel that the claim 'There are, or once were, unicorns' is false; that is to say, you deem it unlikely. However, as I explained above that claim is not falsifiable.
winocologist you said "Absence of evidence is NEVER evidence of absence on its own."
You are incorrect. I think a simple example with suffice. Lets say two people are standing in a small empty room, and one claims, 'in this room with us is a visible fully grown pink elephant.' The other looks around and there is no sign of anything besides himself and the person claiming this. In this case, absence of evidence of a fully grown pink elephant is good evidence of there being no such elephant.
I'm not sure why you attacked what I said in the first place because you only seem to agree with me that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence granted the relevant circumstances.
I see no benefit in removing the context of my example about the elephant, furthermore I never claimed that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence regardless of the context. It is now clear to me that there was equivocation with the use of the term 'on its own'. Anyway :)
p.s. This universe has things which are neither true nor false, such as:
The next statement is true.
The last statement is false.
Asking if either statement is true is a failing of logic. Your attack on agnosticism is generally good -- especially the face-in-the-static analogy -- but it is not necessarily internally invalid -- eg: perfect demon. It's just absurd.
Well good thing that you are only arguing against hardcore agnostics. You know you don't have to be completely agnostic . You can be agnostic with certain beliefs.
I admire your rhetoric talent, really, but your ranting isn't a serious approach imho. You are using the same argumentation pattern alll over again which isnt even used by all agnostics, it seems you haven't really talked to different kinds of agnostics. An agnostic as I define it wouldnt tell an atheist or theist they were wrong because that would imply taking the exact opposite side. As an agnostic I'm saying I dont know, if you do know, it's fine, but without first-hand info I wont believe it
Ah ha! I have been thinking about your argument for some time and it is flawed!
Flawed because if god exists then it exists in another dimension, and in another dimension our definitions may not apply. On top of that, only a FOOL would say god does not exist or that he does exist because based on logic, science and experience nobody in there right mind can say for sure one or the other.
""Is", "is." "is" — the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment."
I must admit that I gave up on this straw man refutation at 9:03. On this particular mistreatment of the agnostic view point I have a few comments.
The agnostic argument is not, "nothing is certain" which is easy to dismiss. It is on the other hand, "somethings are not certain." It may not necessarily follow, but it than could be said that some things are certain. If nothing else: Cogito, ergo dubito, ergo sum. and 2+2=4. Epistemology is more complex than stated here.
simply refute them. You have such strong beliefs, that you refuse to give any time of day to anything that goes against them, even per say, statistics and data. Hume would be ashamed. I cant change your belief system, cause your beliefs are too strong. Thus, arguing with you is futile, even when I use counterarguments and the like. Furthermore, you do not allow dissent against you. Thats what fanatics do. Socrates would also be ashamed.
Reverse psychology my friend. I got you to not delete the comment by saying this. That was my intention. Thus, more people are able to read it. It seemed to work, didnt it? Thanks by the way.
How can I give you a counterargument and have you listen? I have many times before. All you do is use straw man arguments in defense. When I do provide counter arguments, like gravity, or energy, or aliens, etc., and how these things go against your logic, you
People who dissent and disagree against stefbot stefan molyneaux get blocked from commenting, or their comments get erased. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE! You are following a man who does not allow ANYONE to disagree with him. Stop worshipping and start challenging him. You yourself will become smarter. Start thinking for yourself for once, instead of having someone do it for you.
Oh man, that is just wonderful -- "this comment will get erased" - if it is true, there is no point writing it -- and if it is false, it contradicts your argument! :) Rather than spewing out such pointless and petty fear-mongering, why not take the time to come up with a rational counterargument or two? Oh wait, to ask that question is to answer it, never miiind... :)
I was showing how aliens are unknown to us yet we still give them properties. However, I guess you helped proved my point by stating that aliens physical entities, which is a property, so thanx. Things that are undiscovered or unknown to us can have properties and still be unknown, such as aliens.
Complete empricism, no rationalism. That is what your argument is. The problem is that things can exist outside of our knowledge, despite how dont want to admit it.
What else is there besides physical? Under the given conditions in the universe only certain things can exist. So naming what aliens MUST be, isn't unreasonable.
I am talking about the unknown in regards to whether we know of something existing or not. Aliens existing is unknown. God existing is unknown. However, they still both have properties.
We're disagreeing on the definition of unknown. I'm talking about the "unknown." We give aliens properties. We dont know if they exist, but we say that they are organisms from other planets. Aliens existence are unknown but we still give them properties. One day maybe science will possibly find out if they are existant or not. Until then, aliens are unknown, yet still have properties. Just like god. God is unknown, but we still give him properties. Theres no illogical thing about that
Great, now I feel like a complete retard. This video was very insightful, and I plan on sharing it with anyone that listens.
My argument against atheism used to be that "it takes just as much faith to not believe in a god as it does to believe it one", thus I proclaimed myself in the middle ground agnostic position. But now you have pointed out the error of my ways... better hop on one side of the fence. Shoot- being agnostic was just an awesome loop hole.
I would humbly submit that a complete retard would never be able to understand this video, so I hope that you are proud of your intellectual abilities and integrity... :)
I was agnostic awhile before becoming an atheist. I was convinced by the idea that we cannot know if a god exists or not. Then it was pointed out to me that every mythological creature was unknowable and that I certainly didn't believe in them. The likelihood of a god existing is extremely low, and that is why I'm an atheist. I'm just as atheistic about god as I am about unicorns and big foot.
Reflecting back from five months ago when I watched this video, I have yet again shifted my perception of 'God'. Do I believe there is a supernatural 'man-like' creature that exists outside the physical bounds of the universe? no. However, I do believe there is an ever present unifying force which holds the universe together and we as living beings serve as a way for the universe to self-reflect upon itself.
Well maybe the logic of our universe does not work for that static universe. That would also make that statement false but i just thought it was funny. Nvm lol. Nice vid. I agree with you.
I believed I was an agnostic because I admit it it seemed like the clever and diplomatic thing to do but after watching this video at least now I can happily say I am an atheist... and understand fully what it means to be one etc etc etc. If you understand what I mean :), thanks.
unknown that we assign properties to. He makes knowledge claims of god yet he says that you cannot make knowledge claims of god yourself unless you create a contradiction, he states that another universe cannot be assigned ANY properties, yet he himself describes it as incomprehensible, which is a property. Blah, blah, blah, etc.
I could go on and on but I think you get the point.
Frankly, I find this entire argument to just be goofy and full of fallacies. Agnosticism by the end of the video is completely defined incorrectly and extremely exaggerated upon; he tries to say that god doesnt exist is a provable statement (dont see how anyone could say this with the present knowledge, or lack there of that we have), he says that anything that is unknown cannot have properties yet there are many things of science (gravity, energy, the undiscovered, aliens even) that are
Gravity and energy aren't unknown though. He isn't saying the unknown don't have properties - he is saying that to give something unknown properties, it is no longer unknown.
First of all, I'm agnostic and take offense to this video. Your premise is completely false. Agnostics don't say a square circle is round etc. The only think agnostics say is that God is unknowable. Supernatural phenomena is unexplainable. No one knows if God exists or not. Since you claim there is no God, please tell me how you know that.
Read Thomas H. Huxley. Agnosticism is a belief system. When the question do you believe in God is asked, my answer is "I believe the concept of the supernatural and God is unknowable."
You either believe or you don't. There is no fence sitting. If you are unsure that there is a god then you don't believe because you have yet to be convinced. If I asked you if you believed in unicorns, what would you say? That it's unknowable? Only a completely spineless person would do that.
Are we talking unicorns or God? I'm confused. God is a concept that is supernatural and completely unknowable in any definition... unicorns were a creature created by man... however, a horselike creature with a horn may have existed before man did, but we have yet to find the fossil record.
Oh, so god wasn't a creature created by man? That's new. What about a man-like creature that exists in the clouds? Obviously false, so they remove any falsifiability from god and there you go, modern god. You're really pretty thick if you haven't thought about this at all yet. How old are you?
Oh really? Hmmm. Do I have a $5 bill in my pocket? If you say yes or no without some valid evidence, you are simply guessing. If you say "I don't know", you're simply being rational. Get it now? Sheeesh. LOL
Ok, so you are saying that you want me to guess? Sorry, I don't do that. So my answer remains "I believe it's unknowable at this time whether or not god/God exists."
Only a Sith deals in absolutes!
QuatFax 2 months ago
He's comparing apples and oranges. We can prove that 2+2=4, but the problem with a deity is that it one existed, it would not necessarily conform to any convention of logic we know. That is not the same as claiming nonexistence; that is claiming there *might* be something out there somewhere that we cannot comprehend with our usual methods. The agnostic does not say "nothing is certain"; the agnostic says the existence of a deity is uncertain.
shammadamma 3 months ago
I'm not generally a huge fan of your philosophy, but this video is bang on the money.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
I had to chuckle, I cry agnostic, when I'm tired of arguing. I call it my "Chickening out" fib. Getting stronger. At least I can laugh at myself.
annewilken 3 months ago
You know, people really need to know philosophy. I went and watched all the philosophical videos from the beginning, because I wanted what was promised - truth from first principle. I had never heard of this concept before. Somebody could actually tell me not only the truth, but how to discern truth from non-truth? Mindblowing. People are really crippled without this knowledge. I used to believe "nothing is certain" for awhile, was my head ever in a mess.
Zerafinel 4 months ago
Philosophy, and science aside, I'd like to make a point. Atheism is too much of an "I Hate God Club". They resent religion, and even believers. I rarely see an atheist take a live and let live stance. Tends to attract very arrogant, snooty, smart ass, self righteous know it alls. It actually reminds me of a religion. This is part of the reason why many agnostics refuse to identify with atheists. Atheists suck!! Agnostics Rule!! Hahaha
davedaddy101 6 months ago
Will somebody PLEASE get the damn phone?!
Shakleton42 6 months ago
Thank you once again, sir.
plarfusa 7 months ago
Dang, Stef, that must have been a REALLY important phone call. I counted 4 separate calls in the last 4 minutes.
MrGarky 8 months ago
Numbers are mere concepts, nothing real in our universe. If I had 2 rocks and ask the sum of them did you think is 1 + 1 = 2? That is a mistake because of them might be bigger than the other, which it leads us to think that the correct answer is either less than 2 or more than 2 depend on the reference rock used as the parameter for the number 1.
Ledar51 8 months ago
@Ledar51 And you're using mathematics in what you just said.
slaughtz 7 months ago
No“Nothing is certain” is a LOGICAL contradiction?
Then if I told you “do whatever you want”; and you do whatever you want, then you are not doing whatever you want because you are following my orders?? Sounds stupid for me.
If you think everything is certain then check for Newton’s 2nd law; which failed to describe spectrophotometry, heat transfer, the atom behavior, electron trajectory, etc.
Ledar51 8 months ago
Okay, its perfectly fine to be Agnostic. Why are people so hung up on labels ? have people lost their individualism ? Yeah sure i am agnostic, if you want to call it that, i believe at this present time theres not enough proof for existence of God, but i am open to the possibility of one existing, just like i am open to the possibility of one not existing, is that so bad ?
justmyselfatalltimes 8 months ago
@justmyselfatalltimes I don't know that it's inherently bad, but a failure of logic in one area can translate to a failure of logic in another.
The agnostic approach will leave you susceptible to a lot of tricks. I mean when you hear a bump in the night, you have to wonder if it might be a ghost, even though ghosts do not exist.
When the government steals from you, you can't be certain that it's immoral, even though it is.
Agnosticism is just intellectual paralysis.
MrGarky 8 months ago
Philosophical Pwneage!!!!
chazdoit 9 months ago
Atheism>
TheEthanwashere 9 months ago
Comment removed
kelbykross1 9 months ago
I dont believe in ghosts :)
concernedagain 9 months ago
i'm called an idiot for believing in god, i'm called an idiot for not believing in god. i'll continue living with my agnostic beliefs and stop giving a shit if there is or not.
SVTcoolguy 10 months ago
Strong agnosticism is the rejection of gnosticism. The spagetti monster argument is silly in this context. Truth value is moot. To say "I have knowledge of the missing elements of the table of elements" would invite a strong agnostic challenge. This is because the assertion is over the unknown is without consensus. Strong agnostic argument discounts the missing piece of the puzzle... not the puzzle.
blue4meridian 1 year ago
The statement is not that "nothing is certain." The statement is that "you can rely on Empiricism, while at the same time allowing for the possibility that, however minimal, there may be something that exists while at the same time being unmeasurable at the current time." Stephan, you do come across as an obnoxious pedant akin to conservative Christians in this one. Sorry.
Lunarwill 1 year ago
Stephan Molyneux is obviously highly intelligent and a brilliant thinker. However, I don't understand his logic in relation to Agnosticism. Even if it the probability (which Dawkins has argued) that a God or Gods do not exist is 99.9 percent, this does not bump it up to 100 percent. I don't understand people arguing for complete logic when they don't seem to employ it.
Lunarwill 1 year ago
Stefbot, how can one be absolutely sure about what is or what isn't in the unknown?
saltydog78 1 year ago
On a completely unrelated note, why is it that whenever I see that title, I'm reminded of the video game series "Halo"?
vspqbd 1 year ago
You misrepresent agnosticism by making it absolute. Being agnostic towards a specific concept, just like the concept of god, does not equal being agnostic about the whole universe. Quantum physics are agnostic towards the exact position AND speed of any given electron. You cant know both of them, out of a given set of problems.
BusterXXXL 1 year ago
@ChristophDollis I didnt saw your comment man. Thats the point
sinzaik 1 year ago
What do you think about string theory? As some physicist said: "Is that a theory of physics or philosophy?" In some sense, we cannot have direct experimental proof for that theory, except mathematics (like: ok, that works). How we can be certain about other things? Extra dimensions? Again, in mathematics. We are very limited, as we all know, we make errors on daily basis (myself maybe in the moment of writing this text :D) And what if there is something beyond our logical reasoning?
sinzaik 1 year ago
I am also against agnosticism. Atheism is the Truth.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman There's no such thing as an atheist.
Septimondo 1 year ago
@Septimondo Incorrect. Your denial of Truth renders you a cowardly inferior.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Truth is subjective.
Septimondo 1 year ago
@Septimondo Is that un-True or subjective?
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
@SeerTravisTruman Get a life.
Septimondo 1 year ago
@Septimondo No! There is objective truth and subjective truth.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
Jeez Stef, this is good stuff. Thanks man.
drew335533 1 year ago
I believe it is false to say that agnosticism is based on error = truth.
This seems like the ultimate strawman.
Agnosticism is simply the idea that it would have been possible for a creator to bring this universe into being and choose to remain secret to all or most of its living creation. God may even have died.
While I find agnosticism weak, there's nothing irrational about it. It's possible.
Humans may one day soon be able to create universes in our laboratories. We will be Creators.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
@ChristophDollis The problem is that god has been falsified, and if you take all his properties away (or put him into another universe) then you are left with an empty claim.
If this "god" creature lives in another universe we cannot interact with or understand, then that proves all the religious con-men to be liars, that made it up anyway.
SeerTravisTruman 1 year ago
M-Theory, Stefan.
This is an idea quite in vogue by many of the mainstream physicists today, that there may indeed be a very large number of universes outside of ours (and there is no reason they couldn't occasionally intersect, incidentally, albeit such intersections may also be catastrophic), each existing on a different "brane". These universes may have radically different physical laws including mathematical. YouTube's comment length doesn't permit me to go into more, but it's a start.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
i love this guy hes great at using philosaphy and helps you think outside the box
jayguy173 1 year ago
why is sefan not a philosaphy professor already?
jayguy173 1 year ago
Man, I REALLY enjoyed this video. You're one of the few who don't sit around trying to impress everyone with your grasp of latin words in philosophy hah. I agree with 99.999% of everything you say (and I love your style of presentation), yet I still stand as a proud agnostic :) Most agnostics, I think, enjoy philosophical discourse - but the moment they open their mouths (and make statements), they cease being agnostic.For an agnostic to make *any* statement, they suddenly become hypocrites.
danmu 1 year ago
i love all of your videos, i agree with just about all of the facts you present.
the only thing is that since you seem to like physics and what not then you must believe in gravity, but we can't detect it... we only see the effects of it. the static you refer to isn't outside... its here... we just don't fully understand it. and never will and can't its analog to digital.
thehorniak 1 year ago
If ever someone needed to take a trip dude...its you...go dose and then post a vid about what you learn.
Dracenfelz 1 year ago
So have you been to every inch of this universe to determine that all these things you say don't exist cause they don't have mass, energy, or effect according to you aren't really there? Or are you just all knowing and omnipotent? Seems to me you think it only exists if you can see it. Yet you are on this little spec we call Earth and you really have seen shit of the universe...Are you aware the many different frequencies in the universe that are undetectable yet our eyes only see 7.
Dracenfelz 1 year ago
If "Nothing is Certain" is an invalid or untrue statement how bout the opposite "Everything is Certain" is that a valid or true statement cause if it is... guess what 2+2= titties. Maybe "Somethings are Certain and Something are not Certain" Your logic is epically flawed. Your talking bout this is not something new its been around forever. Well Socrates said "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance." This wisdom seems to have eluded you friend. Yeah and read some Einstein.
Dracenfelz 1 year ago
strawman argument: you are misrepresenting the agnostic position.
also: "nothing is certain" is not the same as "not everything is certain (at this moment)".
Heissenburger 1 year ago
You wouldn't. Well, I guess you could look at the hormone/genome of the gay person but that is aside the point. Just because there is no direct indicator of being gay doesn't mean the person isn't gay.
And I am 99% atheist. Just like you are.
trentstrong 1 year ago
I am an agnostic in the same way Richard Dawkins is technically an agnostic. I am a 99% leaning athiest agnostic but any rational person can't be an athiest because there is no way of disproving the existence of a deity. That is not to say that the probability of a deity is very probable, quite the contrary.
trentstrong 1 year ago
@trentstrong That´s like saying I am 99% gay [not that I am] but fits the idea.
cachimadrid 1 year ago
@cachimadrid Not really. Being gay is not a choice, it is not an ideology, it is not achieved by rational thinking, it is not achieved by evidence and rigor and it is a frivolous comparison to my comment..
trentstrong 1 year ago
@trentstrong So...you´re going to say that you are 99% leaning to you don´t know. And I´m sorry to disagree with you but, how would you ever know if someone is gay if never CHOOSES to demonstrate that way. And besides that, it is a choice of their organism.
cachimadrid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trentstrong What is in question here, is not a God, is the idea of a God...Does the idea of God exists or doesn´t? If you doubt about the existence of a God, you are already assuming there is one without first analyzing the feasibility of the idea. First you have to prove the possibility of the idea of a God, and then discuss, based on what you got, if there is or isn´t the possibility of the existence of a God. I think agnosticism doesn´t fit anymore when speaking of Gods.
cachimadrid 1 year ago
This guy's a half step above the Kent Hovinds... No agnostic person describes themself as that because they think there's no such thing as truth.. Simply that they, and humanity, currently do not have the means to adequately answer the question and subject with which they have deemed themselve agnostic about. There you go... A refutation for this video in one comment.
AllWalksofLife 1 year ago
Honestly, this guy is the smartest sounding dumbass I've wasted my life watching in a long time. He's just another "believer" that tries to discount logic in favor of that nice little box he's put himself in.
What is beyond death cannot be known by humans at this point in time (possibly any point in time). What is beyond the universe we reside is also not known, and given the size of the universe, probably won't be known.
True knowledge is knowing that you know nothing (for sure).
ObsidianStriker 1 year ago
Oh, and the argument that "nothing is certain" is nowhere near to being a logical contradiction. The argument, properly stated, is that certainty in regard to objective truth is impossible. Humans can know their own subjective truth to be true - for example, I know that I am thinking - but I cannot know that God exists, or that this keyboard exists, because I could very well be a brain in a vat.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
Kind of dishonest framing of the argument. He defines existence in physicalist terms without substantiating the physicalist assumption.
JohnScott700 1 year ago
Whats interesting is how can you say there is no life after death.Since death means nonexistence,this means you came out of nonexistence into existence because a 150 years ago you did not exist.
eoo8 2 years ago
Perhaps a simpler response to "Maybe it exists in another universe" is
"So a God that you can sense might exist in a universe you can not sense?"
andrewh817 2 years ago
While I would really like to get the point, why can't the statement simply be "We might not be able to state a truth because error might equal truth" instead of the definitive "cannot"?
navidsonpuzzle 2 years ago
What is "Truth"? What is "Error"?
Both concepts presupose that Existence is what it is. Truth is a specific relationship between whats in your mind and what exists. Like wise Error is synoymous with false.
False=Truth. Might as well not open your mouth, stick your head in a hole and pray for a savior.
zeddicus12 2 years ago
30:15 is my favorite moment.
MrHuzzah 2 years ago
30:48 is my favourite when we are rid of this wanker ,how can he tell people what they believe is right or wrong ,what a tosser
doristhepig 2 years ago
I believe there is a 50 foot man next to you.
TheNoncognitivist 2 years ago
That is not the agnostic position--it is not even close! It's not even a bad parody of the agnostic position.
MrHuzzah 2 years ago 3
Maybe you should enlighten we feeble minded atheist who can't be certain of anything and must rely on our feelings for judging reality. Enlighten us MrHuzzah on what the agnostic position is.......
zeddicus12 2 years ago
@MrHuzzah some folks can only see a small amount of the picture and think they have it all figured out, but i feel as agnostics we see the whole picture and realize that we cannot figure it out 100% as it's mere size is to large for our mind to comprehend presently. i hope that little metaphor is decent.
wakcedout 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrHuzzah 2 years ago
This guy isn't even talking about agnostics. He appears to be talking about extreme skeptics.
RicharLauer 2 years ago
This guy is a tool.
RicharLauer 2 years ago
a tool for truth! :)
stefbot 2 years ago 42
@stefbot Charlatan... Agnostics don't believe truth doesn't exist. They don't believe they, or anyone, currently has adequate knowledge and means to take an objective stance or opinion on the subject of God, etc ... You fail. But you've succeeded at the art of bullshit which makes you appear smart, because you're fairly articulate. But you're not. And your views on free will, if I recall, were self-defeating and entirely faith-based.
AllWalksofLife 1 year ago
@stefbot That writes very well. :)
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@stefbot Ha, awesome way to respond to that.
mynameaborat993 1 year ago
@stefbot yea i second that; personally i like they way he thinks....peace Stephan
TheObserver2012 7 months ago
@stefbot
He might be in doubt of your point... which I am also in doubt of. Everything in science is a probability, and you're trying to impose certainty in a very... strange way, that even when I was agnostic I had never heard of or considered. I'm currently an atheist based on the probability of god(s) being so low... but your argument seems to be a bit illogical and opinionated, taking things to an uncomfortable place, while being VERY smug about it.
Ryakki 7 months ago
@stefbot Oh, snap!
plarfusa 7 months ago
The only thing he said that sounded reasonable was that there is little doubt that most agnostics are intelligent.
I suggest that he learns about quantum mechanics where NOTHING is certain. In REALITY, we actually have one foot in the future and one in the past. He should put that in his pipe and smoke it.
For some reason, it is very disconcerting to most individuals to not know. In this respect, athiests and the religous alike have something in common.... belief.
nekrosx1 2 years ago
DUDE! YES! You took the words right out of my mouth about atheists (just like theists) have beliefs. I give you props, finally someone else agrees with me.
mrbigdickballs 2 years ago
"I suggest that he learns about quantum mechanics where NOTHING is certain."
Sounds pretty fucking certain to me.
Your argument is invalid.
Anon1696 2 years ago 17
@Anon1696 then the existence of quantum mechanics is uncertain then
snarfeater 3 months ago
@Anon1696 Agnosticism is just intellectual paralysis.
snarfeater 3 months ago
If "Nothing is certain" then how could he learn about quantum mechanics? Be no point. If nothing is certain then there is no past and no future, in fact me stating this and you trying to argue against is pointless. You contradict yourself by opening your mouth, by breathing, by drinking your water, By Living.
zeddicus12 2 years ago
Agnostic here. Started to see the fallacies in this video starting at 2:52
yhallotharlol 2 years ago
I really wish people wouldn't just say "I see the fallacies starting at this point....."
Point out the fallacies or SHUT UP
andrewh817 2 years ago
I can see how he might have misinterpreted the merriam-webster dictionary of agnosticism, but still, that's a pretty big jump from "some things are uncertain" to "nothing is certain."
Moreover, he says that if God is unknown, God cannot have any properties. Yet then he attributes God as having the property of nonexistence (which is a property in itself).
He also made many reductio ad ridiculum fallacies as well by bringing up "elves, dwarves, etc.. It doesnt strengthen his argument.
mrbigdickballs 2 years ago
Wait? What? There are WAY too many things that are fallacious and not true in this video.
Agnosticism pertaining to theism is completely different than agnosticism pertaining to reality. Agnosticis of theism simply attribute that god is uncertain. I dont know how he came up with "nothing is certain" when agnostics of theism say that "only some things, such as God, are uncertain." Thats a straw man fallacy, because he's misrepresenting every agnostic of theism as an agnostic of reality.
mrbigdickballs 2 years ago
As an agnostic I believe that we are a creature that can not and will not know why we are and just understand that we are. To every answer to a question there will be another question to answer. And I guess if we answer the final question we will be God, but understanding the creature that we are, i doubt we will get that far. but then as an agnostic..I could be wrong =)
PopgpaORin 2 years ago
Honestly, I just say everything is simply concepts. God doesn't exist if everything we percieve is indeed real, BUT it is impossible to validate that what we sense is real and that I or anyone else is not simply hallucinating this or whatever. We can't say, "Oh, that's impossible," because (as far as we know) no one knows what it's like to BE a hallucination or fictional character. My belief in a god also depends on definition. I think too much. :(
kirafuuten 2 years ago
Whoo Stef, this is one of your best videos.
The comment section is pretty wild, though. This stuff sure does elicit some emotional responses.
ks100001 2 years ago
if saying nothing a certain is a failure on somebodies part then u even saying its a failure is a fail...any statement about certainty is bound by that same logic...if u even consider that logic. the fact that nothing is certain isnt really valid anyway cuz on our everyday lvl 2+2=4 all the time...thats certain. saying nothing is certain on a scale much larger id say it would be a fair statement to say nothing was certain. btw im agnostic and i dont believe it til i see it bitch!
keggerous 2 years ago
Comment removed
MsBrook55 2 years ago
The video is quite a bit out of sync about halfway through. Great content though!
glopur0 2 years ago
we are ALL agnostics, so this concept is simply not useful talking about gods and fairies. But we are either atheists or theists. Who are you ?
MaikUniversum 2 years ago 3
Why do you imply that our agnostic statements are all statements of truth. Personally, my personal statements are all considered THEORY. Why would my statements be considered illogical contradictions if I am not claiming to state truth.
dmightx 2 years ago
Atheists FTW!!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago
Be careful with your beliefs. They can become as dangerous as religious beliefs.
dmightx 2 years ago
yo, i dont get this.
though im getting tired, and quite frankly, SOMEONE is bullshitting somebody
DeeperBlueX16 2 years ago
It's hard to notice that 99 per cent of the people around you are delusional idiots.
Believe me, I've been there. But it's true. Most people around us are in fantasy land..
:)
ks100001 2 years ago
Isn't agnosticism a cop out ? I think it is.
nogogma 2 years ago
ur consistancy argument as properties ofthis universe is illogical since you dont know if the other universe is like this universe. u CAn ascribe properties to something unknown becuase you dont know it yet, ppl do it all the time.|we can correct people based on what works best| it doesnt need to be 100% accurate|again existence isnt a property of subjective reality but objective| i dont think agnositcm is nonsense a true scientist is on the bench till it
soulstrumxxx 2 years ago
can be proven till then he cannot make a statement for something he thinks up exist or not to exist because he simply doesnt know| ur agnositc integrity part is incorrect because the probability of your statements being correct are great| the last part is insulting really.
soulstrumxxx 2 years ago
since you cant either make truth statements like us yet you do it| i would refrain from telling people to shut up publicly, since not everyone unlike me tells you to shut up. lastly your part about making truth statements and living them, well many people have their own truth statements and live them and they can be good for the rest of us or REALLY BAD. so your last argument is not smart but it is logical. u cant see though where you contradict yourself. well im done.
soulstrumxxx 2 years ago
im not versed in philosophy, but that doesnt make me stupid, just incase. who exactly claimed concepts cant be extended to another conceptual universe. thats not very smart. u keep presuming facts yet, the act of measuring anything changes it properties slightly, so you arent getting your intened goal which is 100% knowledge yet u still claim this. if you want to claim this someone would have to make you a quantum measuring device that measures probability 100%
soulstrumxxx 2 years ago
accurate yet the instrument would have to be made 100% accurate aswell, i dont think that ever gona happen, so you cannot deal with facts
soulstrumxxx 2 years ago
ok static things.. yes nothing is static from what we know, no1 has ever proven anything static in nature. what exists as measurement is probability. as for existence and non existence. thats pretty stupid for anyone to claim non-existence, and no its not a contradiction, its pragmatism. but cmon here REALLY whos THAT stupid so say non-existnce exists! also, your argument that is native to this universe i see no problem using it for another conceptual universe, since we are comparing universes.
soulstrumxxx 2 years ago
no 1 has ever proven either, so ppl can play these language games all they want but theyre forgetting about practicality/pragmatism. you cannot prove everything through just words, i would say this is a failure of defining words/what has not been defined yet or conceptualized. a language deficiency.
soulstrumxxx 2 years ago
i hate it when utube doesnt post properly. >:(. what were my other points so far.. somethig may exist but according to you if it hasnt been measured it doesnt exist. is that (not personal) ignorance or the failure of deficient methods of measurement, bad science/methods that havnt been created yet., also there is empirical evidence (everything is questionable always[no static fact exists because of subjective reality and the nature of measurement] that ghosts do exist. but the leap from ghost
soulstrumxxx 2 years ago
to god is REALLY BIG, since the concepts of ghosts gods and santa clause are VERY different, god (master of universe, santa fat red guy on sleigh, ghost [thats more complicated but not as the god concept].
soulstrumxxx 2 years ago
hmm. if the measurement to detect somemthing does not exist meaning it maybe hasnt been created yet does the object being searched for not exist. no. the same concept applies to things like "ghosts" etc.; nothing is certain. if that is nonsense then prove that something is certain. you cant, its just language "games". neither than can i prove that something is certain.
soulstrumxxx 2 years ago
Because that's not the agnostic position.
hydralisk125 2 years ago 2
A few thousand years ago, tribes man living on secluded islands had 'explored' what they throught to be the entire universe (their island). As the sea was rough and they had never seen other land, they made conclusions on the knowledge of their universe. 1. We are the only civilisation on earth. 2. We are the most advanced civilisation. 3. et, etc. Then one day, a boat turned up with foreign exporers on board. Immediately their views on the universe changed. This guys argument is invalid.
aandyj 2 years ago
static is made of radio waves from the beginning of the universe
diomedes39 2 years ago
You fail to understand that some statements that are in principle verifiable can not be shown to be false (are not falsifiable). We may be inclined to believe that the statement 'There are, or once were, unicorns' is false, but in fact we cannot show it to be so. In fact many claims similar to this can neither be falsified nor verified, and, are therefore impossible to know the truth of. Existence claims need to be treated carefully. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.
inlogicwetrust 2 years ago
Belief in order to be rational must be proportioned to the evidence, and when speaking of claims for which there can never be evidence, agnosticism is the only rational position. Of course, when a logically inconsistent set is postulated; such as an all loving, knowing & powerful God in a world that contains evil, then we must proportion our belief accordingly, and, it here that we can be both an atheist and rational at the same time. Naturally this is not the only example.
inlogicwetrust 2 years ago
One last point for the time being regarding the definition of existence that you endorse. It is clearly not very liberal, and you are welcome to define it however you like, unfortunately you will fall into problems of equivocation with people by virtue of your definition differing in critical ways to theirs. There is really a lot to be said here, but my advice is to reconsider your definition of existence since it doesn't hold much resemblance to the way it is predicated of things. Good luck.
inlogicwetrust 2 years ago
We can judge unicorns unlikely--more than we can do for god as broadly defined.
Absence of evidence is NEVER evidence of absence on its own. Only when we combine it with the fact that we'd expect evidence is concluding nonexistence not Argument From Ignorance.
Are u SURE 'I love u but sometimes I let u suffer' is incoherent? Yer SURE that's what love means from the divine perspective? Is it really this, & not the likelihood of Bible being made-up, which leads you (and I) to reject it?
winocologist 2 years ago
winocologist, you said "We can judge unicorns unlikely--more than we can do for god as broadly defined."
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Probability is a different concern all together. Like I have already said you might feel that the claim 'There are, or once were, unicorns' is false; that is to say, you deem it unlikely. However, as I explained above that claim is not falsifiable.
inlogicwetrust 2 years ago
winocologist you said "Absence of evidence is NEVER evidence of absence on its own."
You are incorrect. I think a simple example with suffice. Lets say two people are standing in a small empty room, and one claims, 'in this room with us is a visible fully grown pink elephant.' The other looks around and there is no sign of anything besides himself and the person claiming this. In this case, absence of evidence of a fully grown pink elephant is good evidence of there being no such elephant.
inlogicwetrust 2 years ago
inlogicwetrust, if your example was mere lack of evidence, the argument would be:
no evidence here, so there's no elephant.
which is identical to this obvious fallacy:
no evidence Cher ate pie today, so she didn't.
Again, absence only works when combined w' the fact that we'd EXPECT evidence:
I watched Cher today & I'd know if she ate pie.
I can see this room & I'd know if it housed an elephant.
I can see all possible metaphysical realms & I'd know if they housed god(?!)
winocologist 2 years ago
winocologist
I'm not sure why you attacked what I said in the first place because you only seem to agree with me that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence granted the relevant circumstances.
I see no benefit in removing the context of my example about the elephant, furthermore I never claimed that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence regardless of the context. It is now clear to me that there was equivocation with the use of the term 'on its own'. Anyway :)
inlogicwetrust 2 years ago
And lo the agnostic said, "XXXXXXX"!
But I think I saw a Y...
^_^
p.s. This universe has things which are neither true nor false, such as:
The next statement is true.
The last statement is false.
Asking if either statement is true is a failing of logic. Your attack on agnosticism is generally good -- especially the face-in-the-static analogy -- but it is not necessarily internally invalid -- eg: perfect demon. It's just absurd.
directedchaos 2 years ago
Well good thing that you are only arguing against hardcore agnostics. You know you don't have to be completely agnostic . You can be agnostic with certain beliefs.
dmightx 2 years ago
youve helped me have a wider view about a lot of things but this is kind of insulting.
one has will to do things or think things decide and so on... but besides the things you do conciusly there is a lot more hapening...
reason may be mans most powerfull tool but its just an object of perception in my opinion...
when we feel we are not doing as much compared to what just seems to happen: we are gratefull.
I see religion as an usually corupted teaching about spirituality which in itself(.)
Salocin27 2 years ago
I didnt know you planned the redundance in your vids
Salocin27 2 years ago
This is about as enlightening as someone reciting the truth table of a logic gate in computer science class.
sostenuto 2 years ago
I admire your rhetoric talent, really, but your ranting isn't a serious approach imho. You are using the same argumentation pattern alll over again which isnt even used by all agnostics, it seems you haven't really talked to different kinds of agnostics. An agnostic as I define it wouldnt tell an atheist or theist they were wrong because that would imply taking the exact opposite side. As an agnostic I'm saying I dont know, if you do know, it's fine, but without first-hand info I wont believe it
lsEden 2 years ago
Comment removed
lsEden 2 years ago
Ah ha! I have been thinking about your argument for some time and it is flawed!
Flawed because if god exists then it exists in another dimension, and in another dimension our definitions may not apply. On top of that, only a FOOL would say god does not exist or that he does exist because based on logic, science and experience nobody in there right mind can say for sure one or the other.
Therefore we are all agnostic.
sambuka1989 2 years ago
go and think some more.
Rokasomee 2 years ago
A quote from Robert Anton Wilson:
""Is", "is." "is" — the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment."
23Memes 2 years ago
You make some very good talks mate - you've just earned another subscriber due to the substance, logic, and lulz you produce :]
May the 2+2=green bless you!
lol
GronTheMighty 2 years ago
Thanks man... you really cleared the fog for me.
Like the fact that your brain is small and incapable of comprehending anything.
You are a fucking cunt.
YOU are what is wrong with the world.
YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT BASTARD!!
kebass 2 years ago
NO U!
TheStig000 2 years ago
I must admit that I gave up on this straw man refutation at 9:03. On this particular mistreatment of the agnostic view point I have a few comments.
The agnostic argument is not, "nothing is certain" which is easy to dismiss. It is on the other hand, "somethings are not certain." It may not necessarily follow, but it than could be said that some things are certain. If nothing else: Cogito, ergo dubito, ergo sum. and 2+2=4. Epistemology is more complex than stated here.
pbzep13 3 years ago
Comment removed
pbzep13 3 years ago
simply refute them. You have such strong beliefs, that you refuse to give any time of day to anything that goes against them, even per say, statistics and data. Hume would be ashamed. I cant change your belief system, cause your beliefs are too strong. Thus, arguing with you is futile, even when I use counterarguments and the like. Furthermore, you do not allow dissent against you. Thats what fanatics do. Socrates would also be ashamed.
johnnytardmanthe2nd 3 years ago
"This comment will get erased"
Reverse psychology my friend. I got you to not delete the comment by saying this. That was my intention. Thus, more people are able to read it. It seemed to work, didnt it? Thanks by the way.
How can I give you a counterargument and have you listen? I have many times before. All you do is use straw man arguments in defense. When I do provide counter arguments, like gravity, or energy, or aliens, etc., and how these things go against your logic, you
johnnytardmanthe2nd 3 years ago
Reverse psychology is also lying. Why should we listen to a liar?
spleenblender 3 years ago
People who dissent and disagree against stefbot stefan molyneaux get blocked from commenting, or their comments get erased. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE! You are following a man who does not allow ANYONE to disagree with him. Stop worshipping and start challenging him. You yourself will become smarter. Start thinking for yourself for once, instead of having someone do it for you.
p.s. This comment will get erased
johnnytardmanthe2nd 3 years ago
Oh man, that is just wonderful -- "this comment will get erased" - if it is true, there is no point writing it -- and if it is false, it contradicts your argument! :) Rather than spewing out such pointless and petty fear-mongering, why not take the time to come up with a rational counterargument or two? Oh wait, to ask that question is to answer it, never miiind... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
P.P.S. You're wrong.
TheStig000 2 years ago
Straw man argument.
I was showing how aliens are unknown to us yet we still give them properties. However, I guess you helped proved my point by stating that aliens physical entities, which is a property, so thanx. Things that are undiscovered or unknown to us can have properties and still be unknown, such as aliens.
Complete empricism, no rationalism. That is what your argument is. The problem is that things can exist outside of our knowledge, despite how dont want to admit it.
johnnytardmanthe2nd 3 years ago
What else is there besides physical? Under the given conditions in the universe only certain things can exist. So naming what aliens MUST be, isn't unreasonable.
TheStig000 2 years ago
I am talking about the unknown in regards to whether we know of something existing or not. Aliens existing is unknown. God existing is unknown. However, they still both have properties.
johnnytardmanthe2nd 3 years ago
Aliens are physical entities, not self-contradictory concepts like 'gods'... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
nothing illogical*
johnnytardmanthe2nd 3 years ago
We're disagreeing on the definition of unknown. I'm talking about the "unknown." We give aliens properties. We dont know if they exist, but we say that they are organisms from other planets. Aliens existence are unknown but we still give them properties. One day maybe science will possibly find out if they are existant or not. Until then, aliens are unknown, yet still have properties. Just like god. God is unknown, but we still give him properties. Theres no illogical thing about that
johnnytardmanthe2nd 3 years ago
Great, now I feel like a complete retard. This video was very insightful, and I plan on sharing it with anyone that listens.
My argument against atheism used to be that "it takes just as much faith to not believe in a god as it does to believe it one", thus I proclaimed myself in the middle ground agnostic position. But now you have pointed out the error of my ways... better hop on one side of the fence. Shoot- being agnostic was just an awesome loop hole.
Dragonkickn 3 years ago
I would humbly submit that a complete retard would never be able to understand this video, so I hope that you are proud of your intellectual abilities and integrity... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Ok. Fine. haha
Dragonkickn 3 years ago
I was agnostic awhile before becoming an atheist. I was convinced by the idea that we cannot know if a god exists or not. Then it was pointed out to me that every mythological creature was unknowable and that I certainly didn't believe in them. The likelihood of a god existing is extremely low, and that is why I'm an atheist. I'm just as atheistic about god as I am about unicorns and big foot.
TheStig000 2 years ago
Reflecting back from five months ago when I watched this video, I have yet again shifted my perception of 'God'. Do I believe there is a supernatural 'man-like' creature that exists outside the physical bounds of the universe? no. However, I do believe there is an ever present unifying force which holds the universe together and we as living beings serve as a way for the universe to self-reflect upon itself.
Dragonkickn 2 years ago
Why?
TheStig000 2 years ago
For once, I have to disagree with you. I have seen the static outside the universe and it Does look exactly like Dom DeLuise!
magichandpuppet 3 years ago
Well maybe the logic of our universe does not work for that static universe. That would also make that statement false but i just thought it was funny. Nvm lol. Nice vid. I agree with you.
Antilli 3 years ago
I believed I was an agnostic because I admit it it seemed like the clever and diplomatic thing to do but after watching this video at least now I can happily say I am an atheist... and understand fully what it means to be one etc etc etc. If you understand what I mean :), thanks.
sambuka1989 3 years ago
unknown that we assign properties to. He makes knowledge claims of god yet he says that you cannot make knowledge claims of god yourself unless you create a contradiction, he states that another universe cannot be assigned ANY properties, yet he himself describes it as incomprehensible, which is a property. Blah, blah, blah, etc.
I could go on and on but I think you get the point.
Johnnytardman6789 3 years ago
Frankly, I find this entire argument to just be goofy and full of fallacies. Agnosticism by the end of the video is completely defined incorrectly and extremely exaggerated upon; he tries to say that god doesnt exist is a provable statement (dont see how anyone could say this with the present knowledge, or lack there of that we have), he says that anything that is unknown cannot have properties yet there are many things of science (gravity, energy, the undiscovered, aliens even) that are
Johnnytardman6789 3 years ago
Gravity and energy aren't unknown though. He isn't saying the unknown don't have properties - he is saying that to give something unknown properties, it is no longer unknown.
hydralisk125 3 years ago
First of all, I'm agnostic and take offense to this video. Your premise is completely false. Agnostics don't say a square circle is round etc. The only think agnostics say is that God is unknowable. Supernatural phenomena is unexplainable. No one knows if God exists or not. Since you claim there is no God, please tell me how you know that.
philip0460 3 years ago
philip0460... go and watch the video again... and this time: listen!!!
-.-
nofuckingwai 3 years ago
I did. I'm agnostic and our belief system is right on the money. No one knows and the belief is that it's unknown at this time or unknowable to man.
philip0460 3 years ago
Agnosticism isn't a belief system. It's a statement about knowledge. This is where you are making a mistake.
TheStig000 2 years ago
Read Thomas H. Huxley. Agnosticism is a belief system. When the question do you believe in God is asked, my answer is "I believe the concept of the supernatural and God is unknowable."
philip0460 2 years ago
You either believe or you don't. There is no fence sitting. If you are unsure that there is a god then you don't believe because you have yet to be convinced. If I asked you if you believed in unicorns, what would you say? That it's unknowable? Only a completely spineless person would do that.
TheStig000 2 years ago
Are we talking unicorns or God? I'm confused. God is a concept that is supernatural and completely unknowable in any definition... unicorns were a creature created by man... however, a horselike creature with a horn may have existed before man did, but we have yet to find the fossil record.
philip0460 2 years ago 2
Oh, so god wasn't a creature created by man? That's new. What about a man-like creature that exists in the clouds? Obviously false, so they remove any falsifiability from god and there you go, modern god. You're really pretty thick if you haven't thought about this at all yet. How old are you?
TheStig000 2 years ago
My age is irrelevant. I'm agnostic...period. I'm not a theist or atheist which make conclusions with no facts. Thank you.
philip0460 2 years ago
You either believe in a god or you don't. You can't do both. You don't know what you are.
TheStig000 2 years ago
Oh really? Hmmm. Do I have a $5 bill in my pocket? If you say yes or no without some valid evidence, you are simply guessing. If you say "I don't know", you're simply being rational. Get it now? Sheeesh. LOL
philip0460 2 years ago 2
It's not about proof, it's about belief. Get it now?
TheStig000 2 years ago
Ok, so you are saying that you want me to guess? Sorry, I don't do that. So my answer remains "I believe it's unknowable at this time whether or not god/God exists."
philip0460 2 years ago
So you don't positively believe that there IS in fact a god? That's all I need to know.
TheStig000 2 years ago
So you don't positively believe that there ISN'T in fact a god? That's all I need to know.
philip0460 2 years ago