Why do athiests care to call themselves so? If God does not exist, why spend your life trying to disprove him? Wouldn't there be better things to spend your time on? Why do thiests bother them so much? Wouldn't they move on knowing that it is a waste of time believing in God? Wouldn't they be confident they are right and not be bothered? I reiterate, demons exist (I have had many encounters with them)...therefore, God exists.
I say that a 200 foot tallk being with 56 heads, and the stomach with the size of a peanut exists, therefore it exists because I said so. YOur logic made about as much sense as mine did there.
Love is a very GOod executable things to act.therefore God exist..you terribly produced all these questions..coz u think theres no cause for this universe to exist..just emerged without reason or purpose..therefore God exist. :D
@JMcH - The video is intended to be satirical, but not an outright parody. The fact is some theists do present arguments or ideas of belief of this nature.
WOW...........I can't believe this is real. I was poised for a summary stating that this is all faulty logic presented from the theist camp, but this is what you call logic?
Society for the Elimination of all truth should have been a clue, but I didn't see that the first time. I'm actually a little bit disappointed, was planning on completely taking apart every argument there!
#31. Our understanding of the divine is completely wrong. The universe itself contains elements which can be known or inferred by man. But, the far vaster part of the universe is unknowable. It is completely indifferent towards humanity and neither needs us nor cares what we think.
Astronomers are currently observing that the Universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating. Eventually, if unabated, the Universe *will* tear itself apart.
If God *is* holding things together... He's doing a mighty poor job of it. :-O
Not true. It's one of the biggest debates in cosmology, i.e., whether dark matter and dark energy force the universe to expand indefinitely. This would result in a universe which dies a cold, lightless death roughly 100 billion years from now. Compared to that bleak outcome, a universe which reverses and collapses back in a Big Crunch seems cheerful and optimistic!
So a hot and lifeless death is preferable to a cold and lifeless death...? Both options seem pretty bleak to me... because certain death lies in either direction. ;-)
Currently, the evidence points to a cold and lifeless death. The universe seems not only to be expanding but actually accelerating outwards. If this continues then we will see fewer and fewer galaxies over time until finally they are so far away that their light can no longer reach us and the only light in the sky will be from stars in our own galaxy. Then our MW stars will go nova, red dwarf and die, followed by black hole explosions, followed by proton decay, then complete darkness.
Just as an interesting note, I showed this video to my mother a few months back. She really liked number 8. I think it's because she sees it in her friends.
You say there isn't proof, milliions of others including myself say there is. I could care less what you think about God, when he calls you he calls you.
You would do well to learn some basic logical principles. Millions of people believe in Shiva. On that basis, why don't you since this is powerful evidence according to you?
1) theomantics - evidence that some people are easily fooled by pseudo-science. Not evidence for any Deity.
2)Your life is evidence that you exist. Not evidence of any Deity.
3) My life is evidence that I exist. Not evidence of any Deity.
That was a big FAIL. If you care to try again I suggest you look up the meaning of evidence. But I wouldn't waist your time, I've looked, and there is none.
The one problem that the classic "Problem of Evil" argument has is that it doesn't automatically follow that our notion of evil is the same as God's or that ours is right, no matter how we might feel about it. It's not a really easy problem to get around, frankly.
One of my favourites for their argument is "If God is such a illogical idea how can we logically think of him? Wouldnt that make him logical?" Its a good play on words, and gives me a laugh every time
The key sentence is "I know very little about nature.." Creationism is not the opposite of evolutionary science, IGNORANCE IS!
I wonder why the damage that religion has always done and continues to do has no influence on this ignorant idiot?
150 years of knowledge based scientific evidence ignored in favour of an old book of fiction, fantasy and myth? I don't think so and can only conclude that "god" does NOT exist...
The first few arguments I thought this was serious and my brain was just hurting. Then I noticed Section: Comedy, and felt a relief. Therefore: God is comedy?
You do have to wonder why God would require that we believe in him on Faith when it would be so easy for him to just show himself in a definitive way.
With no proof for or against God means there is no God. You have to go with the default of nothing. If I say there is a pink tea cup orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupitur we do not assume that is true because I say it, we assume that it isn't until there is proof.
The Bible lied about Noah's flood, so why not everything else?
I hate logical fallacies though. They piss me off because it shows people's ignorance, and that is what most religious people show.
There are a zillions things about which we ought remain agnostic. I think we can go one step further with many God concepts because they contain logical contradictions which effectively disprove the notions. Understanding logical fallacies helps us to think effectively. They are you friend, except when you engage in them!
There are only a few reasons we ought to remain agnostic, not even many.
There are more reasons to forget about all religions, and just work together to advance our societies. We would have to forget about more than just religions though, but religion is the one illogical thing we could easily put an end to.
Deism is one thing, but the religions today are just ridiculous, and lead to cult like actions. Though the community unification that religion does is good, it isnt good enough.
Well, this is what many theists do - they claim we can't prove God either way, then merrily opt to believe God exists rather than be agnostic. It's like their belief proves him.
Well of course belief doesn't function as evidence. But even apart from theistic arguments (some of which are good), a presumption of atheism is not warranted. A theist may claim, apart from evidence, that a universe consisting of a finite set of contingent beings ontologically grounded in a necessary being is intrinsically more probable that a universe consisting only of a finite set of contingent beings.
I regard sound logic as evidence, as any sane person should. However, Aquinas' classical "argument from contingency" merely sows that a non-contingent or necessary *reality* must be. That's hardly an argument for the conventional theistic God. It's also painfully obvious. Reality itself, or the Totality of all that is, necessarily occupies this status, and holds regardless of what you think about the content of the Totality.
"Reality itself, or the Totality of all that is" is too vague of a concept to be helpful in this discussion. That is because one could either arbitrarily include or exclude God. In addition, how would one go about showing that the universe (1) is ontologically necessary and (2) is not dependent for existence on something outside itself?
There's nothing vague about it; it's as explicit a notion as there can possibly be. (1) asking why Reality (the Totality) is ontologically necessary is nonsensical; (2) the Totality cannot be dependent on something else because that something else is by logical definition a part of said Totality. It is non-contingent, by definition.
Yes, it is vague, because, again, God is either arbitrarily included or excluded. Which one is it? And defining the universe (or Totality) as non-contingent is question-begging. If it is not, then how would you demonstrate that it is a brute fact, as you seem to be claiming?
God's existence is irrelevant to me in this context. And I'm not so much defining the Totality as non-contingent as I am showing that the very meaning of the concept denotes absoluteness and non-contingency. If there is anything at all, there must be a Totality. That Totality cannot be contingent by dint of the very meaning of its nature.
If you think about it you'll see that a contingent Totality is a contradiction in terms. There's nothing the Totality can be contingent upon.
That all depends on how you are defining this Totality of yours. Are you saying that it is the sum total of everything that exists, both material and immaterial? Are you saying that the universe is logically necessary?
Logical necessity is simply something that is divined by a mind that can undertake logical processes. It isn't necessary (in the sense that it doesn't always exist), but it can exist if caused to do so. The realities that such a mind comprehends are not contingent upon its existence (e.g. the Totality doesn't cease to be just because no-one comprehends its necessity).
You say that your Totality "Isn't necessary (in the sense that it doesn't always exist), but it can exist if caused to do so." So, in other words, it is contingent. If something is not necessary, it is contingent.
So I maintain my initial point. The intrinsic probability of theism is significantly higher than the intrinsic probability of atheism.
You need to re-read what I wrote. I said that the mental construct of a logical necessity doesn't always exist - but that the reality of what such a construct divines isn't contingent upon such a mental construct.
It is unclear why you are stressing this point, that it is "true whether anyone understands it or not." This is a puzzling move for an atheist, in that it is often a criticism of Christian theism that things like God's goodness in spite of evil is true--whether anyone understands it or not.
Are you not stacking the deck in favor of your prior commitments, claiming that, whether you can offer an evidential basis for your position or not, it is true?
No, but in this case it seems that you are begging the question as to whether reality is necessary or contingent. As long as you are claiming that it is necessary whether we "divine" it or so or not, you might as well include your own argument here for the non-existence of God in with your "thirty proofs."
I just don't see how atheists can be so dependent upon question-begging at this point and yet still love the smell of their own farts.
Yes, of course. Simple logic shows that this is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow. Why? because the existence of "things" is also compatible with a contingent "totality." To put it another way, the mere existence of an effect does not dictate the nature of the cause (at least, in terms of necessity/contingency).
You cannot assume what you are trying to prove. There is no presumption of atheism, because, ultimately, both theism and atheism are positive claims about a certain kind of universe.
There cannot be a contingent Totality. It's an incoherent idea. Its non-contingency is proven by the fact that whatever it is claimed to be contingent upon is necessary part of it, and therefore said claim is falsified.
In that case, one may include God in your concept of "Totality," and you are basically putting forth a tautology. The universe, however, as being only part of, but not the entirety of the totality, is still contingent. And so my original point can be rephrased as follows:
"It is intrinsically more probable that the Totality contains God (i.e. a necessary being) than that it does not (i.e. contains only contingent beings)."
I define the Universe as "all that is", so there's no difference to me between the Totality and the Universe. The Universe is not something that begins to exist for me, so I don't need to invoke a cause for it. And even if others do, God does not follow from the universe's contingency; this is one of the failings of the Cosmological argument - which I will address in greater detail in my "God Debunked" series - it will be the first argument I examine.
Actually, your point of view is probably more akin to the related contingency argument of Aquinas, which for me proves a non-contingent reality - but that reality is the Totality, not the conventional theistic God.
Again, you have two HUGE assumptions here, and if you are to engage the actual issue, you need to account for them:
1. The universe is all that is.
2. The universe is not something that begins to exist (for me).
You offer no evidence for either.
Your problem with the cosmological argument seems to be against those who, like Bill Craig, use it as a deductive argument. However, you do not seem prepared to deal with it as a P inductive argument, which is how many Christian philosophers take it.
A definition isn't an assumption; a definition is a tool with which we do intellectual work. If you want to define the universe as a finite thing that began to exist and requires a cause, that's perfectly fine by me, even though I consider it linguistically nonsensical. That still doesn't lead to the theistic God, it merely argues a necessary cause, which could be anything. My point, again, is that the Totality cannot be contingent, by definition. Deductive arguments are fine if they work.
On what basis do you contrive these definitions? It seems to me that they are simply arbitrary in your case--the universe extends into the infinite past, does not require causal explanation--why? You seem to have adopted them simply because it fits your preconceived notions, and when I ask for argumentation, all you say is that you choose to define it a certain way. In this way it is an assumption.
Again, you need to consider how philosophers actually use the cosmological argument: inductively.
I "contrive" these definitions on the basis of sanity. Reality CANNOT be infinite and contingent. It's simply impossible. It's patently, and I do mean *patently* obvious why an *infinite* reality cannot have a cause. I have already stated why and my stated reason is indisputable, given what "infinite" means.
The reason no finite thing (including reality, if one was to assert its finitude) can exist of itself is spelled out in my series on The Nature of Existence.
Even if it were true that an infinity entails necessity (which is highly questionable), you cannot assume that the universe is infinite. On what basis? Surely you are aware that most of the scientific community would seriously disagree with you on this. Further, it is far from clear that an actual infinite can really exist.
I don't assume the Universe is infinite, I deduce it on the basis that no finite thing/set can exist of itself - i.e. be uncaused. And I'm not interested in what the science community has to say on this issue as it is simply out of their "jurisdiction". The finitude or infinitude of Reality is not something science can answer.
I agree about the Infinite and "existence". For me it doesn't "exist", as only finite things exist (existence is relational), but it is nevertheless real/necessary.
So your presupposition is that the universe is uncaused. And from that you reason that, since you are assuming it is uncaused, it must be infinite. You don't see how this is question-begging?
And isn't this whole scenario extremely unlikely given the inherent problems with actualizing an infinite set?
That the Universe is uncaused is not a presupposition; it's logically necessary; I've already stated why. As to why a finite thing cannot be uncaused (and therefore cannot be the Universe), well, that's what my series on the nature of existence was about, in part. These comments boxes aren't sufficient to spell it out properly. Basically it revolves round the proposition that no finite thing can can exist without relation to what it is not.
I won't contest your point that an infinite thing must be necessary (although this probably is not true). The real problem is your assumption that the universe is infinite. On what grounds can you make such a claim? Does this not itself fly in the face of logic? Is there any way at all to demonstrate that an actual infinite set of anything is even possible?
For me, logic itself demands that the Universe (Totality) be Infinite. Not just logic, but empirical observation as well, simply because any finite thing must be contingent.
And the Infinite is not a set, as such, but its possibility is surely a given if it's logically necessary.
But don't you understand--the universe is not logically necessary. It is not logically impossible for it not to exist. That is what logical necessity means.
And don't you also see that you are simply repeating your question-begging positions: The universe is infinite, therefore it is necessary (not true, btw).
And you observe the infinite nature of the universe empirically? Are you kidding? This is just going around in a circle--it isn't logic, it's assumptions stack on top of assumption.
To say Reality could possibly not exist is meaningless.
And one can infer - and subsequently deduce - the infinitude of the Universe by way of empirical observation in the sense that via such observation we can see that no finite thing can exist of itself. The limits of induction means that's not an absolute proof, but when we subsequently examine what it means for a thing to exist in the first place, we can see the necessity of the infinitude of Reality (the Totality.
1. It depends how you define reality. The universe is not synonymous with reality.
2. You are not speaking inductively. Rather, you're trying to argue that existence entails necessity of infinitude. Thus your argument is deductive.
3. If you don't see the circularity in this line of reasoning (which I've shown several times), you can't be helped. But you shouldn't be making videos that try to give the appearance of logical rigor. You are misleading people.
1. The Universe IS synonymous with Reality if you *define* it to be. I find the "scientific" definition of "universe" (space, time and matter and the laws governing such) largely meaningless and with efficacy only pertaining to science.
2. I know my argument is deductive, but it also does not defy and is assisted by inductive observation.
3. The knee-jerk reaction people to have circularity in logic is insane. All logic is ultimately circular.
The reason for that is that we define *everything*. To argue that one cannot legitimately perform logic from one's own definitions is to argue that no-one can ever perform logic. If I ask you what you mean by "Reality", you'll give me a definition, right? How will your subsequent logic not be circular as well?
Yes, but the simple reason that logic is generally circular in nature does not give us warrant to consider all circular arguments good arguments. To presuppose laws of logic (such as your favorite "A = A," etc.) is not the same as someone arguing that the universe is necessary because it is infinite (which is a non-sequitur, anyway), and then, when asked to substantiate how you know it is infinite, to claim that you know this because it is necessary.
I have done no such thing. Obviously, in the space available here I can't flesh out my entire perspective, but I have said a number of times now that the the reason Reality must be infinite is that it CAN"T be finite, because no finite thing can exist of itself - therefore, the Totality cannot be finite. You could dispute the claims if I were to explain why no finite thing can exist of itself, but it shows my claim for the infinitude of Reality is not circular in the way you suppose.
If you are confused as to how your logic is viciously circular, consider what you just wrote.
You wrote:
"The reason Reality must be infinite is that it CAN"T be finite, because no finite thing can exist of itself."
How do you know it "exists of itself" (i.e. it is non-contingent/necessary)? You can't say, "Because it is infinite," because this is a premise in your argument.
I understand that you equate the universe with reality. My point is that an exclusion of God from this is arbitrary, especially since it is largely by this definition that you seem to be deducing God's non-existence. Why is it not equally legitimate for someone to arbitrarily include God in the equation, so that you have something like God + the universe = "Reality"?
And what do you find lacking in the scientific definition of the universe? Is there something you would include that they do not?
Ok, but what role would God have? What would God be in this scenario? I can't discern any philosophical relevance for such a being.
"God + the universe = "Reality? - what is God in that formula? The cause of the universe?
The scientific definition of "universe" tends not to include consciousness or qualia, or for that matter the causes for itself, since these are not strictly empirical concerns.
God would be the cause of the universe. It is only because you assume that the universe's existence is logically and ontologically necessary (highly contestable) that you don't see the relevance of God here.
What scientist/scientific community do you know of who does not include consciousness and qualia in the universe?
It's interesting you mention that scientists don't include "the causes for [the universe]," particularly since you think the universe is necessary.
God is irrelevant because the Totality doesn't require - and indeed cannot have - a cause. There's nothing contestable about that for anyone who comprehends the reasons.
Science doesn't tend to consider that which they can't measure.
Science cannot consider such things as the cause of the universe for patently obvious reasons. These are logical and philosophical considerations that lie outside the scope of science. It's arguable whether much of cosmology is even scientific in nature.
Well, I've already told you my opinion on your exclusion of God from your Totality, along with several other problems I perceive in your reasoning. We're going to have to agree to disagree here. Take care.
I've heard each and every one of these arguments - in one form or another - from many theists. You'll just have to suck that fact up, I'm afraid. That not all theists think at this level is something too obvious to require mentioning.
And your attitude doesn't change the fact that you resorted to straw man arguments rather then something intelligent.
And yes there are idiots in the world, I fully and freely admit that, but what of it? Why should I "live with it" There are plenty of atheist idiots too. Neither of them affect me though, so why should I care?
Stop tossing around the names of logical fallacies the application of which you don't properly understand. The video is not a strawman because it's not a formal argument; it's satire, albeit serious satire.
Unfortunately there are many millions of such idiots in the world - some of them national leaders - and *that* matters.
Atheists idiots? Sure. Look where we are. It's a microcosm of such.
Like I say, you are not applying the strawman fallacy concept properly in this instance. The *fact* is millions of theists employ these sorts of arguments, this level of argument, all the time. That means the vid is not a strawman. It would only be so if it contended that all theists do so, which is not the intention. Everyone knows they don't, even if their more "sophisticated" arguments are ultimately pretty nonsensical too.
pfffffffffffffff, whatever man, it's a series of strawmans, arguments you put up, to be knocked down and you know it
Well done on promoting atheist propaganda though! Keep thinking that all theists are idiots, then you won't have to address any intellectual arguments. You can just focus on the stupid one's that atheists make up.
As for me though, I would rather focus on the actual arguments rather then the strawmans.
This is hilarious.
elnoraemily 1 week ago
Really funny! Thank you.
flamifer1 4 months ago
ok you made me laugh my ass off! :D
tomek92pl 5 months ago in playlist Więcej filmów od użytkownika MenoftheInfinite
Why do athiests care to call themselves so? If God does not exist, why spend your life trying to disprove him? Wouldn't there be better things to spend your time on? Why do thiests bother them so much? Wouldn't they move on knowing that it is a waste of time believing in God? Wouldn't they be confident they are right and not be bothered? I reiterate, demons exist (I have had many encounters with them)...therefore, God exists.
hotlikefire3in1 9 months ago
@hotlikefire3in1 Demons exist....if you have schizophrenia or still think insane/sick people are possessed.
elnoraemily 1 week ago
What about the existence of demons? I have personally had many encounters with them. If demons exist, God must exist. :)
hotlikefire3in1 9 months ago
I love it!
speerdali 9 months ago
This vid is not even a joke. a 5 year old can easily debunt all those arguments
Neueregel 1 year ago
I say that a 200 foot tallk being with 56 heads, and the stomach with the size of a peanut exists, therefore it exists because I said so. YOur logic made about as much sense as mine did there.
BaronJunkie 1 year ago
Love is a very GOod executable things to act.therefore God exist..you terribly produced all these questions..coz u think theres no cause for this universe to exist..just emerged without reason or purpose..therefore God exist. :D
kawanan777 1 year ago
I fart, therefore god exists.
gabrielg01 1 year ago
Are these real arguments from theists?
JMcH 1 year ago
@JMcH - More or less, yes. I've certainly heard a variation of them all.
MenoftheInfinite 1 year ago
@MenoftheInfinite - So they're not really parody, then.
JMcH 1 year ago
@JMcH - The video is intended to be satirical, but not an outright parody. The fact is some theists do present arguments or ideas of belief of this nature.
MenoftheInfinite 1 year ago
is this a joke?!
freeyoda 2 years ago
It's satire, yes, though somewhat serious satire.
MenoftheFinite 2 years ago
WOW...........I can't believe this is real. I was poised for a summary stating that this is all faulty logic presented from the theist camp, but this is what you call logic?
This is riddled with logical fallacies.
bobble12221 2 years ago
Did you watch till the end? If so, you must surely know this is satire. Mind you, many Xians actually do make these sort of arguments.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Society for the Elimination of all truth should have been a clue, but I didn't see that the first time. I'm actually a little bit disappointed, was planning on completely taking apart every argument there!
Guess I'll have to look elsewhere!
bobble12221 2 years ago
#31. Our understanding of the divine is completely wrong. The universe itself contains elements which can be known or inferred by man. But, the far vaster part of the universe is unknowable. It is completely indifferent towards humanity and neither needs us nor cares what we think.
GoldenBoughTrader 2 years ago
Oh dear....hopefully this will only intice people to look more.
AndersSchlander0 2 years ago
Why did this get flagged?
Great vid!
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
No idea who or why it was flagged. Some puritan no doubt. I suspect the drunk girl caused it.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Theomatics as proof of God . Hahahahaha, that's awesome. Just when I thought I'd heard it all!!
Christians are the gift that just keeps on giving. :D
EvoinOZ 2 years ago
Theomatics is true, dammit! It's so obvious only an atheist could miss it!
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Regarding Proof #3...
Astronomers are currently observing that the Universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating. Eventually, if unabated, the Universe *will* tear itself apart.
If God *is* holding things together... He's doing a mighty poor job of it. :-O
SparkyLen 2 years ago
God is divine Tarzan's Grip. Have faith, friend. His creation is highly flexible and does not crack when stretched.
MenoftheFinite 2 years ago
Just thinking about it...
1) the expansion of the universe is accelerating
2) at some point, something will have to stop it,
3) that something can only be God
4) therefore, God exists.
SparkyLen 2 years ago
I think that takes me up to about 48 proofs. I'll need another video :)
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Not true. It's one of the biggest debates in cosmology, i.e., whether dark matter and dark energy force the universe to expand indefinitely. This would result in a universe which dies a cold, lightless death roughly 100 billion years from now. Compared to that bleak outcome, a universe which reverses and collapses back in a Big Crunch seems cheerful and optimistic!
GoldenBoughTrader 2 years ago
So a hot and lifeless death is preferable to a cold and lifeless death...? Both options seem pretty bleak to me... because certain death lies in either direction. ;-)
SparkyLen 2 years ago
It's preferable in the sense that the universe may cycle and start over. A cold universe is a one way trip to the void.
GoldenBoughTrader 2 years ago
Currently, the evidence points to a cold and lifeless death. The universe seems not only to be expanding but actually accelerating outwards. If this continues then we will see fewer and fewer galaxies over time until finally they are so far away that their light can no longer reach us and the only light in the sky will be from stars in our own galaxy. Then our MW stars will go nova, red dwarf and die, followed by black hole explosions, followed by proton decay, then complete darkness.
Bleak.
GoldenBoughTrader 2 years ago
Just as an interesting note, I showed this video to my mother a few months back. She really liked number 8. I think it's because she sees it in her friends.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Ah, yes, the appeal to ignorance: I don't know, therefore God. It's oddly persuasive to a lot of people.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Very nice irony ,at first i thought you were one of those religion fanatics but after the video i know now that you can make a good joke :)
AceKat00o 2 years ago
1) Theomatics is discredited nonsense.
2) Your life is not in any way evidence of God.
3) Give me a break.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
You say there isn't proof, milliions of others including myself say there is. I could care less what you think about God, when he calls you he calls you.
UTubeMinistries 2 years ago
You would do well to learn some basic logical principles. Millions of people believe in Shiva. On that basis, why don't you since this is powerful evidence according to you?
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
don't be foolish...there is too much evidence out that that points to GOD
UTubeMinistries 2 years ago
There's is? Name one piece of evidence.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
1) theomatics
2) my life
3) your life-- if you turn to him with an open heart
UTubeMinistries 2 years ago
1) theomantics - evidence that some people are easily fooled by pseudo-science. Not evidence for any Deity.
2)Your life is evidence that you exist. Not evidence of any Deity.
3) My life is evidence that I exist. Not evidence of any Deity.
That was a big FAIL. If you care to try again I suggest you look up the meaning of evidence. But I wouldn't waist your time, I've looked, and there is none.
verstwo2 2 years ago
ha! an un-believer would say that. how cliche'
UTubeMinistries 2 years ago
What a marvelous coincidence that what an un-believer says is exactly the same thing as what a thinking person says.
Mattprole 2 years ago
I've giving up drinking & whoreing therefore God exists - LMAO
I don't want to know anything-LOL
Brilliant! 5 Stars!
Celticking36 2 years ago
1. It wouldn't make sense to try and prove a negative. You can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster therefore he exists.
2. You can choice other things then beliefs you know.
3. The universe isnt held together by tape just like Atlas isnt holding the earth up.
4. lolwut?
5. You can find meaning in life without thinking a sky daddy is waiting for you.
6. Thats under the assumption that religion is whats holding society together.
7. I just realized this entire video is satire.
SpartanOnFire 2 years ago
7. It's always funny when that happens.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
But you can't satire a god that isn't there so there must be a god.
SpartanOnFire 2 years ago
*This video may not be suitable for minors.*
WTF?
TiMoseb 2 years ago
I know, someone pointed that out to me yesterday. I guess it must be the drunk chick in the thong. That's all I can think of.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Some "Christians" are conducting a false flagging campaign to try to remove atheist videos from youtube.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Very funny!
...Leviticus 24:16 AND:
If "god is omnipotent and could end or prevent all the bad stuff that happens, but doesn't from choice. He is truly an EVIL SOB.
If god is NOT omnipotent, then he is not "god".
There for "god" is the most evil entity and good people should avoid all and any contact. OR
God is merely an impotent old spook not worth a second thought.... OR
The God Delusion is one of the longest running frauds that dumb folk continue to fall for?
Humanism! Not bullshit.
Svenalike 2 years ago
The one problem that the classic "Problem of Evil" argument has is that it doesn't automatically follow that our notion of evil is the same as God's or that ours is right, no matter how we might feel about it. It's not a really easy problem to get around, frankly.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Ridicolous.
piavacthebest 2 years ago
Bad spelling exists, therefore, God.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
this video was a good thing. there are so many good things in the world. therefore, god exists.
wigless 2 years ago
Damn, I think I'm up to 63 proofs of God now :)
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Blasphemy!
Zephyr0q 2 years ago
There can't be blasphemy without God, therefore, God exists.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
One of my favourites for their argument is "If God is such a illogical idea how can we logically think of him? Wouldnt that make him logical?" Its a good play on words, and gives me a laugh every time
p0rkch0ps 2 years ago
awesome!
breaneainn 2 years ago
lol this was funny mate. are u Australian?
ChampChong 2 years ago
Yes I am. Fair dinkum.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
lol thought this was serious at first but about nr 5 i understood it was BS
hyvard 2 years ago
Well, you did put COMEDY as the category (in the small print).
dbes02 2 years ago
Yes, though I ought not have needed to for anyone who watched the whole video.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
wrong, wrong aaaaaaaaaaaand wrong
ChrisWales22 2 years ago
I am always wrong, but someone must always be right, therefore, God.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
What crass, ignorant nonsense!
The key sentence is "I know very little about nature.." Creationism is not the opposite of evolutionary science, IGNORANCE IS!
I wonder why the damage that religion has always done and continues to do has no influence on this ignorant idiot?
150 years of knowledge based scientific evidence ignored in favour of an old book of fiction, fantasy and myth? I don't think so and can only conclude that "god" does NOT exist...
Svenalike 2 years ago
You are angry about God, therefore, God exists.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
lol, these are the basic ignorant arguements of a christian. Very funny.
Wolfeater818 2 years ago
"Down at the rapture with George"? Holy shit, holy shit.
milit4ryfairy 3 years ago
Excellent video!
5 stars!
Hell, I was convinced by the third proof!
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Only the 3rd? Hell, I was convinced by all 30!
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
"Only the 3rd?"
Let me rephrase that:
I was already convinced by the time I got to the third proof!
Better?
:=)
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
You mean you weren't convinced just by the video title? Quite the skeptic!
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Basically, what you're saying is this: a cow is an animal, a horse is an animal. Therefore a cow must be a horse. It's not.
anne0panne 3 years ago
God is immune to your logic! Therefore, God exists.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Complete weak sauce!
SMSBJM1981 3 years ago
LOL :-)
johnatspray 3 years ago
very humerous, but the sad thing is that millions of people really rationalize their faith with these nonsensical arguments. well done.
nathanwesleyjohnson 3 years ago
Indeed, which is why the video is funny and sad at the same time.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
The first few arguments I thought this was serious and my brain was just hurting. Then I noticed Section: Comedy, and felt a relief. Therefore: God is comedy?
Daealis 3 years ago
God is satire, therefore God is. I mean, you can't satirize the non-existent.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
It always seems to me that someone having to argue for God's existence is missing the whole point. If he did exist, you wouldn't have to prove it.
DanTheeMan 3 years ago
You do have to wonder why God would require that we believe in him on Faith when it would be so easy for him to just show himself in a definitive way.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
I like the FSM ending.
With no proof for or against God means there is no God. You have to go with the default of nothing. If I say there is a pink tea cup orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupitur we do not assume that is true because I say it, we assume that it isn't until there is proof.
The Bible lied about Noah's flood, so why not everything else?
I hate logical fallacies though. They piss me off because it shows people's ignorance, and that is what most religious people show.
nidodson 3 years ago
There are a zillions things about which we ought remain agnostic. I think we can go one step further with many God concepts because they contain logical contradictions which effectively disprove the notions. Understanding logical fallacies helps us to think effectively. They are you friend, except when you engage in them!
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
There are only a few reasons we ought to remain agnostic, not even many.
There are more reasons to forget about all religions, and just work together to advance our societies. We would have to forget about more than just religions though, but religion is the one illogical thing we could easily put an end to.
Deism is one thing, but the religions today are just ridiculous, and lead to cult like actions. Though the community unification that religion does is good, it isnt good enough.
nidodson 3 years ago
Orion's Arm!!!
quidproquo2004 3 years ago
Obviously designed by God.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
1 proof of naturalism:
1. ?????
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
Well, this is what many theists do - they claim we can't prove God either way, then merrily opt to believe God exists rather than be agnostic. It's like their belief proves him.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Well of course belief doesn't function as evidence. But even apart from theistic arguments (some of which are good), a presumption of atheism is not warranted. A theist may claim, apart from evidence, that a universe consisting of a finite set of contingent beings ontologically grounded in a necessary being is intrinsically more probable that a universe consisting only of a finite set of contingent beings.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
I regard sound logic as evidence, as any sane person should. However, Aquinas' classical "argument from contingency" merely sows that a non-contingent or necessary *reality* must be. That's hardly an argument for the conventional theistic God. It's also painfully obvious. Reality itself, or the Totality of all that is, necessarily occupies this status, and holds regardless of what you think about the content of the Totality.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
"Reality itself, or the Totality of all that is" is too vague of a concept to be helpful in this discussion. That is because one could either arbitrarily include or exclude God. In addition, how would one go about showing that the universe (1) is ontologically necessary and (2) is not dependent for existence on something outside itself?
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
There's nothing vague about it; it's as explicit a notion as there can possibly be. (1) asking why Reality (the Totality) is ontologically necessary is nonsensical; (2) the Totality cannot be dependent on something else because that something else is by logical definition a part of said Totality. It is non-contingent, by definition.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Yes, it is vague, because, again, God is either arbitrarily included or excluded. Which one is it? And defining the universe (or Totality) as non-contingent is question-begging. If it is not, then how would you demonstrate that it is a brute fact, as you seem to be claiming?
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
God's existence is irrelevant to me in this context. And I'm not so much defining the Totality as non-contingent as I am showing that the very meaning of the concept denotes absoluteness and non-contingency. If there is anything at all, there must be a Totality. That Totality cannot be contingent by dint of the very meaning of its nature.
If you think about it you'll see that a contingent Totality is a contradiction in terms. There's nothing the Totality can be contingent upon.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
That all depends on how you are defining this Totality of yours. Are you saying that it is the sum total of everything that exists, both material and immaterial? Are you saying that the universe is logically necessary?
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
I'm not sure what other coherent definition for Totality there could be other than: all that is.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
And what about logical necessity--is it logically necessary?
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
Logical necessity is simply something that is divined by a mind that can undertake logical processes. It isn't necessary (in the sense that it doesn't always exist), but it can exist if caused to do so. The realities that such a mind comprehends are not contingent upon its existence (e.g. the Totality doesn't cease to be just because no-one comprehends its necessity).
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
You say that your Totality "Isn't necessary (in the sense that it doesn't always exist), but it can exist if caused to do so." So, in other words, it is contingent. If something is not necessary, it is contingent.
So I maintain my initial point. The intrinsic probability of theism is significantly higher than the intrinsic probability of atheism.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
You need to re-read what I wrote. I said that the mental construct of a logical necessity doesn't always exist - but that the reality of what such a construct divines isn't contingent upon such a mental construct.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Do you mean "defines," or are you writing "divines" on purpose?
And this may be the case, that our definitions of a thing do not determine the actual nature of a thing (this is what I take you to mean).
Nevertheless, if one wishes to dispute a definition of a thing, one must bring forth arguments, as must one seeking to maintain a definition.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
I'm writing "divines" on purpose, but only to mean a mental process of comprehension.
My basic point is that if there is anything, there must be a Totality. This will be true whether anyone understands it or not.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
It is unclear why you are stressing this point, that it is "true whether anyone understands it or not." This is a puzzling move for an atheist, in that it is often a criticism of Christian theism that things like God's goodness in spite of evil is true--whether anyone understands it or not.
Are you not stacking the deck in favor of your prior commitments, claiming that, whether you can offer an evidential basis for your position or not, it is true?
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
I'm not "stressing "anything other than the remedial demands of logic. Do you think atheists deny reality itself?
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
No, but in this case it seems that you are begging the question as to whether reality is necessary or contingent. As long as you are claiming that it is necessary whether we "divine" it or so or not, you might as well include your own argument here for the non-existence of God in with your "thirty proofs."
I just don't see how atheists can be so dependent upon question-begging at this point and yet still love the smell of their own farts.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
Can you explain exactly where the question begging is taking place in my position? I'm not seeing it.
Oh, and I'm not a typical atheist. I'm a "Spinozian" atheist.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Well, you're saying that your "Totality" is necessary, without providing argument for this notion.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
I've already said that if there are things, then the Totality is automatically necessary. Do you dispute that?
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Yes, of course. Simple logic shows that this is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow. Why? because the existence of "things" is also compatible with a contingent "totality." To put it another way, the mere existence of an effect does not dictate the nature of the cause (at least, in terms of necessity/contingency).
You cannot assume what you are trying to prove. There is no presumption of atheism, because, ultimately, both theism and atheism are positive claims about a certain kind of universe.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
There cannot be a contingent Totality. It's an incoherent idea. Its non-contingency is proven by the fact that whatever it is claimed to be contingent upon is necessary part of it, and therefore said claim is falsified.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
In that case, one may include God in your concept of "Totality," and you are basically putting forth a tautology. The universe, however, as being only part of, but not the entirety of the totality, is still contingent. And so my original point can be rephrased as follows:
"It is intrinsically more probable that the Totality contains God (i.e. a necessary being) than that it does not (i.e. contains only contingent beings)."
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
I define the Universe as "all that is", so there's no difference to me between the Totality and the Universe. The Universe is not something that begins to exist for me, so I don't need to invoke a cause for it. And even if others do, God does not follow from the universe's contingency; this is one of the failings of the Cosmological argument - which I will address in greater detail in my "God Debunked" series - it will be the first argument I examine.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Actually, your point of view is probably more akin to the related contingency argument of Aquinas, which for me proves a non-contingent reality - but that reality is the Totality, not the conventional theistic God.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Again, you have two HUGE assumptions here, and if you are to engage the actual issue, you need to account for them:
1. The universe is all that is.
2. The universe is not something that begins to exist (for me).
You offer no evidence for either.
Your problem with the cosmological argument seems to be against those who, like Bill Craig, use it as a deductive argument. However, you do not seem prepared to deal with it as a P inductive argument, which is how many Christian philosophers take it.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
A definition isn't an assumption; a definition is a tool with which we do intellectual work. If you want to define the universe as a finite thing that began to exist and requires a cause, that's perfectly fine by me, even though I consider it linguistically nonsensical. That still doesn't lead to the theistic God, it merely argues a necessary cause, which could be anything. My point, again, is that the Totality cannot be contingent, by definition. Deductive arguments are fine if they work.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
On what basis do you contrive these definitions? It seems to me that they are simply arbitrary in your case--the universe extends into the infinite past, does not require causal explanation--why? You seem to have adopted them simply because it fits your preconceived notions, and when I ask for argumentation, all you say is that you choose to define it a certain way. In this way it is an assumption.
Again, you need to consider how philosophers actually use the cosmological argument: inductively.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
I "contrive" these definitions on the basis of sanity. Reality CANNOT be infinite and contingent. It's simply impossible. It's patently, and I do mean *patently* obvious why an *infinite* reality cannot have a cause. I have already stated why and my stated reason is indisputable, given what "infinite" means.
The reason no finite thing (including reality, if one was to assert its finitude) can exist of itself is spelled out in my series on The Nature of Existence.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Even if it were true that an infinity entails necessity (which is highly questionable), you cannot assume that the universe is infinite. On what basis? Surely you are aware that most of the scientific community would seriously disagree with you on this. Further, it is far from clear that an actual infinite can really exist.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
I don't assume the Universe is infinite, I deduce it on the basis that no finite thing/set can exist of itself - i.e. be uncaused. And I'm not interested in what the science community has to say on this issue as it is simply out of their "jurisdiction". The finitude or infinitude of Reality is not something science can answer.
I agree about the Infinite and "existence". For me it doesn't "exist", as only finite things exist (existence is relational), but it is nevertheless real/necessary.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
So your presupposition is that the universe is uncaused. And from that you reason that, since you are assuming it is uncaused, it must be infinite. You don't see how this is question-begging?
And isn't this whole scenario extremely unlikely given the inherent problems with actualizing an infinite set?
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
That the Universe is uncaused is not a presupposition; it's logically necessary; I've already stated why. As to why a finite thing cannot be uncaused (and therefore cannot be the Universe), well, that's what my series on the nature of existence was about, in part. These comments boxes aren't sufficient to spell it out properly. Basically it revolves round the proposition that no finite thing can can exist without relation to what it is not.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
I won't contest your point that an infinite thing must be necessary (although this probably is not true). The real problem is your assumption that the universe is infinite. On what grounds can you make such a claim? Does this not itself fly in the face of logic? Is there any way at all to demonstrate that an actual infinite set of anything is even possible?
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
For me, logic itself demands that the Universe (Totality) be Infinite. Not just logic, but empirical observation as well, simply because any finite thing must be contingent.
And the Infinite is not a set, as such, but its possibility is surely a given if it's logically necessary.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
But don't you understand--the universe is not logically necessary. It is not logically impossible for it not to exist. That is what logical necessity means.
And don't you also see that you are simply repeating your question-begging positions: The universe is infinite, therefore it is necessary (not true, btw).
And you observe the infinite nature of the universe empirically? Are you kidding? This is just going around in a circle--it isn't logic, it's assumptions stack on top of assumption.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
To say Reality could possibly not exist is meaningless.
And one can infer - and subsequently deduce - the infinitude of the Universe by way of empirical observation in the sense that via such observation we can see that no finite thing can exist of itself. The limits of induction means that's not an absolute proof, but when we subsequently examine what it means for a thing to exist in the first place, we can see the necessity of the infinitude of Reality (the Totality.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
1. It depends how you define reality. The universe is not synonymous with reality.
2. You are not speaking inductively. Rather, you're trying to argue that existence entails necessity of infinitude. Thus your argument is deductive.
3. If you don't see the circularity in this line of reasoning (which I've shown several times), you can't be helped. But you shouldn't be making videos that try to give the appearance of logical rigor. You are misleading people.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
1. The Universe IS synonymous with Reality if you *define* it to be. I find the "scientific" definition of "universe" (space, time and matter and the laws governing such) largely meaningless and with efficacy only pertaining to science.
2. I know my argument is deductive, but it also does not defy and is assisted by inductive observation.
3. The knee-jerk reaction people to have circularity in logic is insane. All logic is ultimately circular.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
The reason for that is that we define *everything*. To argue that one cannot legitimately perform logic from one's own definitions is to argue that no-one can ever perform logic. If I ask you what you mean by "Reality", you'll give me a definition, right? How will your subsequent logic not be circular as well?
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Yes, but the simple reason that logic is generally circular in nature does not give us warrant to consider all circular arguments good arguments. To presuppose laws of logic (such as your favorite "A = A," etc.) is not the same as someone arguing that the universe is necessary because it is infinite (which is a non-sequitur, anyway), and then, when asked to substantiate how you know it is infinite, to claim that you know this because it is necessary.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
I have done no such thing. Obviously, in the space available here I can't flesh out my entire perspective, but I have said a number of times now that the the reason Reality must be infinite is that it CAN"T be finite, because no finite thing can exist of itself - therefore, the Totality cannot be finite. You could dispute the claims if I were to explain why no finite thing can exist of itself, but it shows my claim for the infinitude of Reality is not circular in the way you suppose.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
If you are confused as to how your logic is viciously circular, consider what you just wrote.
You wrote:
"The reason Reality must be infinite is that it CAN"T be finite, because no finite thing can exist of itself."
How do you know it "exists of itself" (i.e. it is non-contingent/necessary)? You can't say, "Because it is infinite," because this is a premise in your argument.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
I understand that you equate the universe with reality. My point is that an exclusion of God from this is arbitrary, especially since it is largely by this definition that you seem to be deducing God's non-existence. Why is it not equally legitimate for someone to arbitrarily include God in the equation, so that you have something like God + the universe = "Reality"?
And what do you find lacking in the scientific definition of the universe? Is there something you would include that they do not?
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
Ok, but what role would God have? What would God be in this scenario? I can't discern any philosophical relevance for such a being.
"God + the universe = "Reality? - what is God in that formula? The cause of the universe?
The scientific definition of "universe" tends not to include consciousness or qualia, or for that matter the causes for itself, since these are not strictly empirical concerns.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
God would be the cause of the universe. It is only because you assume that the universe's existence is logically and ontologically necessary (highly contestable) that you don't see the relevance of God here.
What scientist/scientific community do you know of who does not include consciousness and qualia in the universe?
It's interesting you mention that scientists don't include "the causes for [the universe]," particularly since you think the universe is necessary.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
God is irrelevant because the Totality doesn't require - and indeed cannot have - a cause. There's nothing contestable about that for anyone who comprehends the reasons.
Science doesn't tend to consider that which they can't measure.
Science cannot consider such things as the cause of the universe for patently obvious reasons. These are logical and philosophical considerations that lie outside the scope of science. It's arguable whether much of cosmology is even scientific in nature.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Well, I've already told you my opinion on your exclusion of God from your Totality, along with several other problems I perceive in your reasoning. We're going to have to agree to disagree here. Take care.
wittenbergdoor 2 years ago
Fair enough. Thanks for the considered discussion. It was interesting.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Yes, I agree. Good to talk to you.
wittenbergdoor 2 years ago
Mmm, what?
Peronitom 3 years ago
Are you a Biblethumper mate?
Peronitom 3 years ago
What are U talking about?
Peronitom 3 years ago
I've been having a long conversation with the guy who made this video.
wittenbergdoor 3 years ago
What?
Peronitom 3 years ago
Rofl nice video =D (btw i sound stupid but...are u athiest?)
redkirby02 3 years ago
No, I'm an atheist. :)
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
yes you are not not an athiest? XD
:D
redkirby02 3 years ago
I don't even know what an athiest is? A dyslexic atheist, perhaps? Or maybe one who takes the "except after C" rule in grammar too seriously :)
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
14.THERE OWN GOD!
20.Great for you :)
23.I don't
25. ?
28. again ?
Biggest Bullcrap ever
MetaKnightForKing281 3 years ago
yeeahh shoulda watched that all the way through before commenting - sorry ^^
whisperelmwood 3 years ago
That's ok. I didn't know what the hell a "Poe" was, so I learned something. It's an apt label in this case, to some extent.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
What the... is this a Poe?
whisperelmwood 3 years ago
#3 - tell me that's not a dragonball...
thetetrapharmakos 3 years ago
I don't even know what a dragonball is.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
i think you're a jackass who has to create strawman's rather then actual arguments, therefore you are
TheHonestTheist 3 years ago
I've heard each and every one of these arguments - in one form or another - from many theists. You'll just have to suck that fact up, I'm afraid. That not all theists think at this level is something too obvious to require mentioning.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
"I've heard each and every one of these arguments - in one form or another"
Arguments that you're a jackass who has to create strawman's rather then actual arguments? I'm not surprized
TheHonestTheist 3 years ago
Your attitude doesn't change the fact that a great many theists function of the basis of arguments as lame as those in this video. Live with it.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
And your attitude doesn't change the fact that you resorted to straw man arguments rather then something intelligent.
And yes there are idiots in the world, I fully and freely admit that, but what of it? Why should I "live with it" There are plenty of atheist idiots too. Neither of them affect me though, so why should I care?
TheHonestTheist 3 years ago
Stop tossing around the names of logical fallacies the application of which you don't properly understand. The video is not a strawman because it's not a formal argument; it's satire, albeit serious satire.
Unfortunately there are many millions of such idiots in the world - some of them national leaders - and *that* matters.
Atheists idiots? Sure. Look where we are. It's a microcosm of such.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
"logical fallacies" ?
Does that mean there are illogical fallacies too? :P
"The video is not a strawman"
Oh come on! It's obvious really stupid argument being presented to be knocked down (straw mannnnnnnnn) back to back strawman's
TheHonestTheist 3 years ago
Like I say, you are not applying the strawman fallacy concept properly in this instance. The *fact* is millions of theists employ these sorts of arguments, this level of argument, all the time. That means the vid is not a strawman. It would only be so if it contended that all theists do so, which is not the intention. Everyone knows they don't, even if their more "sophisticated" arguments are ultimately pretty nonsensical too.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
pfffffffffffffff, whatever man, it's a series of strawmans, arguments you put up, to be knocked down and you know it
Well done on promoting atheist propaganda though! Keep thinking that all theists are idiots, then you won't have to address any intellectual arguments. You can just focus on the stupid one's that atheists make up.
As for me though, I would rather focus on the actual arguments rather then the strawmans.
Anyways, good luck to ya ;)
God Bless,
Henry
TheHonestTheist 3 years ago
Henry,
I've watched one or two of your videos. It's not me who needs the luck, sir, nor a proper education.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago