I can't believe I never replied to this. Yes, I should have put "unknown" instead of "unknowable". We will totally know those events eventually. Secondly, I do not believe that, given this, I am simply redefining the universe as God. Sure, what I believe in can be and has been called Pantheism, but that's only true in so far as the "physicality" of God, as it were. I do also think he's a conscious entity who has parts and thoughts which are not entirely inside the universe, IE Monotheism.
Pantheism isn't silly word games in order to use the G word. Richard Dawkins is wrong when he calls pantheism "sexed up atheism." As a pantheist/panentheist, I believe God is the process, but by calling the process God I am also assigning consciousness to the process. The same way that the interaction of nerve cells gives rise to your own consciousness, I believe the interaction of all that exists gives rise to a God consciousness.
@ikkuj Constructive? You must be joking. Saying flat out that Richard Dawkins is incorrect when you can properly assume he will never see this page is as unconstructive as anything could be. You stated that he was factually wrong, then you provide no information to prove him so.
Richard Dawkins generalizes the beliefs of a group of people that he is not a part of. He generalizes about my beliefs and he is wrong. I do not need to provide proof, he is talking about something he knows nothing about.
If what Dawkins calls pantheism isn't what you call pantheism then you've no quarrel, he's not engaging with you or your belief system. You might quarrel that, but I daresay you'd rather he didn't engage with you at all!
I'd say in a way you're right, he's not, but I don't think he's engaging with anyone's belief systems at all. The only people who view pantheism as sexed up atheism are atheists. A pantheist rejects the atheist philosophy and worldview, that's why we are pantheist rather than atheist!
I explained what I meant but perhaps not very well. The interactions of nerve cells give rise to individual consciousness which exists on a "higher level" (think abstractly) than the individual cells. I believe that the same way these interactions sum to a higher level individual consciousness, the interactions of everything in the universe sum to a higher level God consciousness/awareness.
Maybe philosophy was the wrong word? The atheist rationale? The atheist way of thinking? As much as a lot of atheists like to claim that "all atheism entails is the lack of belief, otherwise we have nothing in common cause we're all unique and don't listen to authority," every atheist I talk to DOES think/rationalize things in the same way (if you can't isolate it in a lab, it doesn't exist, yada yada)
@ikkuj Yes, you're right you need no proof to support your claims. Claims without proof or even an attempt at proof mean nothing. I'm not going to argue with you because you don't provide proof to support your claims or to disprove another's. You make another rediculous claim, I'd wager Dawkins is just as educated on your beliefs as you are.
Didn't notice your post cause someone flagged it as spam. And dude THINK about what you're asking of me. You're asking me to provide proof/evidence that I believe something. I don't have to fucking do that! I am telling you what I believe, therefore that is what I believe! What kind of evidence can I possibly give you for that other than telling you?
Or are you asking for proof that Dawkins has the wrong idea about my beliefs? Because that's right in his own book. The stuff he says about pantheism is just not what the majority of pantheists believe. He thinks pantheists have demoted God down to the level of our universe, but that's backwards, pantheists have promoted the universe up to the level of divinity.
@ikkuj The proof for most given arguments are in books or source material in general. That doesn't mean because the proof is out their somewhere you don't have to use that proof to support your argument. Also, I guess you currently speak for the majority of pantheists. I'm sure they would be happy to have a person who is so logically fallacious as their spokesman.
@JmkLcAeJsm : There is a difference between 100% explained and 100% proven. Just because something is unknowable does not mean it is unexplainable. The differences are very subtle, but there are differences. I agree, his use of the word "discover" was improper. Everything can be explained, but not everything can be proven.
really man? How do you tend to try and have people to disprove you when you chose to not understand the other side of the story. Do i just assume that there is no God? NOOOO. I take a look on both sides of the story. I have documentaries on both subjects. Compare back to back and go from there.
SO in order to support a claim, that claim must be constant. The idea and claim of a God is never constant. Science stays the same. Religion doesn't
If there was evidence that disproves god then we wouldn't b arguing over it. There have been claims that he has been disproven but there has also been refutations
How do you disprove the super natural? I can claim that I believe in the God Krishna and he is the creator of all or a christian can say the same thing about God. Soo which is the real God. If no one knows that there is a God since we have soo many religions on this planet then how can you claim something that can't be proven to be true? Claim that there is a god beyond any doubt is a dick move. There is invisible monkeys that exist and take care of us is just as a valid claim. Make sense??
you didn't understand my argument at all. Making a claim outside of testable realms is bullshit and not needed in the real world. Our technology is real. your god is not.
That is the very point that I'm trying to make. The only thing u can target is a religion that is based on a god. But u can't prove that invisible monkeys guide us on our life on a daily basis either because its an outrageous claim made by a human that can't be supported. Do u not understand it?
How is evolution without evidence? We also have the theory of gravity but whats that?????? We can observe that. Evolution is a theory based on what we have observed that naturally occurs in nature. Plenty of supporting evidence for evolution. Try looking up and understanding what the word "Theory" means. There is no eyewitness accounts of God. Those who say that they have seen god say that FOR ANY RELIGION. So your argument is what?
@zgbrotherhood but scientists make claims outside the testable realms all the time. I'm sure you have heard that no two particles of matter can exsist in the same place, at the same time. how does one go about testing that? do we have matter transporters? also i'm sure you have heard that if a single atom were to reach the speed of light it would gain infinate mass and incompase the whole universe, yet we can not travel at the speed of light, so how can we test that?
The first follows from the definition of a particle, but is only a logical consequence of a model based on particles, the second is frankly bizarre and I've no idea where you've heard that as we've accelerated atoms to about 99%c ad it's all been fine.
@JmkLcAeJsm I first read that claim in a scienctific journal while researching the large hagron super collider. it has also been brought up in scientific forums, documentarys about string theory and stephen hawkins, and even on the show "sci fi science" on the science channel. everytime I have heard it stated it was stated as fact, not theoretical hypothisis.
But energy/mass equivalence dictates that since the speed of light is finite, the mass equivalent of the energy required to accelerate a finite mass to that speed must also be finite. This statement simply can't be true, I'm sure there's a simple reason for the misunderstanding.
do you know my name ? no ! but if i tell you than it is knowable , simple enough for you to understand , dont coplicate things more than need be .funny i can understand both of you !
just found out something today that was unknowable yesterday ! crazy the future. , really we cannot prove this one way or the other can we ? except by definition . word play is not proof . does this make any sense or not "question" ? please give a simple explanation of this theory
since i could not possibly know yesterday the unknoable , unknown that i know today , yesterday is gone therefor what i know today is unknowable yesterday !
o.k. simple enough , to me what i say makes sense , although i don't know the definition of every word .guess I'm gonna have to pull out the dictionary and encyclopidea , research every word i use . lol
definition of -not knowable: adj. unknowable: impossible to know, often because of being beyond human experience or understanding . gotta go cant explain what i mean . will give it some thought
Jmk, this is sort of unrelated to the video, but you are an economist so can i ask you which you prefer of austrian economics and Keynesian economics? thanks :)
I am very poorly versed in austrian economics actually. It is not taught much at undergraduate level, and my postgraduate studies have been in behavioural micro-economics and environmental economics. I'm not really the right sort of economist to ask!
Well okay then, what if i simplify the question? Do you think it's a good idea for goverment to invest in things in order to increase labour and profit or do you belive in a truly free marketplace where supply and demand is the only power in place. In a previous video you support socialism so i bet you do prefer goverment to be involved but considering all the malinvestments and inflated prices that is a hard pill to swallow. I'd like your reply even if it's not your strong point.
I don't believe that GDP growth should be an aim of government policy. I believe that government should intervene on the supply side (Providing training, job finding services etc) to target full employment.
I do think that the government needs to step in to re inflate the economy, but to preserve stable prices. Deflation is a much bigger threat than inflation believe me.
As a side note, I believe that currently the aim of government policy in the developed world should be making the transition to zero carbon by changing relative prices (via taxation) and by targeting investment.
I also believe (on the basis of my own increasing returns augmented two good exchange model) that industrial policy such as targeting leading sectors like green energy can promote higher efficiency and employment.
Green energy have proven to be a net loss before because it is expensive to build and highly inefficent (solar, wind etc) and as time goes on the proof against global warming is piling up. I fully agree with you on the job finding services altough i think job training could be left to the private sector. What i would like to ask though is why do you think "stable prices" is a good thing when people have less money to spend? Prices should go down so people can afford it right? interesting stuff.
1. Installing a solar panel on your roof that lasts two years is 40% cheaper than paying for electricity (and that's if your power costs 10 cents per KW hr, I bet it's more...)
2. The evidence against global warming is not 'piling up', see potholer 54's excellent series on the subject. I'm in regular contact with the Hadley climate modelling centre in Exeter, if anyone knows what's going on, they do.
3. Game theory and externality theory show us that training will be underprovided, I can provide extensive analysis of this if you reeeeeeeeealy want it! (you don't!)
4. Stable prices allow labour market clearing (see the expectations augmented philips curve, or the Sticky wage/rational expectations model)
Well on a personal level it might be efficent to get a solar panel on your own roof, but for the majority of power to be created this way is not the same, a nuclear power plant or geothermal one can create massive amounts of power in comparison. "climate modeling" are getting alot of complaints for being unpredictable,( if they can't predict the weather accuratly...) those who look at the past and what is happening right now seems to agree that there is little or no danger.
I agree geothermal is currently better (nuclear has never really been commercially viable) but solar and wind are both just as cheap.
Climate modeling and weather modeling are very distinct things. Looking at the past is not a reliable guide to the present. Looking at individual photon interactions with individual molecules is.
5. Deflation is horrendous. Think about it. If you think prices will fall tomorrow, you put off your discretionary spending and save money. But firms just see a decrease in demand for their goods and thus produce less, lower prices, and lay off workers. Thus there is even less demand etc. Deflation is an economic nightmare.
i see your point with philips curce but it seems sort of flawed because inflation cannot last forever (or so i think O.o) because basically you just print money out of nothing and use it for stimulus etc, then what? not only does tyhe debt increase but sooner or later the money will be worthless. I dare say that the hyper inflation that Germany experienced is far worse than the deflation you speak of.
Hang on, you're conflating a variety of issues. I am not a big fan of seignorage (printing money), but I can be persuaded to support targeted INVESTMENT (NOT current spending) financed by borrowing. This is not the same as printing money.
so if the goverment HAD any money, you could get onboard with spending it? :)
And the modeling is being discredited because they are so vastly complicated. if you forget one thing (like vapor, which alot of models have left out apparantly) then the whole thing can turn out wrong. what we know is that the temperature has been higher and the carbon levels have been higher. so this is neither exeptional nor has it proven to be a threat.
Besides, temperatures peaked in 1998 then came down to 1980 levels in 2007 and the ice caps went back to normal. fitting perfectly in with the theory that sun spots is the factor leading temperature more than green house gasses. let me quote Dr. David Glee, chairman of the international geological congress "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
You're looking for a model that has explanatory, not predictive power. We know that by increasing C02 levels from 400-600ppm, (they haven't been higher than 350ppm in 400,000 years...), a temperature increase of at least 2 degrees centigrade will occur. Other effects may drown that out, but it is hard to see what they will be. The evidence and theory lies on the side of amplifying effects.
i hear according to scientist studying ice core samples , that it gets warmer than c.o. levels rise ? they said this because of Gore , didn't have all the facts ?
Never heard about the gold, but CO2 rises when it gets warmer because most of the CO2 derives from the ocean which suck CO2 in when it gets colder and lets it out when it is warmer. So basically Al Gores main point is dead. not to mention humans are responsible for 0.126% of the green house gasses, which pretty much kill whatever doubt was left of the credibility in that moviel. not to mention even IPCC admits that oceans can't possibly rise more than 0.89cm in the next 100 years.
i haven't heard about the gold but CO2 does increase when it gets warmer because the oceans are by far the largest contributor to CO2. Man made CO2 is only 3.5% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and only 0.126% of the greenhouse gasses. Not to mention even IPCC admits the ocean levels cannot possibly rise more than 0.89cm over the next 100 years, and that's very generous in itself.
the thing is that both deflation and inflation is bad, those that save money and are responsible will have a big chunk of money when they get old, but the 100 000 dollars they put in the bank 50 years ago can now buy a whole lot less than what it could when it was put in the bank. so the system basically punish the responsible and reward the irresponsible. Not to mention the money policy doesn't create anything, the system is based on debt rather than production.
Well after money stop being bound to the gold standard, money is debt basically, it is valuable because it can pay off debt. i belive you know more than me about monetary policy but im very interested in it so i like discussing it. I've already learned more about it from your answers, thanks.
You see that's the problem. Money is not a claim on resources, it is itself a commodity. Its value derives from its scarcity and its exchangeability.
Money based on gold started out as a convenient way to exchange gold without high transaction costs. But this was only because gold was scarce and universally tradeable by an accident of mutual consent (and geochemistry!). Gold had value then for the same reasons paper money has value now.
Indeed, but you cannot find more gold, it's all dug out and it could hardly fill an olympic swimming pool. however, the paper money does increase and it is very hard to get the amount down again, that's basically the problem because producing stuff seems more irrelevant if you can just print money, move it around and have other countries make you stuff. but in the end the other countries will end up rich and your country will face problems.
Nononononononono. That's not how stuff works! Look, I'm going to make a video on money to start a 'how to think about economics' series. I'm starting writing the script now. I'd wait for that before saying more things that make me as a professional economist cringe (NOT your fault!!!! I can't stress that enough)
Great, look, I'm sorry to sound so bloody condescending, but understand that economics, like any science, has its own language. I hope you enjoy learning to speak it!
i hear there is enough gold in the earths core to cover the entire planet "about "knee deep maybe less cant remember exact inches, only problem is getting it , also it is a very small percentage of the core like 7% or something like that . crazy hu ?
Then many people make the mistake of assuming that we posses a vast sum of "knowledge" in the grand scheme of things. People who lived in caves 70k years ago probably felt the same way.
Maybe I'm wrong and you probably already "know" this, I think he is trying to say is there are spiritual forces behind everything we do and do not "know."
At that standpoint, it really becomes a paper or plastic subject unworthy of breath wasted debating it. Cheers
I think the mistake 5th watcher makes is laying "knowable" (relative term, relative = reality) with "unkown" in a sort of a timeline.
Our "knowledge" when it comes to many subjects, doesent come in a timeline as if were reading a book. We get a word here, sentance there, never a whole chapter at a time in many cases.
We also cannot decide how the chapter is going to end in many cases. Margarine is better for you than butter, wait no its not, yes it is, no its not, fuck it.
The argument is this: As usual, monkeyboy missed the point. He immediately starts to babble about contradiction when none exists. Watcher says there is unknowable, but indicates that it can become knowable....
"Watcher says there is unknowable, but indicates that it can become knowable.... "
Let me ask you a question: Can the unknowable be known? Don't bother replying, the answer is no. By definition, the unknowable can not be known. If it can be known, then it is not unknowable, but is in fact quite knowable. So yes, there is a direct contradiction in saying that unknowable can become knowable. However, the unknown can become known.
It was never unknowable. If it was, we wouldn't know about it. So it was knowable. It was just unknown. Even before the invention of the electron microscope Koch's postulates were used to demonstrate the existence of harmful microorganisms, despite the fact that they could not be seen.
Qualify it any way you want. The minute you add a qualifier to an absolute statement, it's no longer absolute. That's like when people say "almost never." Never is an absolute term in the negative. The moment you add "almost" or "mostly" to an absolute, it's no longer an absolute. I like 5thWatcher, but he really should have used "unknown" instead of "unknowable." JmkLcAeJsm was just pointing it out. You are not obligated to defend everything 5thWatcher says just because you like him too.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I have never seen 5th watcher before. i just think that monkeyboy is such a sufferable, intellectual twat, that '?I criticize his bafoonish rantings whenever possible.
OK, well that basically just makes you a troll. I'm not saying that to be rude, but seriously, imagine if I went to all of your videos and started slinging mud at you just because I didn't like you. Would that really be productive? Would that help me understand your position any better? One of the things I really like about 5thWatcher is the fact that he opens to door for discussion to everyone and he criticizes peoples arguments on the merit of the argument.
You seem to see yourself as some sort of a crusader for common sense, yet make statements like 'watcher says there is unknowable, but indicates it can become knowable'. See why I don't bother replying to you that much?
You don't reply much because you know I am right, and you are a coward. The very idea that you would hold watcher to the literal sense of his words just indicates how rigid you are in your thought process. I understood perfectly that he meant there are things in our realitiy which we perceive as impossible to know only because of our limited scope. So fucking what is he called what you what to be called "unknown" by "unknowable" instead. You are a hopelessly pompous intellectual twat...
No, because he freely interchanges the definitions. I actually don't know what he means half the time, and if he did mean unknown, he's still wrong because the set of unknown events remains larger than known in the present.
And you continue to expose the ridiculous nature of your pseudo-intellectual ramblings. More circular reasoning. Explain your reasoning as to how you know the size of the set of that which is unknown?
Prove the infinite claim you make of the possible....Could it not be that the unknown is finite? Each time man converts an unknown to a known, the balance shifts closer to man's attainment of a qualified reality.
oh - Now you're going to foray into the ridiculous of semantics. I mean actual possibility - not make believe theoretical tripe dreamed up in the mind of an amateur intellectual like yourself. I know the Beatles said "there's nothing you can do that can't be done." but I'm trying to question reality, not the magical mystery tour of language...
To echo a poster below, that's just obstructive white noise. Whatever set of possible things you come up with, it is intuitively clear that it is always possible to think of another thing.
Make believe! Go ahead, pretend your supposition is true. Reality places limitations and parameters upon the set of possibilities. A trite but valid example: name me the other possibility of connecting two points in space with something shorter than a straight line...
Stupid reply - You ARE just playing games. Besides the fact that the blue line fails the requirement (it is not shorter), it is not an alternative to a line, merely a subset within. You fail....
You are proving nothing but your stupidity. So, according to you, a black human is not equal to a white human. They are not the same color! oh my! There is an infinite set of possibilities, but a finite set of REAL ones...
I disagree that the set that is unknown is infinite. In a deterministic universe, the set of that that can be known is still finite. Now in a non-deterministic universe, that which is unknown would technically be infinite as the future will always represent an unknown, no matter how many variables you account for. I believe in a deterministic universe, but you may not. So really, it's a matter of which one you accept and what you back it up with.
Oh well yeah, of course the "unknowable" set is infinite. Since it encompass unknowable things, the set must by necessity be infinite. By the way, I totally understand why you make so few responses to marklross2. I annihilated the shit out of him in the comment section of one of his own videos. To this day he refuses to admit defeat. Why bother responding to such a dishonest person?
It's tragi-comic! The Judeo/Christian/Muslim diety (already a little god) just keeps getting smaller and smaller every time it is relegated to another gap, only to be chased unceremoniously from it each time that particular gap is filled with knowledge. Kind of sad and pathetic.
I suspect on his diagram, he meant unknown and known, rather that unknowable and knowable.
Even so, it still fails because he is still using the God of the gaps fallacy, just trying to get around it by superfluously tacking God onto descriptions we have of the known.
What is the point of saying that germs cause disease and God is in there somewhere. For the things that we know, we also know that God is unnecessary.
To quote Laplace, "I had no need of that hypothesis"
I can't believe I never replied to this. Yes, I should have put "unknown" instead of "unknowable". We will totally know those events eventually. Secondly, I do not believe that, given this, I am simply redefining the universe as God. Sure, what I believe in can be and has been called Pantheism, but that's only true in so far as the "physicality" of God, as it were. I do also think he's a conscious entity who has parts and thoughts which are not entirely inside the universe, IE Monotheism.
5thWatcher 9 months ago
Pantheism isn't silly word games in order to use the G word. Richard Dawkins is wrong when he calls pantheism "sexed up atheism." As a pantheist/panentheist, I believe God is the process, but by calling the process God I am also assigning consciousness to the process. The same way that the interaction of nerve cells gives rise to your own consciousness, I believe the interaction of all that exists gives rise to a God consciousness.
ikkuj 1 year ago
@ikkuj Let's call people completely wrong when they aren't here to defend their points.
xDEMONIZEDx 10 months ago
@xDEMONIZEDx
Aren't where? I posted on the internet in public, anyone and everyone can defend their points. Did you have something constructive to add?
ikkuj 10 months ago
@ikkuj Constructive? You must be joking. Saying flat out that Richard Dawkins is incorrect when you can properly assume he will never see this page is as unconstructive as anything could be. You stated that he was factually wrong, then you provide no information to prove him so.
xDEMONIZEDx 10 months ago
@xDEMONIZEDx
Richard Dawkins generalizes the beliefs of a group of people that he is not a part of. He generalizes about my beliefs and he is wrong. I do not need to provide proof, he is talking about something he knows nothing about.
ikkuj 10 months ago
If what Dawkins calls pantheism isn't what you call pantheism then you've no quarrel, he's not engaging with you or your belief system. You might quarrel that, but I daresay you'd rather he didn't engage with you at all!
JmkLcAeJsm 10 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
I'd say in a way you're right, he's not, but I don't think he's engaging with anyone's belief systems at all. The only people who view pantheism as sexed up atheism are atheists. A pantheist rejects the atheist philosophy and worldview, that's why we are pantheist rather than atheist!
ikkuj 10 months ago
How do you reject a philosophy that does not exist? There is no atheist philosophy...
Out of interest, what lends meaning to the sentence 'assigning consciousness to the process', what is it that you're claiming there?
JmkLcAeJsm 10 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
Weak atheism you may not consider a philosophy. Strong atheism like Dawkins (the assertion of "no god") is definitely a philosophy.
ikkuj 10 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
I explained what I meant but perhaps not very well. The interactions of nerve cells give rise to individual consciousness which exists on a "higher level" (think abstractly) than the individual cells. I believe that the same way these interactions sum to a higher level individual consciousness, the interactions of everything in the universe sum to a higher level God consciousness/awareness.
ikkuj 10 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
Maybe philosophy was the wrong word? The atheist rationale? The atheist way of thinking? As much as a lot of atheists like to claim that "all atheism entails is the lack of belief, otherwise we have nothing in common cause we're all unique and don't listen to authority," every atheist I talk to DOES think/rationalize things in the same way (if you can't isolate it in a lab, it doesn't exist, yada yada)
ikkuj 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ikkuj Yes, you're right you need no proof to support your claims. Claims without proof or even an attempt at proof mean nothing. I'm not going to argue with you because you don't provide proof to support your claims or to disprove another's. You make another rediculous claim, I'd wager Dawkins is just as educated on your beliefs as you are.
xDEMONIZEDx 10 months ago
@xDEMONIZEDx
Didn't notice your post cause someone flagged it as spam. And dude THINK about what you're asking of me. You're asking me to provide proof/evidence that I believe something. I don't have to fucking do that! I am telling you what I believe, therefore that is what I believe! What kind of evidence can I possibly give you for that other than telling you?
ikkuj 10 months ago
@xDEMONIZEDx
Or are you asking for proof that Dawkins has the wrong idea about my beliefs? Because that's right in his own book. The stuff he says about pantheism is just not what the majority of pantheists believe. He thinks pantheists have demoted God down to the level of our universe, but that's backwards, pantheists have promoted the universe up to the level of divinity.
ikkuj 10 months ago
@ikkuj The proof for most given arguments are in books or source material in general. That doesn't mean because the proof is out their somewhere you don't have to use that proof to support your argument. Also, I guess you currently speak for the majority of pantheists. I'm sure they would be happy to have a person who is so logically fallacious as their spokesman.
xDEMONIZEDx 10 months ago
your da man dude
deadjester187420 1 year ago
@JmkLcAeJsm : There is a difference between 100% explained and 100% proven. Just because something is unknowable does not mean it is unexplainable. The differences are very subtle, but there are differences. I agree, his use of the word "discover" was improper. Everything can be explained, but not everything can be proven.
jordankriese 1 year ago
he claims that we can know all events eventually and god is responsible for all.
beaner3114 2 years ago
Or evolution
goatmilk222 2 years ago
There is absolutely nothing that disproves god.. If there is tell me.
goatmilk222 2 years ago
really man? How do you tend to try and have people to disprove you when you chose to not understand the other side of the story. Do i just assume that there is no God? NOOOO. I take a look on both sides of the story. I have documentaries on both subjects. Compare back to back and go from there.
SO in order to support a claim, that claim must be constant. The idea and claim of a God is never constant. Science stays the same. Religion doesn't
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
If there was evidence that disproves god then we wouldn't b arguing over it. There have been claims that he has been disproven but there has also been refutations
goatmilk222 2 years ago
How do you disprove the super natural? I can claim that I believe in the God Krishna and he is the creator of all or a christian can say the same thing about God. Soo which is the real God. If no one knows that there is a God since we have soo many religions on this planet then how can you claim something that can't be proven to be true? Claim that there is a god beyond any doubt is a dick move. There is invisible monkeys that exist and take care of us is just as a valid claim. Make sense??
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
....I said you can't disprove
goatmilk222 2 years ago
you didn't understand my argument at all. Making a claim outside of testable realms is bullshit and not needed in the real world. Our technology is real. your god is not.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
Where is the evidence he isn't?
goatmilk222 2 years ago
That is the very point that I'm trying to make. The only thing u can target is a religion that is based on a god. But u can't prove that invisible monkeys guide us on our life on a daily basis either because its an outrageous claim made by a human that can't be supported. Do u not understand it?
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ya but there have also been eyewitnesses
goatmilk222 2 years ago
Any claim that is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You're making a claim without evidence. We're dismissing it.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
There's a lot of theories accepted without evidence
goatmilk222 2 years ago
How is evolution without evidence? We also have the theory of gravity but whats that?????? We can observe that. Evolution is a theory based on what we have observed that naturally occurs in nature. Plenty of supporting evidence for evolution. Try looking up and understanding what the word "Theory" means. There is no eyewitness accounts of God. Those who say that they have seen god say that FOR ANY RELIGION. So your argument is what?
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
Evolution has never been observed. Nobody has ever seen god. Maybe they mean jesus But not god
goatmilk222 2 years ago
Like string theory
goatmilk222 2 years ago
@zgbrotherhood but scientists make claims outside the testable realms all the time. I'm sure you have heard that no two particles of matter can exsist in the same place, at the same time. how does one go about testing that? do we have matter transporters? also i'm sure you have heard that if a single atom were to reach the speed of light it would gain infinate mass and incompase the whole universe, yet we can not travel at the speed of light, so how can we test that?
kradrol 1 year ago
The first follows from the definition of a particle, but is only a logical consequence of a model based on particles, the second is frankly bizarre and I've no idea where you've heard that as we've accelerated atoms to about 99%c ad it's all been fine.
JmkLcAeJsm 1 year ago
@JmkLcAeJsm I first read that claim in a scienctific journal while researching the large hagron super collider. it has also been brought up in scientific forums, documentarys about string theory and stephen hawkins, and even on the show "sci fi science" on the science channel. everytime I have heard it stated it was stated as fact, not theoretical hypothisis.
kradrol 1 year ago
But energy/mass equivalence dictates that since the speed of light is finite, the mass equivalent of the energy required to accelerate a finite mass to that speed must also be finite. This statement simply can't be true, I'm sure there's a simple reason for the misunderstanding.
JmkLcAeJsm 1 year ago
Love your videos... And your voice. Weird.
TylerBoBylerFyler 2 years ago
do you know my name ? no ! but if i tell you than it is knowable , simple enough for you to understand , dont coplicate things more than need be .funny i can understand both of you !
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
NO!!!!!
It's knowable now! It's just unknown!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
you got me there! but my point is you really don't know until you know . than proving or disproving is a whole different ball game .
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
Indeed, you don't, indeed by definition you can't, know what you don't know, hence my assertion that the unknowable set is infinite.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
just found out something today that was unknowable yesterday ! crazy the future. , really we cannot prove this one way or the other can we ? except by definition . word play is not proof . does this make any sense or not "question" ? please give a simple explanation of this theory
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
HAHAHA! If it was unknowable yesterday, you can't know it today! Come on dude, take this a bit seriously....
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
since i could not possibly know yesterday the unknoable , unknown that i know today , yesterday is gone therefor what i know today is unknowable yesterday !
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
It's absolutely imperative that you understand the following definitions:
Unknowable: That which cannot be known
Unknown: That which is not known.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
o.k. simple enough , to me what i say makes sense , although i don't know the definition of every word .guess I'm gonna have to pull out the dictionary and encyclopidea , research every word i use . lol
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
It's basic stuff mate. That which is unknowable can't be known, what the hell else is the word supposed to mean?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
definition of -not knowable: adj. unknowable: impossible to know, often because of being beyond human experience or understanding . gotta go cant explain what i mean . will give it some thought
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
un·know·a·ble [un nṓ əb'l]
adj not knowable: impossible to know, often because of being beyond human experience or understanding
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
lol,
Jmk reading this was awesome
charr05 2 years ago
your freakin nitpiky, his videos was a vary simple model , you seem to not be able to understand that . ignorance is bliss so they say
mailmanofdeth 2 years ago
Nothing about his 'model' is correct or consistent. It is not 'nitpicking' to point that out.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
y-o-u-'-r-e means "you are", y-o-u-r means "your"... and THAT is an example of nit-picking, Jmk was NOT nit-picking
charr05 2 years ago
Jmk, this is sort of unrelated to the video, but you are an economist so can i ask you which you prefer of austrian economics and Keynesian economics? thanks :)
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
I am very poorly versed in austrian economics actually. It is not taught much at undergraduate level, and my postgraduate studies have been in behavioural micro-economics and environmental economics. I'm not really the right sort of economist to ask!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Well okay then, what if i simplify the question? Do you think it's a good idea for goverment to invest in things in order to increase labour and profit or do you belive in a truly free marketplace where supply and demand is the only power in place. In a previous video you support socialism so i bet you do prefer goverment to be involved but considering all the malinvestments and inflated prices that is a hard pill to swallow. I'd like your reply even if it's not your strong point.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
I don't believe that GDP growth should be an aim of government policy. I believe that government should intervene on the supply side (Providing training, job finding services etc) to target full employment.
I do think that the government needs to step in to re inflate the economy, but to preserve stable prices. Deflation is a much bigger threat than inflation believe me.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
As a side note, I believe that currently the aim of government policy in the developed world should be making the transition to zero carbon by changing relative prices (via taxation) and by targeting investment.
I also believe (on the basis of my own increasing returns augmented two good exchange model) that industrial policy such as targeting leading sectors like green energy can promote higher efficiency and employment.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Green energy have proven to be a net loss before because it is expensive to build and highly inefficent (solar, wind etc) and as time goes on the proof against global warming is piling up. I fully agree with you on the job finding services altough i think job training could be left to the private sector. What i would like to ask though is why do you think "stable prices" is a good thing when people have less money to spend? Prices should go down so people can afford it right? interesting stuff.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
1. Installing a solar panel on your roof that lasts two years is 40% cheaper than paying for electricity (and that's if your power costs 10 cents per KW hr, I bet it's more...)
2. The evidence against global warming is not 'piling up', see potholer 54's excellent series on the subject. I'm in regular contact with the Hadley climate modelling centre in Exeter, if anyone knows what's going on, they do.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
3. Game theory and externality theory show us that training will be underprovided, I can provide extensive analysis of this if you reeeeeeeeealy want it! (you don't!)
4. Stable prices allow labour market clearing (see the expectations augmented philips curve, or the Sticky wage/rational expectations model)
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Well on a personal level it might be efficent to get a solar panel on your own roof, but for the majority of power to be created this way is not the same, a nuclear power plant or geothermal one can create massive amounts of power in comparison. "climate modeling" are getting alot of complaints for being unpredictable,( if they can't predict the weather accuratly...) those who look at the past and what is happening right now seems to agree that there is little or no danger.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
I agree geothermal is currently better (nuclear has never really been commercially viable) but solar and wind are both just as cheap.
Climate modeling and weather modeling are very distinct things. Looking at the past is not a reliable guide to the present. Looking at individual photon interactions with individual molecules is.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
5. Deflation is horrendous. Think about it. If you think prices will fall tomorrow, you put off your discretionary spending and save money. But firms just see a decrease in demand for their goods and thus produce less, lower prices, and lay off workers. Thus there is even less demand etc. Deflation is an economic nightmare.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
i see your point with philips curce but it seems sort of flawed because inflation cannot last forever (or so i think O.o) because basically you just print money out of nothing and use it for stimulus etc, then what? not only does tyhe debt increase but sooner or later the money will be worthless. I dare say that the hyper inflation that Germany experienced is far worse than the deflation you speak of.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
Hang on, you're conflating a variety of issues. I am not a big fan of seignorage (printing money), but I can be persuaded to support targeted INVESTMENT (NOT current spending) financed by borrowing. This is not the same as printing money.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
so if the goverment HAD any money, you could get onboard with spending it? :)
And the modeling is being discredited because they are so vastly complicated. if you forget one thing (like vapor, which alot of models have left out apparantly) then the whole thing can turn out wrong. what we know is that the temperature has been higher and the carbon levels have been higher. so this is neither exeptional nor has it proven to be a threat.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
Besides, temperatures peaked in 1998 then came down to 1980 levels in 2007 and the ice caps went back to normal. fitting perfectly in with the theory that sun spots is the factor leading temperature more than green house gasses. let me quote Dr. David Glee, chairman of the international geological congress "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
You're looking for a model that has explanatory, not predictive power. We know that by increasing C02 levels from 400-600ppm, (they haven't been higher than 350ppm in 400,000 years...), a temperature increase of at least 2 degrees centigrade will occur. Other effects may drown that out, but it is hard to see what they will be. The evidence and theory lies on the side of amplifying effects.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Well what is explained hasn't proven to be the case as far as i know of, that's why i think it is questionable.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
i hear according to scientist studying ice core samples , that it gets warmer than c.o. levels rise ? they said this because of Gore , didn't have all the facts ?
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
Never heard about the gold, but CO2 rises when it gets warmer because most of the CO2 derives from the ocean which suck CO2 in when it gets colder and lets it out when it is warmer. So basically Al Gores main point is dead. not to mention humans are responsible for 0.126% of the green house gasses, which pretty much kill whatever doubt was left of the credibility in that moviel. not to mention even IPCC admits that oceans can't possibly rise more than 0.89cm in the next 100 years.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
i haven't heard about the gold but CO2 does increase when it gets warmer because the oceans are by far the largest contributor to CO2. Man made CO2 is only 3.5% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and only 0.126% of the greenhouse gasses. Not to mention even IPCC admits the ocean levels cannot possibly rise more than 0.89cm over the next 100 years, and that's very generous in itself.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
the thing is that both deflation and inflation is bad, those that save money and are responsible will have a big chunk of money when they get old, but the 100 000 dollars they put in the bank 50 years ago can now buy a whole lot less than what it could when it was put in the bank. so the system basically punish the responsible and reward the irresponsible. Not to mention the money policy doesn't create anything, the system is based on debt rather than production.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
What do you understand by monetary policy? And what do you think money actually is?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Well after money stop being bound to the gold standard, money is debt basically, it is valuable because it can pay off debt. i belive you know more than me about monetary policy but im very interested in it so i like discussing it. I've already learned more about it from your answers, thanks.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
You see that's the problem. Money is not a claim on resources, it is itself a commodity. Its value derives from its scarcity and its exchangeability.
Money based on gold started out as a convenient way to exchange gold without high transaction costs. But this was only because gold was scarce and universally tradeable by an accident of mutual consent (and geochemistry!). Gold had value then for the same reasons paper money has value now.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Indeed, but you cannot find more gold, it's all dug out and it could hardly fill an olympic swimming pool. however, the paper money does increase and it is very hard to get the amount down again, that's basically the problem because producing stuff seems more irrelevant if you can just print money, move it around and have other countries make you stuff. but in the end the other countries will end up rich and your country will face problems.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
Nononononononono. That's not how stuff works! Look, I'm going to make a video on money to start a 'how to think about economics' series. I'm starting writing the script now. I'd wait for that before saying more things that make me as a professional economist cringe (NOT your fault!!!! I can't stress that enough)
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Awesome! I'm looking forward to it!
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
Great, look, I'm sorry to sound so bloody condescending, but understand that economics, like any science, has its own language. I hope you enjoy learning to speak it!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
i hear there is enough gold in the earths core to cover the entire planet "about "knee deep maybe less cant remember exact inches, only problem is getting it , also it is a very small percentage of the core like 7% or something like that . crazy hu ?
SHADYSPAW2 2 years ago
Then many people make the mistake of assuming that we posses a vast sum of "knowledge" in the grand scheme of things. People who lived in caves 70k years ago probably felt the same way.
Maybe I'm wrong and you probably already "know" this, I think he is trying to say is there are spiritual forces behind everything we do and do not "know."
At that standpoint, it really becomes a paper or plastic subject unworthy of breath wasted debating it. Cheers
Vlaxitov 2 years ago
I think the mistake 5th watcher makes is laying "knowable" (relative term, relative = reality) with "unkown" in a sort of a timeline.
Our "knowledge" when it comes to many subjects, doesent come in a timeline as if were reading a book. We get a word here, sentance there, never a whole chapter at a time in many cases.
We also cannot decide how the chapter is going to end in many cases. Margarine is better for you than butter, wait no its not, yes it is, no its not, fuck it.
Vlaxitov 2 years ago
Very nice video :)
cmeast 2 years ago
Keep talking real fast so the Gl take you seriously since you use a twitty english accent...
marklross2 2 years ago
Great argument. Oh wait, that wasn't an argument at all. It was just a pointless personal attack used in lieu of an argument.
h8uall66 2 years ago
The argument is this: As usual, monkeyboy missed the point. He immediately starts to babble about contradiction when none exists. Watcher says there is unknowable, but indicates that it can become knowable....
marklross2 2 years ago
Much better. But wrong. Here's why. You say:
"Watcher says there is unknowable, but indicates that it can become knowable.... "
Let me ask you a question: Can the unknowable be known? Don't bother replying, the answer is no. By definition, the unknowable can not be known. If it can be known, then it is not unknowable, but is in fact quite knowable. So yes, there is a direct contradiction in saying that unknowable can become knowable. However, the unknown can become known.
h8uall66 2 years ago 5
At one time the microscopic was unknowable....
marklross2 2 years ago
It was never unknowable. If it was, we wouldn't know about it. So it was knowable. It was just unknown. Even before the invention of the electron microscope Koch's postulates were used to demonstrate the existence of harmful microorganisms, despite the fact that they could not be seen.
h8uall66 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
unknowable in this plane of existence - knowable in another...
marklross2 2 years ago
Qualify it any way you want. The minute you add a qualifier to an absolute statement, it's no longer absolute. That's like when people say "almost never." Never is an absolute term in the negative. The moment you add "almost" or "mostly" to an absolute, it's no longer an absolute. I like 5thWatcher, but he really should have used "unknown" instead of "unknowable." JmkLcAeJsm was just pointing it out. You are not obligated to defend everything 5thWatcher says just because you like him too.
h8uall66 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have never seen 5th watcher before. i just think that monkeyboy is such a sufferable, intellectual twat, that '?I criticize his bafoonish rantings whenever possible.
marklross2 2 years ago
OK, well that basically just makes you a troll. I'm not saying that to be rude, but seriously, imagine if I went to all of your videos and started slinging mud at you just because I didn't like you. Would that really be productive? Would that help me understand your position any better? One of the things I really like about 5thWatcher is the fact that he opens to door for discussion to everyone and he criticizes peoples arguments on the merit of the argument.
h8uall66 2 years ago
This is white noise. What does - another plane of existence - even mean? Explain!
robindesade 2 years ago
You seem to see yourself as some sort of a crusader for common sense, yet make statements like 'watcher says there is unknowable, but indicates it can become knowable'. See why I don't bother replying to you that much?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
You don't reply much because you know I am right, and you are a coward. The very idea that you would hold watcher to the literal sense of his words just indicates how rigid you are in your thought process. I understood perfectly that he meant there are things in our realitiy which we perceive as impossible to know only because of our limited scope. So fucking what is he called what you what to be called "unknown" by "unknowable" instead. You are a hopelessly pompous intellectual twat...
marklross2 2 years ago
No, because he freely interchanges the definitions. I actually don't know what he means half the time, and if he did mean unknown, he's still wrong because the set of unknown events remains larger than known in the present.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
And you continue to expose the ridiculous nature of your pseudo-intellectual ramblings. More circular reasoning. Explain your reasoning as to how you know the size of the set of that which is unknown?
marklross2 2 years ago
Possible set: Infinite. Known set: finite.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Prove the infinite claim you make of the possible....Could it not be that the unknown is finite? Each time man converts an unknown to a known, the balance shifts closer to man's attainment of a qualified reality.
marklross2 2 years ago
Everything you can come up with that's possible, I can come up with another thing.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
oh - Now you're going to foray into the ridiculous of semantics. I mean actual possibility - not make believe theoretical tripe dreamed up in the mind of an amateur intellectual like yourself. I know the Beatles said "there's nothing you can do that can't be done." but I'm trying to question reality, not the magical mystery tour of language...
marklross2 2 years ago
To echo a poster below, that's just obstructive white noise. Whatever set of possible things you come up with, it is intuitively clear that it is always possible to think of another thing.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Make believe! Go ahead, pretend your supposition is true. Reality places limitations and parameters upon the set of possibilities. A trite but valid example: name me the other possibility of connecting two points in space with something shorter than a straight line...
marklross2 2 years ago
Doing it with a blue line.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Stupid reply - You ARE just playing games. Besides the fact that the blue line fails the requirement (it is not shorter), it is not an alternative to a line, merely a subset within. You fail....
marklross2 2 years ago
Still different. Which is all that's required for my argument to be valid, you're doing nothing but proving your stubbornness.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
You are proving nothing but your stupidity. So, according to you, a black human is not equal to a white human. They are not the same color! oh my! There is an infinite set of possibilities, but a finite set of REAL ones...
marklross2 2 years ago
They're not EQUIVALENT which is different. What a preposterous analogy.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
But equivalency and equality are diametrically mutually non-in-exclusive...
marklross2 2 years ago
I disagree that the set that is unknown is infinite. In a deterministic universe, the set of that that can be known is still finite. Now in a non-deterministic universe, that which is unknown would technically be infinite as the future will always represent an unknown, no matter how many variables you account for. I believe in a deterministic universe, but you may not. So really, it's a matter of which one you accept and what you back it up with.
h8uall66 2 years ago
No, not the unknown set, If I said that I didn't mean to! The unknowable set.
I am a weak determinist.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Oh well yeah, of course the "unknowable" set is infinite. Since it encompass unknowable things, the set must by necessity be infinite. By the way, I totally understand why you make so few responses to marklross2. I annihilated the shit out of him in the comment section of one of his own videos. To this day he refuses to admit defeat. Why bother responding to such a dishonest person?
h8uall66 2 years ago
This video is a null hypothesis...
marklross2 2 years ago
WoW! Pwned! Great job as always.
uskafighter 2 years ago
I love your videos. You need more subscribers.
TheLoquid 2 years ago
It's tragi-comic! The Judeo/Christian/Muslim diety (already a little god) just keeps getting smaller and smaller every time it is relegated to another gap, only to be chased unceremoniously from it each time that particular gap is filled with knowledge. Kind of sad and pathetic.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago 2
Great response.
I suspect on his diagram, he meant unknown and known, rather that unknowable and knowable.
Even so, it still fails because he is still using the God of the gaps fallacy, just trying to get around it by superfluously tacking God onto descriptions we have of the known.
What is the point of saying that germs cause disease and God is in there somewhere. For the things that we know, we also know that God is unnecessary.
To quote Laplace, "I had no need of that hypothesis"
riversonthemoon 2 years ago
that monkey's index finger is quite phallic
enigmatically 2 years ago
Is God responsible t#for the Gaps appearing in my teeth. If so, WHY?
GalacticAccident 2 years ago