@thegreatapologist You're making a big deal of this and there's no need. All he's doing is asking you to pretend you have no religion, go through the list of cards writing down the reasons why you dismiss those other religions. Then put christianity to the test using the same set of rules and reasons you used to dismiss the other religions. That's all dawg.
However, the belief for that person will be just as valid to them as yours are to you. It doesn't "prove" anything about the objective validity of their belief, but rather demonstrates how arbitrary they are.
Ok, I watched 2 mins and stopped. I just want to point out how clear it is that you have never actually studied logic or rhetoric since your assumptions are wrong. You should learn about a topic before making videos lecturing others on those subjects.
You've accused mysterybox of basing his argument on assumptions but your entire rebuttal is based on the assumption that Christianity has more truth value than any other religion. Until you can support that assertion with actual facts your position has no validity ( and this is according to your standards as you presented them), and, thus, the original argument stands.
@tiggster13 I can't really think about how any of my argumentation was based upon the assumptions you described. All I did was illustrate some common sense premises and use examples.
@thegreatapologist Take another look at your video and begin with the assumption that Christianity has the same or less truth value as any other religion and your arguments will fall apart.
@tiggster13 I didn't dismiss his argument because of lack of clarity. The reason that I placed this argument in my video is to illustrate that any fault I might have in interpretation of his argument (which it appears there was none) is not my fault.
@thegreatapologist Then what's to stop me, or anyone else, from dismissing your arguments because of lack of clarity? Since when is validity measured by whether or not the audience grasps the argument? You may question an argument and ask for clarification if you don't readily see how the logic of an argument, but you cannot say "You cas't be correct because I don't understand you".
@MrApologician Christians say that God is 100% good yet He is responsible for all evil and Jesus was supposedly 100% human and 100% God. That's just 2 examples of how Christianity breaks the law of non-contradiction. Now, you may want to wiggle your way around these things (just like the Hindus do) but you can't say that this argument cannot be applied to to Christianity for, obviously, it can.
@tiggster13 what is half of infinity....infinity if jesus is half man and half god yet has a nature of infinity he is fully man and fully god becuse of the fact that 1/2 of infinty=infinty the hinus say that bramin is seprate and everywhere which cannot be reconcelied or harmonized by the infinity clause.
@MrApologician Man is not infinite. How can god be infinite and not infinite at the same time?
And "everywhere" includes not only all places but all of the places in between places and the places in between those places and so on, so the infinity clause would apply to Bramin.
@tiggster13 Evil is a deviation from God. God permitting or even creating evil for use in some higher, yet unkown purpose, is not evil.
As for the incarnation, I will admit that as of right now, I do not fully understand it. This is true of a lot of things God does. we are limited in our comprehension, while God is not.
@thegreatapologist Then you cannot perceive right from wrong, all you can do is obey and pass the responsibility for your actions onto god. If god tells you to murder, you go out and murder; if god tells you don't rape then you don't rape. You are nothing but a soulless machine blindly following orders.
To deviate from perfection is to be human, to follow your god is to be inhuman.
@thegreatapologist "we are limited in our comprehension" Very true, which is why humans feel the need to create gods to feel as though they can comprehend the universe, life, etc, when in reality, i'm sure the truth is alot more beautiful that all these fictional evil gods.
@baldurus1 I don't think that the dependence of God upon belief is ever substantiated in any religion. I'm not really sure why you think that the self evident fact that you reiterated disproves any religion. The same holds true for all things. I might just easily say that same of any other abstract concept, such as reason. I could even say the same of you. All I have are your words, similar to how a Bible is. How do I know that baldurus1 really exists?
When you take into account that the bible was actually not the full word of events that happened you can see how it was designed for a form of control. Not in the sence that you command somthing and they follow it blindly but in the way that your say trust me and ask no questions and everyone says OK. The bible was a voted collection of scriptures of the time not giving the full story. To ask for the full story would be met with empty hands and asked to by taken on faith not a logic or reason.
@TheSooostoned If God creates the world, than he existed indefinitely and therefore your point is irrelevant.
The Bible would be the worst sort of book to control people with. The entire reason that some Roman emperors tried to stamp it out is because it doesn't encourage the sort of dedication to authority that would be useful to authority. Jesus doesn't come and say "Give me all your money" he says "Give all your money to the poor." What a silly thing for a manipulative conspirator to write!
@TheSooostoned The Bible is not a catholic book. Catholicism is a religious belief based off of the new and old testaments and the group of books called the apocrypha. Protestant faiths base their belief on the new and old testament, while Judaism bases itself on the old testament. Protestantism is not a variant of Catholicism, they are completely different, in such areas as how we attain salvation, who God is, and how the church is organized.
@TheSooostoned Religion for control is logical. I never said that it was. Hitler, Pope Innocent the III, and the Japanese Shogunate all used religion for control. I said that the concept of a conspiracy intended to be enacted against people living thousands of years into the future isn't logical.
The concept of a tithe isn't what you think it is. It is giving back a tenth of your earnings to God. This includes charity, missions, basically whatever spending is for the betterment of others.
I don't pick and choose slavery. The book of Leviticus advocates a system of rules that were a lot stricter than the times. It ruled that you had to treat your slaves fairly, that you had to marry a woman that you raped instead of killing her, and that you should sacrifice animals. Meanwhile, in Canaan, they were butchering people, practicing cult prostitution, and sacrificing live babies. I'm not too worried about Leviticus.
@TheSooostoned That's an interesting conspiracy theory. I have a little trouble believing that an ancient conspiracy organization conspired to steal people's money thousands of years in the future by creating unique entities that do not share money (churches) and channel most of the funds they receive back to the community.
@TheSooostoned The second conclusion that Descartes arrived at was that a God exists. The existence of a creating entity is a rational belief. Santa Claus is not a rational belief. I do not believe in Santa Claus, I believe, like Aristotle, in a first cause.
@AndreisEntaro My point with his thought experiment did exactly that. Alluded to an argument. The problem with that is, since he didn't state the argument, any interpretations of it that we make are just that. Our interpretations. What I feared was that I would interpret is argument incorrectly, as others have done, and then be dismissed. I was pointing out that if no one can respond to him because no one interprets his argument correctly, then it was because he was vague.
@thegreatapologist Then asking for clarification is more appropriate than attempting to assert that his argument should be rejected. Secondarily, your point in the first half of the video is made moot by your attempt to address in the second half.
Others are only going to see that you claim his argument is non-existent and then proceed as if it does.
@AndreisEntaro As for asking for clarification, sustained. Although I would disagree with the second part of the sentence. I tried to refute my interpretation of his argument, an interpretation that could be wrong.
I did not in any way mean to indicate that his argument is non-existent. I just meant that it isn't clear.
@thegreatapologist " I tried to refute my interpretation of his argument, an interpretation that could be wrong." Granted, just pointing out how things appear on this end.
In fact, to prove my point, i will present a statement along with a question. Imagine, all the religions across the world, across mans entire time line of existence. As a general statement, most religions(not all) believe that only their followers are going to heaven. Essentially turning getting into heaven more like the lotto than anything else. GOD: awe sorry kid, bad luck, your a _____, the correct religion is _____. Well if this is true, i'm sure hell is getting pretty full don't you think?
@ALFAD0G777 while almost all religions provide some sort of benefits, there are so many differences that only one religion can be true. There are even differences in the heavens of each religion. For example, Mormonism teaches that we gain the power of gods, while Islam believes that there are seven circles to heaven, with various rewards for each.
Because of all of these differences, only one religion can be right. The key is to find the one that has the most evidence in favor of it.
You sound smart, you use big words, but in the end... your arguments are paper thin... Why are you acting like his idea is going to be published as common knowledge? You made clear statements, but your overall presentation of those statements was very poor. You have what i call, "diarrhea of the mouth"
Alright. . .I watched this video and I understand what you are saying but seriously, you are using all this big talk about how his video is unclear and therefore should be rejected and yet I understood his video perfectly. You should be able to understand the simple idea of what he is saying. . .I used his example(except i didn't use over 1,000 cards) on a friend who was a thiest and he did exactly what MystryBox explained. Btw. . .what do you believe?
@xSpletz Well, the overarching idea that he presents is clear. However, as pointed out in my video, the links between premises and the premises themselves are not clear. When there is such a situation, it becomes difficult to determine what flaws (if any) exist in the argument. This is the reason that the premise-premise-conclusion format was invented in the first place.
Holy shit, while I watch this I can actually see the hypocrisy growing! You seem to be obbsessed with perfectly constructed argumentation and flawless points which are COMPLETELY ABSENT WITHIN THE IDEA OF RELIGION. IF HYPOCRISY WAS AN ANIMITE AND SENTIET THING, YOU WOULD BE IT!
@thegreatapologist I don't know what you consider it then, if you can't present the so called facts of christianity or whatever god you worship, then whats the point of being religious?
@Dillingerman1 I can. I just wasn't being asked to do so as part of this video.
Religion can have a lot of different purposes to a lot of different people. My personal reason is twofold:
Firstly, after surveying the evidence, I find religion to provide more rational explanations (not in all cases!) to the fundamental questions of nature.
Secondly, I've had interaction with God on a personal level. I know he's there, because I've been willing to listen to him.
@Dillingerman1 Actually, one of the reasons I chose to provide this part of the response (aside from the primary reason outlined in the vid) was to give a rational for any mistakes that I might make of his argument (as other responders to the vid have done). I wanted to establish how any mistakes that might appear in my interpretation of his argument was not a fault on my part. However, since he has not seemed to disagree with my interpretation, I guess all's well :)
Sad. You're refuting something based on an irrelevant semantic? His title has the word "argument", but it wasn't an argument but a thought experiment. You yourself will construct an argument against your own religion if you honestly do the experiment. The better apologist you are, the better the argument will be against your own religion.
@PainefulMass Well, as outlined in the video, there are specific reasons why some arguments reveal larger faults in one religion then another.
Calling it a thought experiment does not show my video to be wrong. The video I responded to was a thought experiment as well.
And it is illogical to say that all who claim to have "gone through the experiment" and claimed that it didn't weaken their faith is lying. You have no proof of that.
These things I just said are obvious without having to be clarified. Besides, if stating your premises in all situations and cases when posing an argument was necessary then one would have little time to actually have a debate.
@GrottoFace Actually, it speeds up debate. That way, the argument is presented straightforwardly, so I don't need to take as much time figuring out what the argument is before I actually discuss it.
I was referring to defining all the specifics and details to your beliefs. It's a given that to have a decent debate you're required to state where you stand on certain issues, but to in-depth clarify things in their entirety would take way too long.
In this case Mystrybox wasn't more specific than he had to be.
@GrottoFace I've participated in formal debate. You have no idea how annoying it is for one team to misconstrue the other team's point, the other team to clarify, back and forth....
You're coming off as slightly arrogant with the "I have participated in formal debate", "You have no idea how-" and "trust me". It's about time you get off your high horse already.
As for what you were actually saying.. I'm not even sure what comment of mine you're replying to. I can very well imagine what it is that you are saying here. That's how most debates seem to go.
@GrottoFace Sorry that I sounded arrogant! the internet does not include tone of voice. I'm usually the jokester in real life, but that can sound a whole lot different in text. That's been something I've been trying to work on, so thanks for pointing that out.
This comment was directed to your statement that it would take to much time to provide full clarification.
What I was saying originally was simply that some things you simply shouldn't have to clarify, and that if you did then there would never be any time to have any sort of conversation. I don't think we're speaking of the same sort of clarifications.
Oh, and don't worry about the arrogance-thing. Come to think of it, I probably don't come across as the most humble person either.
@GrottoFace Of course. In fact, overclarification can be annoying. I had noticed that a lot of people had misinterpreted his argument in their video responses. All he had to do was explain how their answer didn't apply. To prevent this from happening to me on the off chance that I had misinterpreted his argument, I wanted to show how this would actually be his fault, not mine.
Also, the thought experiment had a blatantly obvious purpose of showing one how ones own religion may not hold up against the very same arguments one uses to reject another religion.
Granted, not every religion is identical. However, a lot of religions are built upon similar premises, and if an argument can be used against a premise shared by a lot religions then the argument is generally applicable to each of these respective religions.
@GrottoFace That was showing that his argument conflicted with real life situations.
@ second paragraph: Yes, but as to how applicable it is, that is truly the question. My point was that there are three possibilities: Either the argument is invalid, or it doesn't apply to one religion as much as another, or that it is fully valid against both, but it doesn't matter in the big picture. If you can find a killer argument that blanket strikes all religions then I will become an atheist. Good luck.
"That was showing that his argument conflicted with real life situations."
How so? There was no argument, but an encouragement to think and further evaluate ones bias.
"but it doesn't matter in the big picture."
You say this without giving a reason. When I refer to an argument as applicable to several religions I'm under the premise that it is valid in regards to these religions, to one extent or another. Your 3 possibilities are just unnecessarily stated as they, too, are obvious.
only 1 minute in and you're attacking the video on it's title and not content. Let me save everyone 10 minutes of time--the video doesn't give an actual formal argument (as should be obvious). It's a thought experiment, not an argument.
@MystryBox How am I attacking the title? By asking that you place your argument into a formal logically cohesive setup? By identifying the assertions you make and show how they aren't true? How is this an attack on title?
And additionally, if you believe that this is not addressing your content, I would challenge you to clarify your content enough for me to argue against it. This video was working off of my guess of what your argument was. If you don't like my guess, state your argument.
@thegreatapologist the video was made a long time ago. What is the point of asking that it be something that it isn't? That the video is not a formal argument has been acknowledged many times in the past already in the comments. Let me save you the time you might spend making more reply videos by pointing out that none of my videos are formal arguments.
@MystryBox That does not mean that you shouldn't place this as a formal argument. My argument as to the importance of forming a formal argument stands.
Now, this does not address the other refutation I provided. The whole reason I included the first portion was, in addition to establishing your argument's incoherency, was to keep you from simply saying that I hadn't tagged your argument correctly.
@thegreatapologist I don't dispute the usefulness of formal argument. However that is not what I do on youtube nor do I think it's a particularly useful way to use youtube. I suspect the vast majority of viewers on youtube (like the general population) are not interested in formal argument nor would they even recognize one. If you want a formal argument there are better places to find them. But you'll still lose because in the end you're trying to argue for a book of apparent myths. Best.
@MystryBox Well, the standard I set was one of clarity. I stated that formal arguments are the most clear, but what the main point was was that it simply wasn't clear. Your other arguments were clear enough to deduce premises from, and therefore met the standard. This one doesn't.
And stop trying to delve into completely unrelated topics. We're discussing the validity of religion in general, so I'm not sure why you keep singling out one faith.
This has been flagged as spam show
@thegreatapologist You're making a big deal of this and there's no need. All he's doing is asking you to pretend you have no religion, go through the list of cards writing down the reasons why you dismiss those other religions. Then put christianity to the test using the same set of rules and reasons you used to dismiss the other religions. That's all dawg.
MrSitemaster2 2 weeks ago
and the 201 to 200 it only takes 1 apple to spoil the barrel
johntheminecrafter 1 month ago
god did not change u are taking bait from atheists lol
johntheminecrafter 1 month ago
u need to understand there is proof for christanity u just dont look for it lol
johntheminecrafter 1 month ago
However, the belief for that person will be just as valid to them as yours are to you. It doesn't "prove" anything about the objective validity of their belief, but rather demonstrates how arbitrary they are.
ApatheticOmniscience 3 months ago
Ok, I watched 2 mins and stopped. I just want to point out how clear it is that you have never actually studied logic or rhetoric since your assumptions are wrong. You should learn about a topic before making videos lecturing others on those subjects.
coryconley1 5 months ago
You've accused mysterybox of basing his argument on assumptions but your entire rebuttal is based on the assumption that Christianity has more truth value than any other religion. Until you can support that assertion with actual facts your position has no validity ( and this is according to your standards as you presented them), and, thus, the original argument stands.
tiggster13 5 months ago
@tiggster13 I can't really think about how any of my argumentation was based upon the assumptions you described. All I did was illustrate some common sense premises and use examples.
thegreatapologist 5 months ago
@thegreatapologist Take another look at your video and begin with the assumption that Christianity has the same or less truth value as any other religion and your arguments will fall apart.
tiggster13 5 months ago
Premise 1: Christians are capable of formulating arguments against other religions.
Premise 2: The arguments that Christians use against other religions can be applied to Christianity.
Conclusion: Christians cannot dismiss atheism and hold that their belief is the only valid belief.
You can't dismiss the argument as being false just because you can't comprehend it.
tiggster13 5 months ago
@tiggster13 I didn't dismiss his argument because of lack of clarity. The reason that I placed this argument in my video is to illustrate that any fault I might have in interpretation of his argument (which it appears there was none) is not my fault.
thegreatapologist 5 months ago
@thegreatapologist Then what's to stop me, or anyone else, from dismissing your arguments because of lack of clarity? Since when is validity measured by whether or not the audience grasps the argument? You may question an argument and ask for clarification if you don't readily see how the logic of an argument, but you cannot say "You cas't be correct because I don't understand you".
tiggster13 5 months ago
@tiggster13
dude you thats not true for example the hindus break the law of noncontradiction yet christians dont
how can the illogical argument be aplied there!!!!!!!!!!
MrApologician 5 months ago
@MrApologician Christians say that God is 100% good yet He is responsible for all evil and Jesus was supposedly 100% human and 100% God. That's just 2 examples of how Christianity breaks the law of non-contradiction. Now, you may want to wiggle your way around these things (just like the Hindus do) but you can't say that this argument cannot be applied to to Christianity for, obviously, it can.
tiggster13 5 months ago
@tiggster13 what is half of infinity....infinity if jesus is half man and half god yet has a nature of infinity he is fully man and fully god becuse of the fact that 1/2 of infinty=infinty the hinus say that bramin is seprate and everywhere which cannot be reconcelied or harmonized by the infinity clause.
MrApologician 3 months ago
@MrApologician Man is not infinite. How can god be infinite and not infinite at the same time?
And "everywhere" includes not only all places but all of the places in between places and the places in between those places and so on, so the infinity clause would apply to Bramin.
tiggster13 3 months ago
@tiggster13 Evil is a deviation from God. God permitting or even creating evil for use in some higher, yet unkown purpose, is not evil.
As for the incarnation, I will admit that as of right now, I do not fully understand it. This is true of a lot of things God does. we are limited in our comprehension, while God is not.
thegreatapologist 3 months ago
@thegreatapologist Then you cannot perceive right from wrong, all you can do is obey and pass the responsibility for your actions onto god. If god tells you to murder, you go out and murder; if god tells you don't rape then you don't rape. You are nothing but a soulless machine blindly following orders.
To deviate from perfection is to be human, to follow your god is to be inhuman.
tiggster13 3 months ago
@thegreatapologist "we are limited in our comprehension" Very true, which is why humans feel the need to create gods to feel as though they can comprehend the universe, life, etc, when in reality, i'm sure the truth is alot more beautiful that all these fictional evil gods.
aDislikeBot 1 month ago
You yourself just argued against believing in any god.
"belief is not attached to reality".
baldurus1 5 months ago
@baldurus1 I don't think that the dependence of God upon belief is ever substantiated in any religion. I'm not really sure why you think that the self evident fact that you reiterated disproves any religion. The same holds true for all things. I might just easily say that same of any other abstract concept, such as reason. I could even say the same of you. All I have are your words, similar to how a Bible is. How do I know that baldurus1 really exists?
thegreatapologist 5 months ago
@thegreatapologist People manifest in reality, god doesn't.
We can scientifically test if i exist, god can not be tested.
So why believe in a supernatural being, and why believe in a particular supernatural being and not every supernatural being?
baldurus1 5 months ago
When you take into account that the bible was actually not the full word of events that happened you can see how it was designed for a form of control. Not in the sence that you command somthing and they follow it blindly but in the way that your say trust me and ask no questions and everyone says OK. The bible was a voted collection of scriptures of the time not giving the full story. To ask for the full story would be met with empty hands and asked to by taken on faith not a logic or reason.
MrTbore 6 months ago
@TheSooostoned If God creates the world, than he existed indefinitely and therefore your point is irrelevant.
The Bible would be the worst sort of book to control people with. The entire reason that some Roman emperors tried to stamp it out is because it doesn't encourage the sort of dedication to authority that would be useful to authority. Jesus doesn't come and say "Give me all your money" he says "Give all your money to the poor." What a silly thing for a manipulative conspirator to write!
thegreatapologist 8 months ago
@TheSooostoned The Bible is not a catholic book. Catholicism is a religious belief based off of the new and old testaments and the group of books called the apocrypha. Protestant faiths base their belief on the new and old testament, while Judaism bases itself on the old testament. Protestantism is not a variant of Catholicism, they are completely different, in such areas as how we attain salvation, who God is, and how the church is organized.
thegreatapologist 8 months ago
@TheSooostoned pp
thegreatapologist 8 months ago
@TheSooostoned Religion for control is logical. I never said that it was. Hitler, Pope Innocent the III, and the Japanese Shogunate all used religion for control. I said that the concept of a conspiracy intended to be enacted against people living thousands of years into the future isn't logical.
The concept of a tithe isn't what you think it is. It is giving back a tenth of your earnings to God. This includes charity, missions, basically whatever spending is for the betterment of others.
thegreatapologist 8 months ago
@TheSooostoned I'm not catholic though. I thought you were referring to my faith, not the catholic faith.
thegreatapologist 8 months ago
@TheSooostoned HE? who is HE?
I don't pick and choose slavery. The book of Leviticus advocates a system of rules that were a lot stricter than the times. It ruled that you had to treat your slaves fairly, that you had to marry a woman that you raped instead of killing her, and that you should sacrifice animals. Meanwhile, in Canaan, they were butchering people, practicing cult prostitution, and sacrificing live babies. I'm not too worried about Leviticus.
thegreatapologist 8 months ago
@TheSooostoned That's an interesting conspiracy theory. I have a little trouble believing that an ancient conspiracy organization conspired to steal people's money thousands of years in the future by creating unique entities that do not share money (churches) and channel most of the funds they receive back to the community.
thegreatapologist 8 months ago
@TheSooostoned The second conclusion that Descartes arrived at was that a God exists. The existence of a creating entity is a rational belief. Santa Claus is not a rational belief. I do not believe in Santa Claus, I believe, like Aristotle, in a first cause.
thegreatapologist 8 months ago
Your video borders on senselessness. Write your arguments out and read them a couple of times first.
Asserting that premises are the "most best" way to present an argument is not a premise. The statement is qualitative. Premises need to be empirical.
I also concur with the other comments on your counter-argument. It's is flawed beyond enumeration.
Finally, MystryBox is not conducting a formal argument. He is implying one via a thought experiment.
AndreisEntaro 10 months ago
@AndreisEntaro My point with his thought experiment did exactly that. Alluded to an argument. The problem with that is, since he didn't state the argument, any interpretations of it that we make are just that. Our interpretations. What I feared was that I would interpret is argument incorrectly, as others have done, and then be dismissed. I was pointing out that if no one can respond to him because no one interprets his argument correctly, then it was because he was vague.
thegreatapologist 10 months ago
@thegreatapologist Then asking for clarification is more appropriate than attempting to assert that his argument should be rejected. Secondarily, your point in the first half of the video is made moot by your attempt to address in the second half.
Others are only going to see that you claim his argument is non-existent and then proceed as if it does.
AndreisEntaro 10 months ago
@AndreisEntaro As for asking for clarification, sustained. Although I would disagree with the second part of the sentence. I tried to refute my interpretation of his argument, an interpretation that could be wrong.
I did not in any way mean to indicate that his argument is non-existent. I just meant that it isn't clear.
thegreatapologist 10 months ago
@thegreatapologist " I tried to refute my interpretation of his argument, an interpretation that could be wrong." Granted, just pointing out how things appear on this end.
AndreisEntaro 10 months ago
In fact, to prove my point, i will present a statement along with a question. Imagine, all the religions across the world, across mans entire time line of existence. As a general statement, most religions(not all) believe that only their followers are going to heaven. Essentially turning getting into heaven more like the lotto than anything else. GOD: awe sorry kid, bad luck, your a _____, the correct religion is _____. Well if this is true, i'm sure hell is getting pretty full don't you think?
ALFAD0G777 11 months ago
@ALFAD0G777 while almost all religions provide some sort of benefits, there are so many differences that only one religion can be true. There are even differences in the heavens of each religion. For example, Mormonism teaches that we gain the power of gods, while Islam believes that there are seven circles to heaven, with various rewards for each.
Because of all of these differences, only one religion can be right. The key is to find the one that has the most evidence in favor of it.
thegreatapologist 11 months ago
You sound smart, you use big words, but in the end... your arguments are paper thin... Why are you acting like his idea is going to be published as common knowledge? You made clear statements, but your overall presentation of those statements was very poor. You have what i call, "diarrhea of the mouth"
ALFAD0G777 11 months ago
Alright. . .I watched this video and I understand what you are saying but seriously, you are using all this big talk about how his video is unclear and therefore should be rejected and yet I understood his video perfectly. You should be able to understand the simple idea of what he is saying. . .I used his example(except i didn't use over 1,000 cards) on a friend who was a thiest and he did exactly what MystryBox explained. Btw. . .what do you believe?
xSpletz 1 year ago
@xSpletz Well, the overarching idea that he presents is clear. However, as pointed out in my video, the links between premises and the premises themselves are not clear. When there is such a situation, it becomes difficult to determine what flaws (if any) exist in the argument. This is the reason that the premise-premise-conclusion format was invented in the first place.
And I'm a Christian.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
Holy shit, while I watch this I can actually see the hypocrisy growing! You seem to be obbsessed with perfectly constructed argumentation and flawless points which are COMPLETELY ABSENT WITHIN THE IDEA OF RELIGION. IF HYPOCRISY WAS AN ANIMITE AND SENTIET THING, YOU WOULD BE IT!
Dillingerman1 1 year ago
@Dillingerman1 Religion is not in and of itself an argument. Not everything should be formatted into logical structure, just logic based arguments.
And, as a general note, you might not insult people that you're trying to convince.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist I don't know what you consider it then, if you can't present the so called facts of christianity or whatever god you worship, then whats the point of being religious?
Dillingerman1 1 year ago
@Dillingerman1 I can. I just wasn't being asked to do so as part of this video.
Religion can have a lot of different purposes to a lot of different people. My personal reason is twofold:
Firstly, after surveying the evidence, I find religion to provide more rational explanations (not in all cases!) to the fundamental questions of nature.
Secondly, I've had interaction with God on a personal level. I know he's there, because I've been willing to listen to him.
Other people have other reasons.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist I'd only beg you to provide me with just one example of how religion provides a rational example of nature.
Dillingerman1 1 year ago
@Dillingerman1 I'll post some videos.
One of them would be, of course, the existence of the universe at all.
Another would be the expanding universe, which therefore indicates a beginning point.
Isaac Newton once said, "In the absence of all other evidence, a thumb would be all I need to prove God's existence.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
I think you're just mad you didn't get.
Dillingerman1 1 year ago
@Dillingerman1 Actually, one of the reasons I chose to provide this part of the response (aside from the primary reason outlined in the vid) was to give a rational for any mistakes that I might make of his argument (as other responders to the vid have done). I wanted to establish how any mistakes that might appear in my interpretation of his argument was not a fault on my part. However, since he has not seemed to disagree with my interpretation, I guess all's well :)
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
Sad. You're refuting something based on an irrelevant semantic? His title has the word "argument", but it wasn't an argument but a thought experiment. You yourself will construct an argument against your own religion if you honestly do the experiment. The better apologist you are, the better the argument will be against your own religion.
PainefulMass 1 year ago
@PainefulMass Well, as outlined in the video, there are specific reasons why some arguments reveal larger faults in one religion then another.
Calling it a thought experiment does not show my video to be wrong. The video I responded to was a thought experiment as well.
And it is illogical to say that all who claim to have "gone through the experiment" and claimed that it didn't weaken their faith is lying. You have no proof of that.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
Pascal's wager is a response to "Why do you waste your time in church?"
busdriver8980 1 year ago
@busdriver8980 Or, better yet, "Why even argue at all?"
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
Comment removed
GrottoFace 1 year ago
Comment removed
GrottoFace 1 year ago
These things I just said are obvious without having to be clarified. Besides, if stating your premises in all situations and cases when posing an argument was necessary then one would have little time to actually have a debate.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
@GrottoFace Actually, it speeds up debate. That way, the argument is presented straightforwardly, so I don't need to take as much time figuring out what the argument is before I actually discuss it.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist
I was referring to defining all the specifics and details to your beliefs. It's a given that to have a decent debate you're required to state where you stand on certain issues, but to in-depth clarify things in their entirety would take way too long.
In this case Mystrybox wasn't more specific than he had to be.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
@GrottoFace I was trying to remain religion neutral. I was trying to provide a defense for religion in general, as oppposed to my specific faith.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@GrottoFace I've participated in formal debate. You have no idea how annoying it is for one team to misconstrue the other team's point, the other team to clarify, back and forth....
It actually saves time. Trust me.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist
You're coming off as slightly arrogant with the "I have participated in formal debate", "You have no idea how-" and "trust me". It's about time you get off your high horse already.
As for what you were actually saying.. I'm not even sure what comment of mine you're replying to. I can very well imagine what it is that you are saying here. That's how most debates seem to go.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
@GrottoFace Sorry that I sounded arrogant! the internet does not include tone of voice. I'm usually the jokester in real life, but that can sound a whole lot different in text. That's been something I've been trying to work on, so thanks for pointing that out.
This comment was directed to your statement that it would take to much time to provide full clarification.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist
What I was saying originally was simply that some things you simply shouldn't have to clarify, and that if you did then there would never be any time to have any sort of conversation. I don't think we're speaking of the same sort of clarifications.
Oh, and don't worry about the arrogance-thing. Come to think of it, I probably don't come across as the most humble person either.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
@GrottoFace Of course. In fact, overclarification can be annoying. I had noticed that a lot of people had misinterpreted his argument in their video responses. All he had to do was explain how their answer didn't apply. To prevent this from happening to me on the off chance that I had misinterpreted his argument, I wanted to show how this would actually be his fault, not mine.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
This video would be bearable if you had a proper microphone and if you weren't making such an effort to sound smart to the point of being confusing.
I'd suggest a bit more substance to what you're saying as opposed to using fancy words.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
Also, the thought experiment had a blatantly obvious purpose of showing one how ones own religion may not hold up against the very same arguments one uses to reject another religion.
Granted, not every religion is identical. However, a lot of religions are built upon similar premises, and if an argument can be used against a premise shared by a lot religions then the argument is generally applicable to each of these respective religions.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
@GrottoFace That was showing that his argument conflicted with real life situations.
@ second paragraph: Yes, but as to how applicable it is, that is truly the question. My point was that there are three possibilities: Either the argument is invalid, or it doesn't apply to one religion as much as another, or that it is fully valid against both, but it doesn't matter in the big picture. If you can find a killer argument that blanket strikes all religions then I will become an atheist. Good luck.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
"That was showing that his argument conflicted with real life situations."
How so? There was no argument, but an encouragement to think and further evaluate ones bias.
"but it doesn't matter in the big picture."
You say this without giving a reason. When I refer to an argument as applicable to several religions I'm under the premise that it is valid in regards to these religions, to one extent or another. Your 3 possibilities are just unnecessarily stated as they, too, are obvious.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
@GrottoFace That's just the way I talk.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist
"That's just the way I talk."
It comes across as unnatural due to a certain lack of flow when you speak. Perhaps that's just me though, who feels that way.
GrottoFace 1 year ago
@GrottoFace Thanks for the tip
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
only 1 minute in and you're attacking the video on it's title and not content. Let me save everyone 10 minutes of time--the video doesn't give an actual formal argument (as should be obvious). It's a thought experiment, not an argument.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox How am I attacking the title? By asking that you place your argument into a formal logically cohesive setup? By identifying the assertions you make and show how they aren't true? How is this an attack on title?
And additionally, if you believe that this is not addressing your content, I would challenge you to clarify your content enough for me to argue against it. This video was working off of my guess of what your argument was. If you don't like my guess, state your argument.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist the video was made a long time ago. What is the point of asking that it be something that it isn't? That the video is not a formal argument has been acknowledged many times in the past already in the comments. Let me save you the time you might spend making more reply videos by pointing out that none of my videos are formal arguments.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox That does not mean that you shouldn't place this as a formal argument. My argument as to the importance of forming a formal argument stands.
Now, this does not address the other refutation I provided. The whole reason I included the first portion was, in addition to establishing your argument's incoherency, was to keep you from simply saying that I hadn't tagged your argument correctly.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist I don't dispute the usefulness of formal argument. However that is not what I do on youtube nor do I think it's a particularly useful way to use youtube. I suspect the vast majority of viewers on youtube (like the general population) are not interested in formal argument nor would they even recognize one. If you want a formal argument there are better places to find them. But you'll still lose because in the end you're trying to argue for a book of apparent myths. Best.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Well, the standard I set was one of clarity. I stated that formal arguments are the most clear, but what the main point was was that it simply wasn't clear. Your other arguments were clear enough to deduce premises from, and therefore met the standard. This one doesn't.
And stop trying to delve into completely unrelated topics. We're discussing the validity of religion in general, so I'm not sure why you keep singling out one faith.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago