What a joke this guy is. It's like saying the laws of nature is due to Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pink Unicorn. Atheists simply believe with evidence (can't be anymore rational than that). It's rather much more difficult to answer who made god? It's utterly ridiculous how god could have formed all by itself. Oh yeah there must be a designer who made god. No wonder these fanatics are called irrational.
I don't think he understands the difference between mathematical certainty and empiricism.
Genesis says the universe is orderly, sure, but it also says 2=7, that there were once only 2 humans in existence, and that the Earth is flat, on pillars and under a dome.
Besides, invoking a God does 0 explanatory work towards the consistency of physical laws. Why then is this diety consistent? Why then does this diety exist? How can you infer that it exists? Why the Bible?
This guy really is a smarmy douche lol... Based on his Christianity he is predisposed to not listening to rational thought, so thus no matter how much he is proven to be wrong he will always make up a different twist. Why don't you take a real challenge, like oh I don't know, Randy's 1 million dollar challenge. Then since god exists, you can collect 1mill!!!!
So, atheists beg the question if they think they can establish the uniformity of nature using induction. The Scottish philosopher David Hume did establish this fact. Rational atheists, of course, do admit this as a real problem.
On the other hand, theists who explain the uniformity of nature through god do manage to explain this mystery, but they do so through an even larger mystery!
And theists accuse atheists of begging the question? Oh, circular irony... what douchebags you create...
Guy's an idiot. God moderates this supposed "uniformity of nature"? How about that time when the red sea was parted, or when Jesus walked on water? That doesn't seem like a uniformity of nature...
If I were to give you as dollar, but not until an infinite amount of time passes first, then I would never give you a dollar because there could always be more time before I give you a dollar.
Likewise, if time had a an infinite past then this present time could have never come because there could always be more time before now. You can't traverse an infinite set.
How does one know that there are not an infinitude of subintervals between any 2 seconds that we experience? If the the number of subintervals between second A and second B are infinite, then the line that connects a and b is infinitely smooth. However, if this turns out to be the case in reality, then we traverse an infinite set every second! But perhaps due to our own limited capabilities of observation, each second seems like a finite amount of time, when in reality, it's as large as infinity
Fuck your double-Predestining, Supralapsarian God and your dead, rotten liar Christ, you smug little piece of Calvinist shit. A is A. It's the fundamental axiom. Aristotle took care of things long before your Christ did.
Isn't all fire hot? Why can't I just believe that the universe has conformity? Perhaps I believe that because the universe was all created in the same instance (the big bang and inflation) that it will be uniformed in nature.
1) Created in the same instance? That sounds like theism to me.
2) Your position is arbitrary. You need to be able to rationally justify the inductive principal. Saying "I believe in the uniformity of nature" does not provide a warrant.
1) Theism requires a creator. I do not necessarily mean created in that sense, more put in the form we know and love today.
2)Saying "I believe in the uniformity of nature because a god exists" does not provide a warrant either. As far as I can tell religion really does not have a warrant either.
1) So you mean that it randomly came into existence out of nothing by nothing. Compelling!
2) Actually God does provide a warrant. Christians presuppose the existence of an absolute, sovereign who controls the universe. He has promised in his word that it will remain uniform. We can rely on regularity and make experience intelligible. You may not like that answer, but it does logically solve the problem without begging the question.
"1) So you mean that it randomly came into existence out of nothing by nothing. Compelling!"
No not what I mean.
2)Your warrant, however has no truth because you can not prove a god exist. It may seem logical but is completely unprovable. Also I can not find a copy of this warrant publish anywhere scientific, can you please send me a link.
2) Sure, God can be proved. The best proof for God's existence is that without Him you cannot prove anything else. He is the precondition for all knowledge and reason and is necessary to make human experience intelligible.
2)God can't be proven to exist. If you think you can then try. "The best proof for God's existence is that without him you cannot prove anything else." I can't, I can prove my root beer is caffeine free and I do not need god to do it. Anything else you would like to be proven wrong about?
"He is the precondition for all knowledge and reason and is necessary to make human experience intelligible." Bull.
1) The experts have been debating this issue for hundreds of issues. How, in an atheistic world, can the universe come into being by anything other than pure chance and out of nothing?
2) Only Christianity can make sense of this world. No other worldview can bring together uniformity, laws of logic, universals, identity through time, causality, the existence of minds into one system. This has challenged secular philosophers for thousands of years because they will not accept the Triune God.
2)A bold statement, based on philosophy. Just so you know philosophy does not actually show you are right. I fact it does not answer an questions one way or the other. This is nothing but an opinion on your part and you will not be able to validate this statement.
2) Ok, I'll bite. If I'm "full of crap" then please tell me, how do you account for the laws of logic? Why do you as a biological bag of stuff, being controlled by the laws pf physics, assume that you can know truth? How do you account for abstract universals? How is their unity in a matter-in-motion world? How can their be identity through time?
A message I posted must not have gone through. There are a few hypothesis on these subjects. Hawkings, believes in a always existing universe in one form or another, pretty sure.
Actually logic is philosophy of man and nothing else. How can you assume you can know truth, you base it on a god that may or may not exist. Is the logical? Unity comes form the creation of universe. Identity through time would be another of those human concepts.
Actually Stephen Hawking DOES believe that the universe (space and time) had a beginning. Plus, it's logically impossible for the universe to have always existed. Time had to have had a start, or the present time would have never come.
If logic is just a philosophy of man then it would be impossible to know truth. The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and immutable. They are necessary to prove anything. If we just made them up them all knowledge is illusory.
"Actually Stephen Hawking DOES believe that the universe (space and time) had a beginning." I do not find it surprising you did not understand the comment. I did not say he didn't. He talks about the universe as we know it having a beginning, as most science does. However he also talks about the idea that the universe, in another form and smaller, still existed.
"Time had to have had a start, or the present time would have never come." Actually that is not necessarily true.
That is really stupid. Do you need to eat the entire pot of soup to know what it tastes like?
So far, the rules which govern the universe appear to be consistent everywhere. Tomorrow gravity might stop working....but I think that's very unlikely.
There is no god required at all to explain what we know about the universe.
Notice how you said "so far". This begs the question when trying to justify induction. Hume wanted to know about the future, not the past. You said that it is "unlikely" that gravity will stop tomorrow, but even this statement uses probability which assumes the uniformity of nature. It is, again, question begging.
it falls the same all the time because the earth is a shpere, being a sphere the radius must remain almost constant so gravity will always have the same effect (if a huge meteyor impacted with the earth then it would cause in ancrease in mass and a huge boom changing gravity)
this is retarded. maybe we should stop looking for answers in a 2k year old book and start trying to find the answers on our own. religions are used as an excuse for too many people to do nothing about our suffering earth. "why do we need answers when i have them here in this book" -some christian- its hard to learn and understand by reading... try doing.
This is a very ignorant worldview. Without an ultimate standard there is nothing that will guide our own actions and decisions. No one will find solid answers unless there is an ultimate standard. It's quite simple.
exactly! why cant anyone see that in order to accept the christian worldview of an existent god, one must assume the that non existent beings with the power to transend existence are the cause of existence; thus it is impossible to assume the christian worldview without presupposing Hyper Inteligent Super Aliens.
Deny God and one lacks the necessary a priori conditions for the universals and immutables of the Laws of Logic, the universal and immutable God supplies such; the laws of logic are necessary and certain, thus so is God.
This is a complete load of crap. He say's he can justifiably believe in a logical universe because it was created by a being to reflect his own logical nature. But how does this [self-righteously-smirking prat] know what logic even looks like? "Oh, well it was instilled in me by the creator" he would say. This is completely circular; there is nothing objectively correct about his assertion. He is invoking god to explain order and logic, and then pointing at the order and logic to derive god.
Can anyone justify their belief in why tibes 2,000 years ago have all the answers of the universe,? leave a comment.
Atheist do not know, and openly state that they do not know why gravity etc is a constant in the universe. They don't rely on a 2,000 year old book to tell them that a supernatural being did it.
To take things that atheists openly say they don't know and then demand an answer and say that their world view is wrong because they do not have an answer is completely ridiculous.
This guy is ignorant to scientific theory, law and hypothosis. What about all the other gods? Why can't it be him? His argument is flawed just by assuming the bible is 100% correct and all other relgions are false..with no proof. The sun rising? We observe it every day, thus it's going to happen, until the sun turns into a red giant and swallows up the earth or there's some great cosmic event. Fail
No, you don't get off that easy. You're either conceding defeat or conceding that you do not comprehend the problem, in which case you should have just withheld comment.
Anyone with a philosophical education is aware of the dilemma here, and your statement seems to evince that you're not.
This hurts me not only as a student of philosophy, but as a human being. This is the most infantile and inarticulate attempt at attacking atheism I've ever seen. Not only does it fail horribly in every respect to say anything (relying only on rhetoric and the lack of technical and philosophical knowledge of those making this film)but it actually insults Christian philosophers and thinkers. I feel stupider for watching this.
Before you lose any more IQ points why not, instead of giving autobigraphy, answer the challenge? What is the basis for the belief that the future will be like the past? Why was Hume incorrect about the futility of justifying induction?
Without even going into the fallacy of your remark (If you can't prove it wrong you can't critique it), I will simply say that you're an infant. You can't justify induction without God, but if you say "God" you then have to prove him, which no philosopher has ever done very well. So, I offer my soul to anyone who can prove logically that God MUST exist. You can't... much, much, much greater men than you have failed miserably.
I didn't ask for you to prove anything. If you disagree, rationally make a case instead of demagoguing.
Many philosophers have proven God. The logical proof that God exists is that because without him there could be no universal, invariant, abstract laws of logic by which to even ask the question. The existence of God can be proven transcendentally from the impossibility of the contrary. If u want to hear someone do it, go to the Greg Bahnsen page and listen to his debates.
That is pure nonsense. You need God to have laws of logic (empty assertion) and then you prove said God by the laws he made. That's not only illogical, it's just plain batty.
Then assume that it is true for n=k and prove that it is true (with that assumption) for k+1. Then you have proven that the formula is true for all values of n.
I did not think induction was as he is saying:
Prove that it is true for n=1. Then you have proven that it is true for all values of n. imo that is a wrong conclution since you skip the midle step.
So am I given to understand that the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy has declared in favor of god? If you are counting the bible as the word of god and as proof that nature is orderly and consistent how do you account for the conflicts with what the bible says and what we have observed in nature?
There are not any conflicts. Your observation is a subjective, arbitrary epiphenomenon unless "in Christ all things live and move and have their being." Upon critical analysis all facts declare in the favor of God.
There are no conflicts? Let's see. There was no world-wide deluge. The world is not supported on pillars. The billion year age of the earth and millions of years of life are not predicted by the bible... the list goes on.
By the measure given above the bible itself is a subjective, arbitrary phenomenon. Thus Christianity is snared by this same challenge. In fact, all belief systems would be.
There was a world wide deluge, you take intended metaphors literally because u have no real amunition against Christianity, you don't know enough about the Bible to know whether or not it supports millions of years of life. Your list is pathetic, cliche hearsay. -I don't know what your last paragraph is even supposed to mean. Do u think that you are somehow transcendent above having a belief system? In fact? What is a fact? Have you "observed" one in nature?
Sorry, no world wide flood. How do you choose which is metaphor and which is literal truth? If all is metaphor, how can you say it provides the basis for inductive thought? The bible is not hearsay. The 6 days of genesis pretty clearly cover what we now know to have been billions of years.
That you don't understand is very clear. The argument set forth is that the bible is needed to trust even one's senses. But if you don't trust your own senses, how do you get that the bible is true?
I can't give you a course on hermenutics and systematic theology in 500 words. If u don't know at least that we let the Bible interpret itself your not qualified to be criticizing Christianity. -Even Augustine believed the creation story was metaphorical. -The Bible uniquely offers a coherent epistemological foundation that validates the use of our senses.
If you are saying that you trust your senses because God told you to you are either lying to me or to yourself. It's easy enough to claim coherency in a work where you can slip out of any contradiction by waving your hands and claiming "metaphor". But such a vague work is hardly a good logical foundation now is it? You can keep your course to yourself, thanks.
I don't believe Genesis is metaphorical and I certainly do not have the ability to erroneously interpret the Bible to whatever suits my fancy. Contrary to your opinion which is quite ignorant, the Bible is not at all obscurant or difficult to interpret. We have a rich knowledge of the few simple styles of Hebrew literature found in a plethora of sources of antiquity. We also have the interpretations and commentaries of thousands of years of rabbis, like those of Jesus himself, and his disciples.
The experience of history contradicts your assertion. If the bible is so clear, why are there so many disagreements about what it says? That hundreds of rabbinical scholars have spent their lives trying to make the OT consistent does not convince me.
Earlier you sited Augustine as calling the creation story a metaphor. Now you say it is not metaphorical. I ask you straight out now, do you believe that the Earth was created in 6 days and that their was a global flood?
As Christians we can justifiably rely on empirical knowledge because God has told us that we have been created to do so. On the basis of pure autonomous reason,(if the universe was what u believe it to b) we have no basis to trust our senses or more importantly to extrapolate from this data any general theories or laws. Read Russel. To hear this argument in context search for Greg Bahnsen on this site and listen to his debates.
I will not spend hours researching what is clearly bullshit on the face as much as Descarte's "proof" of God's existence. Do you mean to tell me that if the bible had told you NOT to trust your senses you wouldn't? Before you read or were told by God to trust your senses you trusted your senses to learn to read and discover God's directives.
There is a major difference between experiencing something and then being able to give a rational justification or account for the validity of that experience, obviously. I use my senses because God made me to do so, just as he made any atheist. I however can trust their reliability because I have a valid epistemological foundation that can overcome the arbitrariness, brute physical determinism, and skepticism that ruins the possibility of knowledge in all other competing philisophical systems.
So how do you justify your belief in God? My belief in an orderly world is consistent with my experience. So it is with you (though you deny that is why you trust in them). How do you justify using something as inconsistent as God as an axiom for trusting your senses? While we're at it, were does God say we should?
I can't give a course on hermenutics and systematic theology in 500 words. If you don't at least know that we let the Bible interpret itself than you aren't qualified to be criticizing Christianity. -Even Augustine thought Genesis was metaphorical. -The Bible uniquely sets forth a coherent epistemological system by which we can justify the use of our senses.
You say you live in a world of order. But this is bullshit. Can't you see everything around you is disorder. If it was a world or order and godliness don't you think that like everyone would be happy and dance around in sunshine. Or does this "GOD" want people to suffer. He sounds like a sadist to me.
Awesome! Then your comment also represents this disorder and therefore is meaningless. You impose your "bullshit" conception of God in your already corrupted equation and of course you get non-sense. -God suffered for my benefit more than anyone ever will, when he lived the life I shoud have lived and died the death I should have died.
you're funny... you didn't even argue my idea you just said i'm a jackass, then talked about how much love you have for a being that you can't prove exists or does exist. That's like me saying, "i love mickey mouse. And mickey mouse died for me... and i should have been there with mickey mouse when he died, because i WOVES HIM!"
Yeah dude, chaos theory. That explains everything. Just bow to your "theoretical" idols. They'll save you from accountability to Christ on judgement day.
Interesting. It shows Bible can easily be proven through various methods. For me, prophesy is the most convincing proof of God but it is not the only proof. Scientist recently uncovered for the first time what they have called Spineosaurus, ...for the first time since a strikingly similar creature called leviathan was describe in the book of Job some 4000-5000 years ago. To top it off another dinosaur-like plant eating creature called behemoth with a tail like a cedar was also described.
we don't use scientific theories only after they have been absolutely proven to be correct - infact that goes against one of the fundamental principles of scientific thinking - to be skeptical of every theory. we use the theory of relativity to make predictions just as we use the belief that the universal laws are uniform to make predictions. each of these theories are just that - theories, with which we make predictions.
It is highly probable based on the fact that i exist.
Life relies on uniformity, in my atheistic world view i do not see human life as necessary. The fact that we exists means that the universe is able to support life, and therefor is uniform.
This is garbage. I was about to go into a long rant on why, but after reviewing some of the previous comments it seems a couple people have already done it for me.
to solve Hume's argument we use Occam's razor.The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
Give me the $1000 because here it is: UN("Uniformity of Nature") itself expresses a matter of fact proposition. Its denial is perfectly conceivable. Given any regularity that holds in our experience so far, we can easily conceive that it will be violated tomorrow. So UN is not a priori. If it is known at all, it is known on the basis of experience.
Numbers and equations existed before anyone discovered them. Three apples would still be three apples before and after the advent of numbers. In fact math still has meaning before the universe existed, that fact that nothing existed to confirm it is irrelevant.
Logic and reason is founded in math, it is the only universal langauge.
How about global warming? Could man be responible for warming what god created?
If we are responible than that shows no uniformity or logic. Surely a god made universe cannot be harmed by humans. The earth tilts away from the sun every 100,000 years and that is the phase we are in now. We should be getting colder but we are getting warmer. If we wait long enough we could prove that the universe doesn't work on a uniform scale but it just takes too long for a human to prove.
Since we are "talking" about logic. Christianity, judaism and muslim are all abrahamic religions. Abraham being the father of the jews. If there is one god why did christianity and muslim split off from judaism.
Induction is hardly used by scientists and when it is, it is used carefully. ie: this fire is hot, so all fire must be hot. In actuallity, this is a false statement. First off the term hot is relative. Second, we know there are certain cases where we can create "cold" fire.
See scientists usually tie induction with probability. ie: this fire is hot, so all fires are PROBABLY hot. There is no 100% certainty with anything.
kubush, respectfully you make no sense. No scientist has ever used 'deduction'! It's impossible in real life, and only possible theoretically. To use a deductive arguement, going from the general to the specific, requires one to be omniscient about something! You must know that all balls in the entire universe (in a planet like earth) will react the same way. Have you tested them all? If not, you can't make a deductive arguement.
The prick in the video jerks around with the stiffness and absolute certainty that only a zealot could achieve. Way to go asshole, you have a basic knowledge of philosophy of science. You've stumped us all by pointing out that as human beings we do not have all the answers. So instead you choose to believe on the grounds that you can not prove or disprove the foundation for your belief, and you've call it "faith".
..Why the hell would an agnostic participate in this? There is no way to answer this challenge with a positive or negative. -- And why the fuck do they think you have to ultimately evoke God? In the end the agnostic knows that there is no way to verify the answers with absolute certainty. And an agnostic may or may not have a weak belief in God; they just refuse to back it with "blind faith".
Your argument completely contradicts creationism. You say god works everything out to be logical and uniform. However, creating the earth in seven days works outside the box of physics and logic.
If the light from stars that should take millions of years to be seen by us on earth was "altered" so that they could be seen in mere thousands, then it has already stepped out of the box of logic and uniformity. In this way, with a "god" having the ability to alter reality and already achieving it in the past, it is not logical and unform.
In your world, a car could suddenly turn into a horse because an outside force has created and can manipulate our world's reality. This would mean that the world is NOT, in fact, logical and uniform.
I think the purpose of this video isn't so much to prove atheism as irrational, but to prove that you have to have faith in order to be an atheist. This idea, however, drives atheists crazy because they essentially believe anything that is based on faith is irrational. Therefore, Kelly is pointing out that by an ATHEIST definition of rationalism, atheism is irrational. Obviously, this is very upsetting to many people, at least judging by the outroar created by this video.
The answer to this simple: the world is stable and consistent, not because of God's influence or guiding hand, but simply because the world, by default, is stable and consistent, and only extenuating circumstances change that consistency (see Law of Inertia).
To boot. The materialist cannot simply shrug his shoulders and say that this needs no justification, or that it just is can he? Would he accept the same argument concerning God?
The debate here really comes down to one question. Though neither theism or its absence can prove its pressups, we actually know that intelligence can account for rationality, we don't know any such thing about how materialism can do likewise. The only counter a materialist can posit is to point to the possibility of finding something at a later time.
"we actually know that intelligence can account for rationality" It's not clear what this means. There first needs to be a clear agreement about the sense in which these terms are being used: 'intelligence', 'account for' and 'rationality'.
Sure, we understand that intelligence can account for a rational basis, a mind can render something rational, we have no reason to expect rationality outside of some type of methodology.
The problem of induction is many times _more_ problematic in a universe with a miracle working god running the show. When making any inductive inference how can Kelly be sure that God won't intervene and disrupt the laws of nature to give a completely unexpected result? Even if god is logical, Kelly doesn't know God's plan. And since God has allegedly messed with natural law in the past, the theist has no reason to doubt that he'll do it again in the future.
We showed this line to be a load of BS more times than I wish to remember. The fact that you continue saying the same old nonsense video after video, comment after comment, is truly stunning.
You may enjoy riding atop your atheist horse in the philosophical parade, but how long will it take for you to realize your horse it dead?
paleocrat: Your arguments may seem drop dead irrefutable from where you're sitting but the emperor's rosy slapped arse is still in plain view for the rest of us. I'm not surprised that you continue to say what you believe to be the truth, and I don't really believe that you're 'stunned' that I do the same.
Thank the living and triune Christian God that all the comments left by you, ManhattanMC (since been banned), Veko, 8ftmanchild, BreakingButterflies, UnBeguiled, BaconEater, CreedGaming, Sosiopat, Digitaljez, Quill, and many others on my site. People can go and see just how intellectually bankrupt the entire atheist horde has been. I guess the old "strength in numbers" has its exceptions.
Making our debate public? Always makes me look better! Still, I am a tad concerned about the ethical and legal aspects of such a move.
I banned you for a handful of reasons, none of which included you whipping my arrogant ass. I even sent you a message warning you and telling you why. 13 messages in under 24 hours time??? Saying things like "bite me," "you step on your dick," "fuck presuppositionalism," "shut the fuck up," just to name a few. Quite reasonable if you ask me...
I banned you for a handful of reasons, none of which included you "whipping my arrogant ass." I even sent you a message giving you fair warning and the rationale behind such a decision.
cont. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection. (see also Anthropic principle) 6. The design argument does not explain pain, suffering, and natural disasters.
David Hume-
You may send the money to his estate-you little phony.
We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world? 5. Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature.
In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? 4. If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum.
3. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design.
But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to why we ought to compare the world to a machine — as in Paley's watchmaker argument — when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal.
Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". 2. Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall.
..... classic criticism of the design argument in Dialogues concerning Natural Religion and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Here are some of his points: 1. For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation.
Next time set the teleprompter to "slow", you seem to have difficulties following what you are saying yourself. I cannot even begin to start pointing out all the blatant holes in this mountain of manure. Please look up the defenition of circular logic and learn. Oh.... and as a dutchman I apologise for mr. van Til.... he was an idiot.
Well, the solution for anyone who isn't an idiot is to realize, as every good scientist does, that induction is not foolproof, precisely BECAUSE we are not guaranteed that the laws of our universe are unchanging. There is a slim, though nonzero, possibility that gravity will simply stop working tomorrow.
If this man were truly a scientist as he claims, he'd realize that.
The mind likes to ascribe meaning to things and rejects that things might just be meaningless. Why does 1+1=2? Nobody knows, because its an absurd question - it doesn't have a "why", because that question presupposes the existence of a creator. I think the logical jump from "why is the world uniform" to "it must have been designed that way by an intelligence" is the key flaw here, not induction itself.
Interesting video. I'm no philosopher, but I have a feeling that the problem of induction is not in the process of induction itself or the assumptions made to perform it, but the way in which you're examining it.
No the problem of induction it is a real one. If you thought this guy was an atheist you'd listen to him I'm sure - and he could be an atheist for all you know - you have only induced that he is a Christian nut case.
He tells us within the first two minutes that he's a theist and a Christian.
Him being a Christian doesn't stop me from listening to him. In fact I listened to the whole thing. I just disagree with his conclusions, particularly because what he's doing is a rather old story. If you offer someone money to prove a negative you're either being deceptive or you're not intelligent enough to know proving a negative is impossible. I'm leaning towards the former since this guy does seem intelligent.
He is outlining a real philosophical problem and raising new ones too. He's sort of saying you can't have the cake and eat it too! How does science justify inference without evoking laws of nature and a power (god) to sustain those laws. On what basis can we say the past represents the future. This whole project may just be an exercise in getting us to examine reality...and work out what the rational atheist position is. It's better he does it than real christians.
The thing is, he's not outlining any new philosophical problem. He's making the faulty assumption that there must be a power to sustain universal laws. Why is this necessary? Why can't the universe sustain itself? Just because he says it can't doesn't make him right.
We can't say for certainty that the past represents the future. We just assume that it does.
And then to put icing on the cake, he offers $1,000 to prove a negative.
He is taking the stance of a "presuppositional apologist" and asks: on what grounds can atheist rationalize their world view that there is uniformity of nature when they have no recourse to a God that sustains uniformity of Nature - so justify inductive inference that uniformity of nature is, and will continue to be so. A good question.
The theist has an answer - God sustains uniformity...at least that is a better answer than nothing sustains uniformity and implicity all could change tomorrow. You question my statement "real christian" well I think he is playing "devil's advocate". In reality he is thinking theism (not as truth)but only as a means of getting to the truth. I think this series of videos are an elaborate intellectual "joke"
What a joke this guy is. It's like saying the laws of nature is due to Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pink Unicorn. Atheists simply believe with evidence (can't be anymore rational than that). It's rather much more difficult to answer who made god? It's utterly ridiculous how god could have formed all by itself. Oh yeah there must be a designer who made god. No wonder these fanatics are called irrational.
Jubeikibakami2006 3 years ago
If I was this guy, I would blow my brain out too.
AlmightScoop 3 years ago 2
This guy blew his brains out a short while ago... I guess the competition is canceled then?
kyokumajr 3 years ago
this has gotta be a joke... what's sad is it looks like it isn't and the fact this guy actually thinks he's smart.
FinnHawk 3 years ago
I don't think he understands the difference between mathematical certainty and empiricism.
Genesis says the universe is orderly, sure, but it also says 2=7, that there were once only 2 humans in existence, and that the Earth is flat, on pillars and under a dome.
Besides, invoking a God does 0 explanatory work towards the consistency of physical laws. Why then is this diety consistent? Why then does this diety exist? How can you infer that it exists? Why the Bible?
This is retarded.
GBart 3 years ago 2
This guy really is a smarmy douche lol... Based on his Christianity he is predisposed to not listening to rational thought, so thus no matter how much he is proven to be wrong he will always make up a different twist. Why don't you take a real challenge, like oh I don't know, Randy's 1 million dollar challenge. Then since god exists, you can collect 1mill!!!!
SuicidelG 3 years ago
So, atheists beg the question if they think they can establish the uniformity of nature using induction. The Scottish philosopher David Hume did establish this fact. Rational atheists, of course, do admit this as a real problem.
On the other hand, theists who explain the uniformity of nature through god do manage to explain this mystery, but they do so through an even larger mystery!
And theists accuse atheists of begging the question? Oh, circular irony... what douchebags you create...
bertomeister 3 years ago
Guy's an idiot. God moderates this supposed "uniformity of nature"? How about that time when the red sea was parted, or when Jesus walked on water? That doesn't seem like a uniformity of nature...
rls0263 3 years ago 2
probability assumes uniformity. Presuppositionalism, woo hoo! =)
kestoelvis 3 years ago
Essentially, I need faith in God to justify my belief that every time I get kicked in nuts, it will hurt just as much.
Without faith in God, don't know what to expect. Maybe it will feel nice this time?!
What a load of non-sense.
jnoort 3 years ago
If I were to give you as dollar, but not until an infinite amount of time passes first, then I would never give you a dollar because there could always be more time before I give you a dollar.
Likewise, if time had a an infinite past then this present time could have never come because there could always be more time before now. You can't traverse an infinite set.
Victoruto 3 years ago
How does one know that there are not an infinitude of subintervals between any 2 seconds that we experience? If the the number of subintervals between second A and second B are infinite, then the line that connects a and b is infinitely smooth. However, if this turns out to be the case in reality, then we traverse an infinite set every second! But perhaps due to our own limited capabilities of observation, each second seems like a finite amount of time, when in reality, it's as large as infinity
rls0263 3 years ago
dataloreforever-
"If logic is just a philosophy of man then it would be impossible to know truth."
Exactly."
-Then why are you arguing?
Victoruto 3 years ago
Fuck your double-Predestining, Supralapsarian God and your dead, rotten liar Christ, you smug little piece of Calvinist shit. A is A. It's the fundamental axiom. Aristotle took care of things long before your Christ did.
Shove your haughty presup up your ass.
darrinrasberry 3 years ago
I could use 1000 dollars. How much do you want to bet that he won't/hasn't ever follow(ed) through on this?
Smartguy1992 3 years ago
Why, only $1000?
Is this a commensurate amount? hmmm ... hmm ... hmmm lol
onotheo 3 years ago
I like this. Hume's problem of induction used by theists as a "proof" of their religion. So tragic.
GodlessStephen 3 years ago
Has anyone got the reward yet?
ordainedangler 3 years ago
Isn't all fire hot? Why can't I just believe that the universe has conformity? Perhaps I believe that because the universe was all created in the same instance (the big bang and inflation) that it will be uniformed in nature.
dataloreforever 3 years ago 2
1) Created in the same instance? That sounds like theism to me.
2) Your position is arbitrary. You need to be able to rationally justify the inductive principal. Saying "I believe in the uniformity of nature" does not provide a warrant.
Victoruto 3 years ago
1) Theism requires a creator. I do not necessarily mean created in that sense, more put in the form we know and love today.
2)Saying "I believe in the uniformity of nature because a god exists" does not provide a warrant either. As far as I can tell religion really does not have a warrant either.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
data,
1) So you mean that it randomly came into existence out of nothing by nothing. Compelling!
2) Actually God does provide a warrant. Christians presuppose the existence of an absolute, sovereign who controls the universe. He has promised in his word that it will remain uniform. We can rely on regularity and make experience intelligible. You may not like that answer, but it does logically solve the problem without begging the question.
Victoruto 3 years ago
"1) So you mean that it randomly came into existence out of nothing by nothing. Compelling!"
No not what I mean.
2)Your warrant, however has no truth because you can not prove a god exist. It may seem logical but is completely unprovable. Also I can not find a copy of this warrant publish anywhere scientific, can you please send me a link.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
1) Well then, what do you mean?
2) Sure, God can be proved. The best proof for God's existence is that without Him you cannot prove anything else. He is the precondition for all knowledge and reason and is necessary to make human experience intelligible.
Victoruto 3 years ago
1) I prefer to look at what experts have to say.
2)God can't be proven to exist. If you think you can then try. "The best proof for God's existence is that without him you cannot prove anything else." I can't, I can prove my root beer is caffeine free and I do not need god to do it. Anything else you would like to be proven wrong about?
"He is the precondition for all knowledge and reason and is necessary to make human experience intelligible." Bull.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
1) The experts have been debating this issue for hundreds of issues. How, in an atheistic world, can the universe come into being by anything other than pure chance and out of nothing?
2) Only Christianity can make sense of this world. No other worldview can bring together uniformity, laws of logic, universals, identity through time, causality, the existence of minds into one system. This has challenged secular philosophers for thousands of years because they will not accept the Triune God.
Victoruto 3 years ago
2)A bold statement, based on philosophy. Just so you know philosophy does not actually show you are right. I fact it does not answer an questions one way or the other. This is nothing but an opinion on your part and you will not be able to validate this statement.
You are just full of crap today.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
1) ??
2) Ok, I'll bite. If I'm "full of crap" then please tell me, how do you account for the laws of logic? Why do you as a biological bag of stuff, being controlled by the laws pf physics, assume that you can know truth? How do you account for abstract universals? How is their unity in a matter-in-motion world? How can their be identity through time?
Victoruto 3 years ago
A message I posted must not have gone through. There are a few hypothesis on these subjects. Hawkings, believes in a always existing universe in one form or another, pretty sure.
Actually logic is philosophy of man and nothing else. How can you assume you can know truth, you base it on a god that may or may not exist. Is the logical? Unity comes form the creation of universe. Identity through time would be another of those human concepts.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
Actually Stephen Hawking DOES believe that the universe (space and time) had a beginning. Plus, it's logically impossible for the universe to have always existed. Time had to have had a start, or the present time would have never come.
If logic is just a philosophy of man then it would be impossible to know truth. The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and immutable. They are necessary to prove anything. If we just made them up them all knowledge is illusory.
Victoruto 3 years ago
"Actually Stephen Hawking DOES believe that the universe (space and time) had a beginning." I do not find it surprising you did not understand the comment. I did not say he didn't. He talks about the universe as we know it having a beginning, as most science does. However he also talks about the idea that the universe, in another form and smaller, still existed.
"Time had to have had a start, or the present time would have never come." Actually that is not necessarily true.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
"If logic is just a philosophy of man then it would be impossible to know truth."
Exactly.
"The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and immutable. They are necessary to prove anything."
If you say so.
"If we just made them up them all knowledge is illusory."
Yes.
"it's logically impossible for the universe to have always existed."
Prove it.
"Time had to have had a start, or the present time would have never come."
Prove it.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
What a moron...we know that the universe is uniform in its physical laws simply because we observe it to be so....no god required.
kshackleton 3 years ago 2
kshacklton,
Have you, or anyone you know, ever observed the entire universe or future events?
God is required.
Victoruto 3 years ago
That is really stupid. Do you need to eat the entire pot of soup to know what it tastes like?
So far, the rules which govern the universe appear to be consistent everywhere. Tomorrow gravity might stop working....but I think that's very unlikely.
There is no god required at all to explain what we know about the universe.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Kshack,
Notice how you said "so far". This begs the question when trying to justify induction. Hume wanted to know about the future, not the past. You said that it is "unlikely" that gravity will stop tomorrow, but even this statement uses probability which assumes the uniformity of nature. It is, again, question begging.
Victoruto 3 years ago
Science is always contingent on new data which may prove existing ideas incorrect.
We know now what we know now, and although science does make predictions which are often correct; there is no guarantee that this will always be so.
Honest people accept the fact that our knowledge is limited, that is why science discovers new things every day.
Nature has been observed to be consistent in its rules, it is not question begging to assume this will remain so until we see it change.
kshackleton 3 years ago
"Have you, or anyone you know, ever observed the entire universe or future events?
God is required."
In what way is he required?
dataloreforever 3 years ago
it falls the same all the time because the earth is a shpere, being a sphere the radius must remain almost constant so gravity will always have the same effect (if a huge meteyor impacted with the earth then it would cause in ancrease in mass and a huge boom changing gravity)
psykick10 3 years ago
Wow, what a twat.
geffel 3 years ago
There are much easier ways to make 1000 dollars...
trentspencerktm 3 years ago
As with Young Earth Creationists, stupidity like this is not even worth debating.
meinsla 3 years ago 3
you also have to take in account of resistance when you drop something, you ass.
zmthomas 3 years ago
guys guys. chill out, cant you see this is satire? no christian is really this stupid.
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
Actually he has personally emailed me, and yes he is.
dataloreforever 3 years ago
The strongest form of induction is infinitely more desirable than the weak circular logic he's spouting throughout this entire video.
tacoburrito11 3 years ago 3
this is retarded. maybe we should stop looking for answers in a 2k year old book and start trying to find the answers on our own. religions are used as an excuse for too many people to do nothing about our suffering earth. "why do we need answers when i have them here in this book" -some christian- its hard to learn and understand by reading... try doing.
bobbyjay111 3 years ago
This is a very ignorant worldview. Without an ultimate standard there is nothing that will guide our own actions and decisions. No one will find solid answers unless there is an ultimate standard. It's quite simple.
Jimbo3783 3 years ago
exactly! why cant anyone see that in order to accept the christian worldview of an existent god, one must assume the that non existent beings with the power to transend existence are the cause of existence; thus it is impossible to assume the christian worldview without presupposing Hyper Inteligent Super Aliens.
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God's existence is necessary and certain.
Deny God and one lacks the necessary a priori conditions for the universals and immutables of the Laws of Logic, the universal and immutable God supplies such; the laws of logic are necessary and certain, thus so is God.
God lives.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
This is a complete load of crap. He say's he can justifiably believe in a logical universe because it was created by a being to reflect his own logical nature. But how does this [self-righteously-smirking prat] know what logic even looks like? "Oh, well it was instilled in me by the creator" he would say. This is completely circular; there is nothing objectively correct about his assertion. He is invoking god to explain order and logic, and then pointing at the order and logic to derive god.
peanutaxis 3 years ago
I see that you're not even saying anything to his point. His logic is quite perfect here.
Jimbo3783 3 years ago
Yes I am. His logic is circular. He is invoking god to explain order and logic, and then pointing at the order and logic to derive god.
peanutaxis 3 years ago
It is always entertaining to see how Atheists and Christians feel the need to win a philosophical argument as if it really matters if they win.
Entropy56 3 years ago
Can anyone justify their belief in why tibes 2,000 years ago have all the answers of the universe,? leave a comment.
Atheist do not know, and openly state that they do not know why gravity etc is a constant in the universe. They don't rely on a 2,000 year old book to tell them that a supernatural being did it.
To take things that atheists openly say they don't know and then demand an answer and say that their world view is wrong because they do not have an answer is completely ridiculous.
appleguy77 3 years ago
This guy is ignorant to scientific theory, law and hypothosis. What about all the other gods? Why can't it be him? His argument is flawed just by assuming the bible is 100% correct and all other relgions are false..with no proof. The sun rising? We observe it every day, thus it's going to happen, until the sun turns into a red giant and swallows up the earth or there's some great cosmic event. Fail
CyberCommunist 3 years ago
around 2:00. there is this magical thing called "gravity" whoa.
npage84 3 years ago
This is just a whole bag of wrong.
Doazic 3 years ago
No, you don't get off that easy. You're either conceding defeat or conceding that you do not comprehend the problem, in which case you should have just withheld comment.
Anyone with a philosophical education is aware of the dilemma here, and your statement seems to evince that you're not.
NeoConvert 3 years ago
This hurts me not only as a student of philosophy, but as a human being. This is the most infantile and inarticulate attempt at attacking atheism I've ever seen. Not only does it fail horribly in every respect to say anything (relying only on rhetoric and the lack of technical and philosophical knowledge of those making this film)but it actually insults Christian philosophers and thinkers. I feel stupider for watching this.
bohrfermi 3 years ago
Before you lose any more IQ points why not, instead of giving autobigraphy, answer the challenge? What is the basis for the belief that the future will be like the past? Why was Hume incorrect about the futility of justifying induction?
a5dr3 3 years ago
Without even going into the fallacy of your remark (If you can't prove it wrong you can't critique it), I will simply say that you're an infant. You can't justify induction without God, but if you say "God" you then have to prove him, which no philosopher has ever done very well. So, I offer my soul to anyone who can prove logically that God MUST exist. You can't... much, much, much greater men than you have failed miserably.
bohrfermi 3 years ago
I didn't ask for you to prove anything. If you disagree, rationally make a case instead of demagoguing.
Many philosophers have proven God. The logical proof that God exists is that because without him there could be no universal, invariant, abstract laws of logic by which to even ask the question. The existence of God can be proven transcendentally from the impossibility of the contrary. If u want to hear someone do it, go to the Greg Bahnsen page and listen to his debates.
a5dr3 3 years ago
That is pure nonsense. You need God to have laws of logic (empty assertion) and then you prove said God by the laws he made. That's not only illogical, it's just plain batty.
Maxdwolf 3 years ago
I thought induction was:
Prove that the formula is true for n=1
Then assume that it is true for n=k and prove that it is true (with that assumption) for k+1. Then you have proven that the formula is true for all values of n.
I did not think induction was as he is saying:
Prove that it is true for n=1. Then you have proven that it is true for all values of n. imo that is a wrong conclution since you skip the midle step.
Or do I misinterpret what he is saying?
Hedning1390 4 years ago
heh... "bringing jesus christ to europe"... wow! that guy's gonna have some hard competition vs Norse mythology!!
WiseWeeabo 4 years ago
So am I given to understand that the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy has declared in favor of god? If you are counting the bible as the word of god and as proof that nature is orderly and consistent how do you account for the conflicts with what the bible says and what we have observed in nature?
Maxdwolf 4 years ago
There are not any conflicts. Your observation is a subjective, arbitrary epiphenomenon unless "in Christ all things live and move and have their being." Upon critical analysis all facts declare in the favor of God.
a5dr3 3 years ago
There are no conflicts? Let's see. There was no world-wide deluge. The world is not supported on pillars. The billion year age of the earth and millions of years of life are not predicted by the bible... the list goes on.
By the measure given above the bible itself is a subjective, arbitrary phenomenon. Thus Christianity is snared by this same challenge. In fact, all belief systems would be.
Maxdwolf 3 years ago
There was a world wide deluge, you take intended metaphors literally because u have no real amunition against Christianity, you don't know enough about the Bible to know whether or not it supports millions of years of life. Your list is pathetic, cliche hearsay. -I don't know what your last paragraph is even supposed to mean. Do u think that you are somehow transcendent above having a belief system? In fact? What is a fact? Have you "observed" one in nature?
a5dr3 3 years ago
Sorry, no world wide flood. How do you choose which is metaphor and which is literal truth? If all is metaphor, how can you say it provides the basis for inductive thought? The bible is not hearsay. The 6 days of genesis pretty clearly cover what we now know to have been billions of years.
That you don't understand is very clear. The argument set forth is that the bible is needed to trust even one's senses. But if you don't trust your own senses, how do you get that the bible is true?
Maxdwolf 3 years ago
I can't give you a course on hermenutics and systematic theology in 500 words. If u don't know at least that we let the Bible interpret itself your not qualified to be criticizing Christianity. -Even Augustine believed the creation story was metaphorical. -The Bible uniquely offers a coherent epistemological foundation that validates the use of our senses.
a5dr3 3 years ago
If you are saying that you trust your senses because God told you to you are either lying to me or to yourself. It's easy enough to claim coherency in a work where you can slip out of any contradiction by waving your hands and claiming "metaphor". But such a vague work is hardly a good logical foundation now is it? You can keep your course to yourself, thanks.
Maxdwolf 3 years ago
I don't believe Genesis is metaphorical and I certainly do not have the ability to erroneously interpret the Bible to whatever suits my fancy. Contrary to your opinion which is quite ignorant, the Bible is not at all obscurant or difficult to interpret. We have a rich knowledge of the few simple styles of Hebrew literature found in a plethora of sources of antiquity. We also have the interpretations and commentaries of thousands of years of rabbis, like those of Jesus himself, and his disciples.
a5dr3 3 years ago
The experience of history contradicts your assertion. If the bible is so clear, why are there so many disagreements about what it says? That hundreds of rabbinical scholars have spent their lives trying to make the OT consistent does not convince me.
Earlier you sited Augustine as calling the creation story a metaphor. Now you say it is not metaphorical. I ask you straight out now, do you believe that the Earth was created in 6 days and that their was a global flood?
Maxdwolf 3 years ago
As Christians we can justifiably rely on empirical knowledge because God has told us that we have been created to do so. On the basis of pure autonomous reason,(if the universe was what u believe it to b) we have no basis to trust our senses or more importantly to extrapolate from this data any general theories or laws. Read Russel. To hear this argument in context search for Greg Bahnsen on this site and listen to his debates.
a5dr3 3 years ago
I will not spend hours researching what is clearly bullshit on the face as much as Descarte's "proof" of God's existence. Do you mean to tell me that if the bible had told you NOT to trust your senses you wouldn't? Before you read or were told by God to trust your senses you trusted your senses to learn to read and discover God's directives.
Maxdwolf 3 years ago
There is a major difference between experiencing something and then being able to give a rational justification or account for the validity of that experience, obviously. I use my senses because God made me to do so, just as he made any atheist. I however can trust their reliability because I have a valid epistemological foundation that can overcome the arbitrariness, brute physical determinism, and skepticism that ruins the possibility of knowledge in all other competing philisophical systems.
a5dr3 3 years ago
So how do you justify your belief in God? My belief in an orderly world is consistent with my experience. So it is with you (though you deny that is why you trust in them). How do you justify using something as inconsistent as God as an axiom for trusting your senses? While we're at it, were does God say we should?
Maxdwolf 3 years ago
I can't give a course on hermenutics and systematic theology in 500 words. If you don't at least know that we let the Bible interpret itself than you aren't qualified to be criticizing Christianity. -Even Augustine thought Genesis was metaphorical. -The Bible uniquely sets forth a coherent epistemological system by which we can justify the use of our senses.
a5dr3 3 years ago
You say you live in a world of order. But this is bullshit. Can't you see everything around you is disorder. If it was a world or order and godliness don't you think that like everyone would be happy and dance around in sunshine. Or does this "GOD" want people to suffer. He sounds like a sadist to me.
Enjacku 4 years ago
Awesome! Then your comment also represents this disorder and therefore is meaningless. You impose your "bullshit" conception of God in your already corrupted equation and of course you get non-sense. -God suffered for my benefit more than anyone ever will, when he lived the life I shoud have lived and died the death I should have died.
a5dr3 3 years ago
you're funny... you didn't even argue my idea you just said i'm a jackass, then talked about how much love you have for a being that you can't prove exists or does exist. That's like me saying, "i love mickey mouse. And mickey mouse died for me... and i should have been there with mickey mouse when he died, because i WOVES HIM!"
Enjacku 3 years ago
This is retarded. I take it this guys never heard of Chaos theory. and the challenge is void if you don't go to the encyclopaedia first. simpleton.
gaborkiraly89 4 years ago
Yeah dude, chaos theory. That explains everything. Just bow to your "theoretical" idols. They'll save you from accountability to Christ on judgement day.
a5dr3 3 years ago
Interesting. It shows Bible can easily be proven through various methods. For me, prophesy is the most convincing proof of God but it is not the only proof. Scientist recently uncovered for the first time what they have called Spineosaurus, ...for the first time since a strikingly similar creature called leviathan was describe in the book of Job some 4000-5000 years ago. To top it off another dinosaur-like plant eating creature called behemoth with a tail like a cedar was also described.
Seekmosttoprophesy 4 years ago
i hope this man is under the influence of a certain medication and that this is not his natural state. this is beyond ridiculous.
penseurlibre 4 years ago
we don't use scientific theories only after they have been absolutely proven to be correct - infact that goes against one of the fundamental principles of scientific thinking - to be skeptical of every theory. we use the theory of relativity to make predictions just as we use the belief that the universal laws are uniform to make predictions. each of these theories are just that - theories, with which we make predictions.
ZSedlacek 4 years ago
Learn the truth about Van Til.
Watch my video "The Heresy Of Cornelius Van Til."
Van Til, along with Bahnsen, rejected the Trinity. They taught that God was 1 person and 3 persons, a contradiction, not 1 God / 3 Persons.
RedBeetle 4 years ago
It is highly probable based on the fact that i exist.
Life relies on uniformity, in my atheistic world view i do not see human life as necessary. The fact that we exists means that the universe is able to support life, and therefor is uniform.
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
I wonder if they've given imrational his money yet.
OdinK14 4 years ago 4
so how can the argument not prove the existence of a god, but can disprove his non-existence (thats what he said). thats retarded.
I find this person very icky nasty and scary.
but he's amusing nontheless
tomsan84 4 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my channel if you want to see videos on Calvinism and the Westminster Confession of Faith!
RedBeetle 4 years ago
This is garbage. I was about to go into a long rant on why, but after reviewing some of the previous comments it seems a couple people have already done it for me.
meinsla 4 years ago
"Relinquish his non-Theistic worldview and enjoy the benefits of a world where induction takes place..."
... and where millions of souls are thrown into the everlasting fire of Hell.
Gee,that's a tough one. Hmmm. Ah, no thanks.
Entropy56 4 years ago
We use science because it is useful. We don't use theology because it is terrible at predicting the future. Duh.
jkarhu 4 years ago
to solve Hume's argument we use Occam's razor.The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
hiten369 4 years ago
Give me the $1000 because here it is: UN("Uniformity of Nature") itself expresses a matter of fact proposition. Its denial is perfectly conceivable. Given any regularity that holds in our experience so far, we can easily conceive that it will be violated tomorrow. So UN is not a priori. If it is known at all, it is known on the basis of experience.
hiten369 4 years ago
You were a twat when you were browbeating your ex via e-mail, and you're still a twat, Kelly.
mdcaigoy 4 years ago
successive approximation
superfisto 4 years ago
Simple questions for Christians.
Was the world better off because of Jesus's life 2000 years ago?
If yes then would the world be worse if Jesus's life took place 100 years ago?
Most would say yes because it takes time for Jesus's teachings to spread.
Therefor, under God's logic, Jesus's life should have taken place right after Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden.
The only explaination as why this was not the case is God wanted poeple to suffer without thier saviour for 4000+ years.
Jason84575 4 years ago
The answer would be math.
Numbers and equations existed before anyone discovered them. Three apples would still be three apples before and after the advent of numbers. In fact math still has meaning before the universe existed, that fact that nothing existed to confirm it is irrelevant.
Logic and reason is founded in math, it is the only universal langauge.
Jason84575 4 years ago
Thats why science call their explanations theories.
If something counters the previous explanation/evidence the theory also changes.
Science never argues absolute truth.
Jason84575 4 years ago
If you truely want to find something that is illogical read "The book of Genesis".
kingmike40 4 years ago 2
How about global warming? Could man be responible for warming what god created?
If we are responible than that shows no uniformity or logic. Surely a god made universe cannot be harmed by humans. The earth tilts away from the sun every 100,000 years and that is the phase we are in now. We should be getting colder but we are getting warmer. If we wait long enough we could prove that the universe doesn't work on a uniform scale but it just takes too long for a human to prove.
kingmike40 4 years ago
Since we are "talking" about logic. Christianity, judaism and muslim are all abrahamic religions. Abraham being the father of the jews. If there is one god why did christianity and muslim split off from judaism.
kingmike40 4 years ago
in this video, we see the world of science leaving the Christian right behind.
enjoy living in your tiny world kelly
theDHC 4 years ago
Got Genius?
geniusloch 4 years ago
Induction is hardly used by scientists and when it is, it is used carefully. ie: this fire is hot, so all fire must be hot. In actuallity, this is a false statement. First off the term hot is relative. Second, we know there are certain cases where we can create "cold" fire.
See scientists usually tie induction with probability. ie: this fire is hot, so all fires are PROBABLY hot. There is no 100% certainty with anything.
kubush 4 years ago
kubush, respectfully you make no sense. No scientist has ever used 'deduction'! It's impossible in real life, and only possible theoretically. To use a deductive arguement, going from the general to the specific, requires one to be omniscient about something! You must know that all balls in the entire universe (in a planet like earth) will react the same way. Have you tested them all? If not, you can't make a deductive arguement.
solaphyde 4 years ago
"No scientist has ever used 'deduction'! It's impossible in real life.."
If each of a series of statements, called premises, is true, deductive logic tells us that the conclusion must also be true.
To say that no scientist uses deduction is an absurdity. They use deduction on a daily bases.
"..requires one to be omniscient about something!"
That is exactly why we use deduction because we arent omniscient. We cant test everything, that is why we you deduction. Understand?
kubush 4 years ago
God in the gaps argument *snore*
This is why you get laughed at.
Di66en6ion 4 years ago
you've called it*
Fanatics everywhere, whether they be atheist, agnostic, or Christian must now salute you.
JuanIII 4 years ago
The prick in the video jerks around with the stiffness and absolute certainty that only a zealot could achieve. Way to go asshole, you have a basic knowledge of philosophy of science. You've stumped us all by pointing out that as human beings we do not have all the answers. So instead you choose to believe on the grounds that you can not prove or disprove the foundation for your belief, and you've call it "faith".
JuanIII 4 years ago
..Why the hell would an agnostic participate in this? There is no way to answer this challenge with a positive or negative. -- And why the fuck do they think you have to ultimately evoke God? In the end the agnostic knows that there is no way to verify the answers with absolute certainty. And an agnostic may or may not have a weak belief in God; they just refuse to back it with "blind faith".
JuanIII 4 years ago
Your argument completely contradicts creationism. You say god works everything out to be logical and uniform. However, creating the earth in seven days works outside the box of physics and logic.
Beauwrath 4 years ago
If the light from stars that should take millions of years to be seen by us on earth was "altered" so that they could be seen in mere thousands, then it has already stepped out of the box of logic and uniformity. In this way, with a "god" having the ability to alter reality and already achieving it in the past, it is not logical and unform.
Beauwrath 4 years ago
In your world, a car could suddenly turn into a horse because an outside force has created and can manipulate our world's reality. This would mean that the world is NOT, in fact, logical and uniform.
Beauwrath 4 years ago 2
this video is why the world of science has left the fundamentilist christians behind many years ago
theDHC 4 years ago
I think the purpose of this video isn't so much to prove atheism as irrational, but to prove that you have to have faith in order to be an atheist. This idea, however, drives atheists crazy because they essentially believe anything that is based on faith is irrational. Therefore, Kelly is pointing out that by an ATHEIST definition of rationalism, atheism is irrational. Obviously, this is very upsetting to many people, at least judging by the outroar created by this video.
willwa21 4 years ago
Willwa-
what would an 'atheist definition' of anything be ?
Atheism has no dogma-no scripture.
It takes no faith to withhold judgment when facts are insufficient to from a conclusion-
none-
there shouldn't even be a word for 'atheism'-any more than there should not be a word for disbelief in fairies or astrology.
You should read the rest of the board this has been discussed-and your position debunked-many times over.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago 2
The answer to this simple: the world is stable and consistent, not because of God's influence or guiding hand, but simply because the world, by default, is stable and consistent, and only extenuating circumstances change that consistency (see Law of Inertia).
ayolark 4 years ago
Well done Yed.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
This is a nice example of induction.
F00dTube 4 years ago
Michael S article was on web but did it ever make it to print? If it did it bearly raised a ripple of debate or discussion what happened?
ZITZON 4 years ago
To boot my argument is that there is no real basis for rationality aside from a methodology.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
To boot. The materialist cannot simply shrug his shoulders and say that this needs no justification, or that it just is can he? Would he accept the same argument concerning God?
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
The debate here really comes down to one question. Though neither theism or its absence can prove its pressups, we actually know that intelligence can account for rationality, we don't know any such thing about how materialism can do likewise. The only counter a materialist can posit is to point to the possibility of finding something at a later time.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
"we actually know that intelligence can account for rationality" It's not clear what this means. There first needs to be a clear agreement about the sense in which these terms are being used: 'intelligence', 'account for' and 'rationality'.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Sure, we understand that intelligence can account for a rational basis, a mind can render something rational, we have no reason to expect rationality outside of some type of methodology.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
The problem of induction is many times _more_ problematic in a universe with a miracle working god running the show. When making any inductive inference how can Kelly be sure that God won't intervene and disrupt the laws of nature to give a completely unexpected result? Even if god is logical, Kelly doesn't know God's plan. And since God has allegedly messed with natural law in the past, the theist has no reason to doubt that he'll do it again in the future.
bitbutter 4 years ago
We showed this line to be a load of BS more times than I wish to remember. The fact that you continue saying the same old nonsense video after video, comment after comment, is truly stunning.
You may enjoy riding atop your atheist horse in the philosophical parade, but how long will it take for you to realize your horse it dead?
paleocrat 4 years ago
paleocrat: Your arguments may seem drop dead irrefutable from where you're sitting but the emperor's rosy slapped arse is still in plain view for the rest of us. I'm not surprised that you continue to say what you believe to be the truth, and I don't really believe that you're 'stunned' that I do the same.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Thank the living and triune Christian God that all the comments left by you, ManhattanMC (since been banned), Veko, 8ftmanchild, BreakingButterflies, UnBeguiled, BaconEater, CreedGaming, Sosiopat, Digitaljez, Quill, and many others on my site. People can go and see just how intellectually bankrupt the entire atheist horde has been. I guess the old "strength in numbers" has its exceptions.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Theocrat-
argumentatum ad populum again ?
from someone who claims the US is a christian nation-citing the 80% + confession of belief polls ?
Atheistic horde-charming-
still peddling the "no atheist can provide a basis for rational argument-but I can" crap ?
Get a new act-
this one is stale.
and 'triune christian god'-that "concrete universal" ?
You funny Theocrat.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
BTW-bankrupt is saying again and again-"you have no basis for your argument-so go away"-
paraphrasing you roughly but accurately.
Hume and Russel would have your orbiting teapot
believing nads for brunch.
For you to refer others to their writings is ridiculous.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
And I happily stand on the public record of our debate-
I am thinking in fact of making our e-mail exchanges public as well-
And you-paleocrat-
are a coward and a weasel for blocking me when I was whipping your arrogant ass.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Making our debate public? Always makes me look better! Still, I am a tad concerned about the ethical and legal aspects of such a move.
I banned you for a handful of reasons, none of which included you whipping my arrogant ass. I even sent you a message warning you and telling you why. 13 messages in under 24 hours time??? Saying things like "bite me," "you step on your dick," "fuck presuppositionalism," "shut the fuck up," just to name a few. Quite reasonable if you ask me...
paleocrat 4 years ago
"how long will it take for you to realize your horse it dead?"
Wow-a twofer-
false analogy and fallacy of style over substance-
It is you-theocrat who keeps repeating the same things over and over-
i.e. saying no atheist can provide a basis for refutation-
never explaining how your belief gives you the basis-
even at best-by your own rules-
a wash-
BTW-that's Hume your saying is riding a dead horse-not me-
continues through several posts.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
I banned you for a handful of reasons, none of which included you "whipping my arrogant ass." I even sent you a message giving you fair warning and the rationale behind such a decision.
1. 13 messages in under 24 hours time.
Saying things like:
"bite me"
"you step on your dic*"
"fu** presuppositionalism"
"shut the fu** up"
Seriously, you had it coming...
paleocrat 4 years ago
Theocrat-
After you called me an"atheist goon" all bets were off-
All quotes out of context-all abbreviated-
all responses to your name calling.
13 messages-all responses to you-
your point is ?
You had it coming-
and no response to your dissing David Hume-who you reference incessantly-thinking you were dissing me ?
phony.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
BTW Theo-I'm not wasting any tears on being banned-
heard all your arguments too many time-
through wasting my time.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
And yea-
I was whipping your ignorant ass.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
cont-
to extend your own metaphor-
you're a one trick pony.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
cont. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection. (see also Anthropic principle) 6. The design argument does not explain pain, suffering, and natural disasters.
David Hume-
You may send the money to his estate-you little phony.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world? 5. Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature.
cont.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
cont.
In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? 4. If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum.
cont.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
cont.
3. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design.
cont.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
cont.
But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to why we ought to compare the world to a machine — as in Paley's watchmaker argument — when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal.
cont.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
cont.
Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". 2. Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall.
cont.
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
..... classic criticism of the design argument in Dialogues concerning Natural Religion and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Here are some of his points: 1. For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation.
cont
ManhattanMC 4 years ago
ZOMG I WANT t0 B3 SHURE OF SOMTING SO GOD EKSISTZZZ!!
- Paraphrased version of this video.
ninelong 4 years ago 2
Next time set the teleprompter to "slow", you seem to have difficulties following what you are saying yourself. I cannot even begin to start pointing out all the blatant holes in this mountain of manure. Please look up the defenition of circular logic and learn. Oh.... and as a dutchman I apologise for mr. van Til.... he was an idiot.
egrauerholz 4 years ago
do you KNOW about quantum mechanics?
Swanmaens 4 years ago
Well, the solution for anyone who isn't an idiot is to realize, as every good scientist does, that induction is not foolproof, precisely BECAUSE we are not guaranteed that the laws of our universe are unchanging. There is a slim, though nonzero, possibility that gravity will simply stop working tomorrow.
If this man were truly a scientist as he claims, he'd realize that.
Egendomlighet 4 years ago
do you believe in quantum mechanics?
imSUCHaFUCKINGmaster 4 years ago
The mind likes to ascribe meaning to things and rejects that things might just be meaningless. Why does 1+1=2? Nobody knows, because its an absurd question - it doesn't have a "why", because that question presupposes the existence of a creator. I think the logical jump from "why is the world uniform" to "it must have been designed that way by an intelligence" is the key flaw here, not induction itself.
clemmys27 4 years ago
Interesting video. I'm no philosopher, but I have a feeling that the problem of induction is not in the process of induction itself or the assumptions made to perform it, but the way in which you're examining it.
clemmys27 4 years ago
I love how we go from a broad notion about a universal creator to a specific form of protestant Christianity. Who do you think you're fooling?
Also, you can't prove a negative, so your challenge is void and nothing more than pathetic attempt to seem reasonable.
From the rating of the video, obviously no one.
Daedalus732 4 years ago
No the problem of induction it is a real one. If you thought this guy was an atheist you'd listen to him I'm sure - and he could be an atheist for all you know - you have only induced that he is a Christian nut case.
ZITZON 4 years ago
He tells us within the first two minutes that he's a theist and a Christian.
Him being a Christian doesn't stop me from listening to him. In fact I listened to the whole thing. I just disagree with his conclusions, particularly because what he's doing is a rather old story. If you offer someone money to prove a negative you're either being deceptive or you're not intelligent enough to know proving a negative is impossible. I'm leaning towards the former since this guy does seem intelligent.
Daedalus732 4 years ago
He is outlining a real philosophical problem and raising new ones too. He's sort of saying you can't have the cake and eat it too! How does science justify inference without evoking laws of nature and a power (god) to sustain those laws. On what basis can we say the past represents the future. This whole project may just be an exercise in getting us to examine reality...and work out what the rational atheist position is. It's better he does it than real christians.
ZITZON 4 years ago
The thing is, he's not outlining any new philosophical problem. He's making the faulty assumption that there must be a power to sustain universal laws. Why is this necessary? Why can't the universe sustain itself? Just because he says it can't doesn't make him right.
We can't say for certainty that the past represents the future. We just assume that it does.
And then to put icing on the cake, he offers $1,000 to prove a negative.
How is this person not a real Christian?
Daedalus732 4 years ago
He is taking the stance of a "presuppositional apologist" and asks: on what grounds can atheist rationalize their world view that there is uniformity of nature when they have no recourse to a God that sustains uniformity of Nature - so justify inductive inference that uniformity of nature is, and will continue to be so. A good question.
ZITZON 4 years ago
The theist has an answer - God sustains uniformity...at least that is a better answer than nothing sustains uniformity and implicity all could change tomorrow. You question my statement "real christian" well I think he is playing "devil's advocate". In reality he is thinking theism (not as truth)but only as a means of getting to the truth. I think this series of videos are an elaborate intellectual "joke"
ZITZON 4 years ago