The best argument that Christians don't really know God is on a website which is called "The Psychiana Reader". A man by the name of Frank B. Robinson makes it clear that God is within us and he exposes all the origins of the Christian religion. Also Walter Russell tells of God as a zero like beingness in his "The Secret of Light" which I read on my channel.
Let me give a shot at this. (this will require some Jungian metaphysics -which I've found to be compatible with quantum mechanics)
Humans have an inherent religious nature. Different religions derive different myths from Jungian archetypes. So a little truth comes out of them all in Krishna, Horus, Quetzalcoatl etc. But these all converge. Then Jesus looks like them all, except that he existed historically. So it's a "myth that became real" kind of thing -synchroncity. ("C.S. Lewis argument")
Veritas continues down his path of enlightenment...sooner or later he'll see the light...he certainly doesn't want to hear that he's followed a supersticious myth with absolutely no relevance...actually no one wants to admit they have been dupped...(my opinion with veritas)....
The Prodigy simply uses logic and reason...you can't go wrong there!...you rock!
Veritas and prodigy Read one passage from new testament ( John 10. 33-35 ) if my old brain is correct in interpreting that passage we are all God Christ him self admits it to the crowd. Accepting science as a concept excepting god as a concept both mental constructs both need faith to exist . One discipline advances material world processes with those consequences the other advances human need for continuation in a fearful world creating mental moorings. We create the fight between them.
infinity - infinity is not necessarily equal to zero.
Why?
Because infinity plus a finite number is still infinity. So if infinity minus infinity was always zero then infinity plus 4 minus infinity would be zero. Which would also lead to the conclusion that 4=0.
Therefore infinity minus infinity is undefinable. It could have any value, or no value. I.e. it could be zero, or 4, or 3,543, or even infinity or minus infinity. So we say it is undefined.
In modern maths (basically since Cantor) infinity is a complex concept. There are for example two categories of infinities, "countable" and "un-countable".
Hilbert's Hotel deals with countable infinities and can be used to show that a finite number can be added to infinity and that the result is also infinity.
"Countable" does not mean you can count to infinity. It's just a set theory term defining infinite sets that are equivalent to the set of natural numbers. As opposed to the set of real numbers for example which is an "un-countable" set.
Look up Georg Cantor on wikipedia for background if your interested.
ok. I can understand if its a matter of real numbers versus natural numbers, but at least I can know that my conception of infinity is the "real" one.
I'm so glad I decided to stay up and browse more of your vids. I would give up all my subscriptions, if I could only have one...For your channel! I am a student of physics, and I came to this conclusion years ago...but I've never used this reasoning so deftly as you. Well fucking Done!
Hey, I mean it. Not to say you are better than any of the many vlogers on youtube, that's a matter of opinion after all, but You are terse and tight in your argumentation...and more importantly, the most like minded to myself. I consider myself a strange agnostic/mystic mix. I believe things and phenomenon exist(a caring and involved benevolent Omni-God is not among them) for which there is no evidence...yet, or maybe even never.
But I also think trying to convince people of these things through heavy handed duplicity is quite uncool; at best they are topics for lively philosophical debate, as you so nimbly instigate. When Max Planck was under taking his experiments on black body radiation in late 1800's there were probably people who conceived of relativity and quantum mechanics, but with no math or evidence yet, it was just mysticism.
Physics, grew out of a movement called natural philosophy. Chemistry grew from alchemy. As for me posting vids on youtube as you do: I don't mind my words and opinions being online, but my visage is another matter. I'm very much a one on one type. I'm so happy that there's people like you who are willing to do this, but the most I will likely do is blog, or maybe create some relevant animation like notastampcollector. Stay up and on it, my good man! One!
great video, dont quite buy the complete polarity on anything above a conceptual sense tho but the no assumption rule is something ive always upheld :P btw random question but whats the sick background music u used for that?
I totally agree - the 'logics' of religious belief is about the driest and most unproductive approach possible.
We dissect definitions while the chasm between what MIGHT might be and what IS remains - no one knows. Even the theists have to use faith to cross that chasm.
Investigate the reasons WHY we believe, the psychological and evolutionary perspective & the cool stuff starts. After all the CONCEPT of god is a product of our psyche and our evolution.
Kidda funny too, Many people who I show and talk to about this, say that Google should hook me up with a Job. Interesting. They still have not contacted me.
I guess we all must live in different realities to them, Thou they control the super machine computer, which seems to pretty much control and dictate peoples lifes these days.
Is there any debate that my friends and I have pretty much put this website in check. And we hardly even talk to each other most days online. All of us do not even live in the same states anymore, and we dont even get on camera to talk about religion or politics. I am one man, with some pretty cool and smart friends. Talk about some spiritual and mental connections we have going on here, and that is not even including the people I love on here.
Prodigy, I don't see why you and everyone else are having such a hard time getting Veritas. The God debate is so huge that he wants to do it one part at a time. First, he's working in conjunction with another Christian and a Muslim to prove A God exists. Then, he'll most likely move to proving Christianity. The presumption of atheist vids are to make sure everyone is working with same definitions before the actual debates begin. Why is no one getting this?
Zero Ontology. Awesome dude. I have been of the same view, from a young age. When you see it, it becomes inescapable. It doesn't resemble the common personified deities, but with little contemplation or meditation, it can force me to my knees in awe.
The only thing you can tell about an athiest is that they do not believe in 'god,' whatever that is defined as.
I think you mean a naive realist empiricist. The theist as well as the athiest may come to the naturalistic conclusion on the basis of evidentialism, which must be assumed I suppose; but its the simplest assumption that can be made. You make that assumption (A=A', A=A), assume perception is guide to reality (to get the physics /consciousness 'evidence') THEN conclude god
Zero equals perfection? This definition fittingly shows that perfection is too vague a term to mean anything.
Eh I tried to resist but I suppose I'll echo CandiBristol; your only able to talk about this perfect ballance shit because you lvie such a priveledged 1st world lifestyle.
It doesn't have to have a purpose. Though I agree - perhaps the universe had a purpose, but if it does, it's NOTHING to do with us. More likely to be for black holes.
I've just realized you don't make an argument against divine hideness - panentheism's god is as hidden as theisms.
The entire reality does not work with polarity; red is not the opposite of blue, nor is sweet of spicy. Something could be dense even if nothing diffuse existed. Ethics is far more like the other subjective qualia (i.e. not polarity) so your analogies fail. Exactly what is this 'work' to be done? The numberline itself maintains the balance; calling it god/perfect adds nothing.
If god exists, and is not part of us, he must exist externally to us, hence, there must be an external world, hence, the incesent pleading for sophilism on this channel can please stop now. Unless they're presenting this as the only response to sophilism, in which case, its responding by assuming something moar than the universe - bad response.
At most we wouldn't know how to apriciate good without some evil; if so, that small amount of percieved 'evil' is actually a good! There is far more evil (all the suffering in animals of evolution and of innocent humans in say the holocaust and the plague and africa) than would be required for this purpose. Psychologically we are such that evil can actually impare our ability to enjoy pleasure; we may be more "thankful" but probably obtain less good, even in non-consequentialist terms.
Good and evil are concept that we use to relate what we find preferable. Its not absolute like a positive charge is. Something I find Evil you may find Good. You could say that when an electron is attracted to a proton that is good and evil when another proton steals it. The yin-yang balance is illusionary.
Why's this a reply to me? That's all I was trying to say... it all depends on what you define morality as, the subjective feeling inside concerns our evaluations and desires, there is also the law / religious / social / catagorical imperative rules but these just tell us what's "right" or "wrong." We don't need 'evil' to be able to desire something or evaluate it as good though!
Even if it WERE the case, more important is that there's just too MUCH evil for this to justify it
Good is not relative to evil; I subjectively enjoy pleasure and desire fulfilment no matter how much pain I have, and do not enjoy pain no matter how much pleasure I have: deontic, areteic and consequentialist morality work by manipulating our subjective morals (or using the "logic" of the kantagorical imperative) to come to 'objective' conclusions, and in no case would the absence of evil have ANY baring on the amount of Good
With his does no evidence count as evidence against god argument, he IS refuting divine hiddeness, in his own original yet inefficient manner; he probably just likes debating. The definition of a proposition must be known before it can be argued for or against, though if God objectively existed, he could just present evidence for it.
It being actual blood drinking / flesh eating canibalism (in SOME interpriations of SOME demonimations) is somehow better? Considering what it says about blood drinking (in verses the jehovahs, in some ways just another sect, make it impossible for us to forget).
You didn't get this was a joke did you? Serious attacks on christianity can be mounted but its a joke and the best response is really to laugh at it.
There is not one christian faith but thousands of logically and politically incompatable entities, with different metaphysics (non-trinitarian, relationship of jesus to god, the nature of jesus, miraicles, etc), scripture (alagorical or literal, how the OT fits in, prophecy, which bible translation or edition), epistomology (reformed, evidentialist, fideist, etc) ethics (what WERE his teachings, what IS nesicary for salvation), tradition, and the role of group vs. personal interpritation.
Dude, he HAS a buttload of videos if you took the time to check them out. Once again, you put your foot in your mouth. I mean, do you want him to personally read bible stories to you?
1. How about the universal fact that mankind is depraved.? Dont believe me? Look at the nightly news and look at your own family. Look at your own heart. You KNOW you do some whacked out stuff. We all do. Christianity addresses this, specifically ie. "the sins of the world"
1. No, thats a theological issue. I am however assuming that it *IS* a problem. You seem to agree.
2. A case CAN be made for the historicty of the resurrection. But its a historical case, one made from afar via inference. But I'd suspect the only evidence youd believe is if someone with a video camera was filiming Jesus' entire life.
Again, how does 'humans do fucked up shit' add anything to the hypothesis that Christianity is true; In my first post I didn't mention that this idea implies the problem of Evil, but only because I know how distracted Christians become by that trigger phrase. Ignore that people doing fucked up shit implies the problem of evil, I've heard your defences of it, I know they're BS, there are more interesting problems with this reasoning.
A)There are several philosophical means of differentiating between (objective) Good and Evil, from Utilitarianism to the Catagorical Imperative.
B) it is possible that ethics is merely subjective evaluation
C) How does God help you distinguish good and evil? If you mean objective good/evil, noteof the Euthreo Dillema. If you mean subjective morality then...
D) Social and biological evolution explanations our moral behaviors and evaluations without appeal to God.
You didn't answer his question and I must now inquire; are you a troll? I assume you are not, but feel compelled to ask.
I also must ask; what makes YOU believe the story of Muhammed is FALSE? I swear, if you look at the evidence for the resurection, that whatever objection you raise to muhammed applies equally to jesus.
We cannot KNOW the external world exists, that our perceptions are an accurate guide to it if it does, that the laws of physics are constant, that inductive or deductive logic apply - but it is as unlikely as it would be for these to be false, as it would be for either of these stories to be true, as they rely on beings with logically contradictory traits performing acts requiring extraordinary evidence and both have next to no ordinary evidence for them. No evidence makes them likely false.
If you can "bald faced" assert all religions but yours are false, I can "bald faced" assert they are all false. Which is a simpler claim requiring no positive evidence (please don't debate on THAT, too much has been said about it already)
I'll ignore philosophical arguments against a creator / designer / free will / objective morality / afterlife (all required for the god of christianity) and contradictions in that god's description in script and between his description and reality.
Well, if someone comes to me IMPLYING that because there were allegedly "eyewitnesses" for an account that I do not find reasons to believe, then IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that I should disbelieve the account I *do* believe in.
Nor does it follow that I should find that other account EQUALLY COMPELLING.
A) what problem is there in them both being false (B) they do not need to be intentional deceltions (lies) to be false (C) the post clearly implies the level of evidence available for the ascent of muhammed and for jesus resurection are reasonably equal not that the events themselves are equal (D) Jews - they hold "they are BOTH lies," as do Sikhs, Hindus, Budhists, athiests, etc.
A. I believe one of them to be true. In a way you bear a burden to show me my belief is false.
B. All that matters to me is whether they are true or false. Nothing more is needed.
C. But with the underlying assumption that because I dont believe in the Islamic account, then it follows that I should not believe in the christian account as well.
Some Christian theologians (John Hick in particular) hold that the god of muhammed and of Jesus are the same - whilst I do not agree for reasons you can probably guess, it is not safe to simply assume they are not one in the same
If we count the holy books themselves, and interpolated texts written centuries after the events were supposed to occur, then we can probably find evidence for every major mythological figure's great miraicles.
Provide the reasoning behind your being open to the idea, and any evidence that has influenced you in this regard.
Are you also open to any of the numerous logically incompatable deities that have been professed to exist throughout history? Is it an open possability to you, that Wotan sold his eye to be wise?
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
No one denied that humans act in ways other humans feel is 'wrong.' This simply shows it goes against their subjective morals, which can be influenced by and influence the religion of their society but are non homogenous and do not match that well with "sin" anymore, which is not as clearly defined as it once was.
Your not doing much to alieviate the christicism that Christianity is anti-human dogma.
Is child molestation only wrong because God says its wrong?
Oh wait, god DOESN'T say child molestation is wrong, so if your divine law, i guess it's NOT wrong.
Everything i said about ethics in general applies to this case; there are many secular arguments for objective morality: Euthreo dillema: being subjectively wrong is real (to the subject) in the same way colors are subjective but real to you. I'll ruin the argument now by being honest and admitting i'm a nihilist :P
1)a) more liberal theological arguments for the origin of evil see this as an allagory ,for the evil resulting from our free will for example (b) you are simply stating what this man probably believes - this does nothing to refute his views, in itself (c) perhaps it is not an assumption but is evidenced somehow
2) (a) can you evidence the assertion that most historians are not christian (b) there are explanations (Satans involvment, free will) that could cause historians to reject jesus
1)a) christianity is not the only or the most likely explanation for percieved depravity (b) What is good/evil (c) how does depravity relate to this (d) how do you know this? (e) Spotlight bias in the news (f) you cannot know hearts of other people (g) 'sins' are not always the same as good/evil
2)a) source of miraicle/magic uncertain (b) miraicle reports always less likely than natural (c) contradictions in resurection acount (d) less contempory secular evidence of jesus than expected
But how do you know that what your mind is "revealing" during meditation is right? Conscience is a chemical process within the mind, there is not evidence to suggest otherwise.
We percieve other people behaving in ways explained with least assumptions by concluding that they are conscious. As well as their behavior, we ourselves are conscious, we percieve others to have the same physical form as ourselves, and so could conclude that they are conscious, as it appears (from our ability to influence consciousness with physical things like drugs and exercise and observations of the efects of brain dammage on others) that our physical form influences consciousness
The perception of percieving my perception of this monitor and keyboard and percieving the perception of your imagined responses to my immagined responses, shows that the perception of perception (i,e. consciousness) exists.
This reeks of a god of the gaps argument. The problems of qualia and consciousness may well be explained most simply (by which i mean "with least assumptions explaining most perceptions" lest you mistake it) by ideas like "the brain modeling its own future behavior"
What do you mean by meditation? I can't see a sense in which any activity sharing that name could lead to new knowledge.
Perhaps you mean that by meditating, we can identify what the phrase means; but this would merely involve translating it. Why not describe what 'god is within us' means in more detail so it is more acceptable and less ambiguous? Because it'd be less poetic and entertaining I suppose =P
I'd hate to break it to you..... But you are also starting from an assumption. You are assuming that there is a "God" or a "force" that can be given god-like traits "somewhere".
The Theist assumes that there is a "personal" God that intervenes in human affairs here on Earth.
The only thing that Atheists assumes is that there is on "personal" God. There are Atheists that believe in other forms of god(s).
We all assume, how can we not. Just assume with logic.
We have to assume even logic; there is no way of evidencing that A =/= A'.
The only thing you can assume about someone, if the only thing you know about them is that they are athiests, is that they do not believe in god.
If they are reasonable the athiest does not assume god does not exist; they base this belief on the contradictory and incoherent nature of 'god' and the sheer lack of evidence for its existence combined with an evidentialist epistomology .
Great Video. Love the background music along with Video.Most enlightened Theists deny Hell exists. Then it follows if Hell does not exist then Theists only offer an eternity in some pleasure filled Heaven that they can't even describe. Non Believers would only receive eternal death which is what is believed anyway, right?
The best argument that Christians don't really know God is on a website which is called "The Psychiana Reader". A man by the name of Frank B. Robinson makes it clear that God is within us and he exposes all the origins of the Christian religion. Also Walter Russell tells of God as a zero like beingness in his "The Secret of Light" which I read on my channel.
TheDoveLady 1 year ago
Let me give a shot at this. (this will require some Jungian metaphysics -which I've found to be compatible with quantum mechanics)
Humans have an inherent religious nature. Different religions derive different myths from Jungian archetypes. So a little truth comes out of them all in Krishna, Horus, Quetzalcoatl etc. But these all converge. Then Jesus looks like them all, except that he existed historically. So it's a "myth that became real" kind of thing -synchroncity. ("C.S. Lewis argument")
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
6:14 and on Blew my mind
disturbedfrog 1 year ago
Another top video brother. cant believe it took me so long to find your stuff. to assume makes an ASS out of U and ME!
carlostj80 1 year ago
Veritas continues down his path of enlightenment...sooner or later he'll see the light...he certainly doesn't want to hear that he's followed a supersticious myth with absolutely no relevance...actually no one wants to admit they have been dupped...(my opinion with veritas)....
The Prodigy simply uses logic and reason...you can't go wrong there!...you rock!
PhoenixAquua2012 1 year ago
Veritas and prodigy Read one passage from new testament ( John 10. 33-35 ) if my old brain is correct in interpreting that passage we are all God Christ him self admits it to the crowd. Accepting science as a concept excepting god as a concept both mental constructs both need faith to exist . One discipline advances material world processes with those consequences the other advances human need for continuation in a fearful world creating mental moorings. We create the fight between them.
jobedied 1 year ago
This is a great video response! You got to the heart of the matter with a knife!
illuminatiLiberi 1 year ago
infinity - infinity is not necessarily equal to zero.
Why?
Because infinity plus a finite number is still infinity. So if infinity minus infinity was always zero then infinity plus 4 minus infinity would be zero. Which would also lead to the conclusion that 4=0.
Therefore infinity minus infinity is undefinable. It could have any value, or no value. I.e. it could be zero, or 4, or 3,543, or even infinity or minus infinity. So we say it is undefined.
kandtell 2 years ago
I don't think a finite number can be added to infinity. I do, however, think that infinity can be added to a finite number.
zach9899 2 years ago
Have you heard of Hilbert's Hotel?
In modern maths (basically since Cantor) infinity is a complex concept. There are for example two categories of infinities, "countable" and "un-countable".
Hilbert's Hotel deals with countable infinities and can be used to show that a finite number can be added to infinity and that the result is also infinity.
kandtell 2 years ago
can you convince me right here that there exists an infinity that is countable.
zach9899 2 years ago
LOL!
"Countable" does not mean you can count to infinity. It's just a set theory term defining infinite sets that are equivalent to the set of natural numbers. As opposed to the set of real numbers for example which is an "un-countable" set.
Look up Georg Cantor on wikipedia for background if your interested.
kandtell 2 years ago
ok. I can understand if its a matter of real numbers versus natural numbers, but at least I can know that my conception of infinity is the "real" one.
zach9899 2 years ago
I'm so glad I decided to stay up and browse more of your vids. I would give up all my subscriptions, if I could only have one...For your channel! I am a student of physics, and I came to this conclusion years ago...but I've never used this reasoning so deftly as you. Well fucking Done!
ijitdunn 2 years ago
wow man, what a GREAT compliment!
Inspiring to say the LEAST! Thanks so much for the support, people like you and I seem to be the overwhelmingly tiny minority here on youtube.
I don't know if your up for it, but we could use more us making videos... If you're able, I say let your voice be heard!
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Comment removed
ijitdunn 2 years ago
Comment removed
ijitdunn 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, I mean it. Not to say you are better than any of the many vlogers on youtube, that's a matter of opinion after all, but You are terse and tight in your argumentation...and more importantly, the most like minded to myself. I consider myself a strange agnostic/mystic mix. I believe things and phenomenon exist(a caring and involved benevolent Omni-God is not among them) for which there is no evidence...yet, or maybe even never.
ijitdunn 2 years ago
But I also think trying to convince people of these things through heavy handed duplicity is quite uncool; at best they are topics for lively philosophical debate, as you so nimbly instigate. When Max Planck was under taking his experiments on black body radiation in late 1800's there were probably people who conceived of relativity and quantum mechanics, but with no math or evidence yet, it was just mysticism.
ijitdunn 2 years ago
Physics, grew out of a movement called natural philosophy. Chemistry grew from alchemy. As for me posting vids on youtube as you do: I don't mind my words and opinions being online, but my visage is another matter. I'm very much a one on one type. I'm so happy that there's people like you who are willing to do this, but the most I will likely do is blog, or maybe create some relevant animation like notastampcollector. Stay up and on it, my good man! One!
ijitdunn 2 years ago
This is my second time watching this video and it's sooo well edited and such a good response.
Then I realized how many views your videos have and that you are CRIMINALLY under subscribed for how much work you put into your videos.
dudejohnny 2 years ago
great video, dont quite buy the complete polarity on anything above a conceptual sense tho but the no assumption rule is something ive always upheld :P btw random question but whats the sick background music u used for that?
TheWatcherGrigori 2 years ago
Trekka, by Puscifer ; )
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
"your not gonna enjoy this"
ok then i'll leave bye :)
greenelf12 2 years ago
Maybe that should have been zero stars, though?
Cashify 2 years ago
Excellent logic, great editing. 6 stars.
Cashify 2 years ago 2
I totally agree - the 'logics' of religious belief is about the driest and most unproductive approach possible.
We dissect definitions while the chasm between what MIGHT might be and what IS remains - no one knows. Even the theists have to use faith to cross that chasm.
Investigate the reasons WHY we believe, the psychological and evolutionary perspective & the cool stuff starts. After all the CONCEPT of god is a product of our psyche and our evolution.
soulfetcher 2 years ago 4
Broke down very well!
Great edit!
5!
IllPropaganda 2 years ago 3
Kidda funny too, Many people who I show and talk to about this, say that Google should hook me up with a Job. Interesting. They still have not contacted me.
I guess we all must live in different realities to them, Thou they control the super machine computer, which seems to pretty much control and dictate peoples lifes these days.
TexTEnigma 2 years ago
Is there any debate that my friends and I have pretty much put this website in check. And we hardly even talk to each other most days online. All of us do not even live in the same states anymore, and we dont even get on camera to talk about religion or politics. I am one man, with some pretty cool and smart friends. Talk about some spiritual and mental connections we have going on here, and that is not even including the people I love on here.
TexTEnigma 2 years ago
Masterful sir.
Theungodlytruth 2 years ago
That means alot, coming from my teacher! ; )
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Teacher my ass, I will always be a student here.
Theungodlytruth 2 years ago
Nicely done! ;o)
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
E¥ES Walk Amongst ¥ou
TexTEnigma 2 years ago
"PLUR or PLURR is an acronym that stands for "Peace Love Unity Respect", a credo or mantra of the rave culture.
"This philosophy of the rave culture theoretically takes precedence over any chemical aspects of the rave scene."
1to1mixtureracemate 2 years ago
Veritas the use of such a word, suggests in it self one who has no clear understanding.
Veritas text is destroying people.
Veritas Text is the dogma
Veritas atheists believe in god.
Veritas look at everyone running around writing their own bibles with youtube videos, and text.
You want your answers ladies and gentlemen. Shut it down.
Nothing. Silence.
"Death is the road to awe"
Maybe it is, maybe it isnt. Just a thought.
1to1mixtureracemate 2 years ago
Prodigy, I don't see why you and everyone else are having such a hard time getting Veritas. The God debate is so huge that he wants to do it one part at a time. First, he's working in conjunction with another Christian and a Muslim to prove A God exists. Then, he'll most likely move to proving Christianity. The presumption of atheist vids are to make sure everyone is working with same definitions before the actual debates begin. Why is no one getting this?
danielzero 2 years ago
Zero Ontology. Awesome dude. I have been of the same view, from a young age. When you see it, it becomes inescapable. It doesn't resemble the common personified deities, but with little contemplation or meditation, it can force me to my knees in awe.
Scientialist 2 years ago
The only thing you can tell about an athiest is that they do not believe in 'god,' whatever that is defined as.
I think you mean a naive realist empiricist. The theist as well as the athiest may come to the naturalistic conclusion on the basis of evidentialism, which must be assumed I suppose; but its the simplest assumption that can be made. You make that assumption (A=A', A=A), assume perception is guide to reality (to get the physics /consciousness 'evidence') THEN conclude god
unassumption 2 years ago
Zero equals perfection? This definition fittingly shows that perfection is too vague a term to mean anything.
Eh I tried to resist but I suppose I'll echo CandiBristol; your only able to talk about this perfect ballance shit because you lvie such a priveledged 1st world lifestyle.
It doesn't have to have a purpose. Though I agree - perhaps the universe had a purpose, but if it does, it's NOTHING to do with us. More likely to be for black holes.
unassumption 2 years ago
I've just realized you don't make an argument against divine hideness - panentheism's god is as hidden as theisms.
The entire reality does not work with polarity; red is not the opposite of blue, nor is sweet of spicy. Something could be dense even if nothing diffuse existed. Ethics is far more like the other subjective qualia (i.e. not polarity) so your analogies fail. Exactly what is this 'work' to be done? The numberline itself maintains the balance; calling it god/perfect adds nothing.
unassumption 2 years ago
@CandiBristol
If god exists, and is not part of us, he must exist externally to us, hence, there must be an external world, hence, the incesent pleading for sophilism on this channel can please stop now. Unless they're presenting this as the only response to sophilism, in which case, its responding by assuming something moar than the universe - bad response.
unassumption 2 years ago
A deistic god could only ever be evidenced by 'out there, somewhere,' and thats all a lot of people mean when they say 'god.'
Then again, some people mean "powerful dude with posters of himself all over the country" when they say God...it can mean too many things.
unassumption 2 years ago
At most we wouldn't know how to apriciate good without some evil; if so, that small amount of percieved 'evil' is actually a good! There is far more evil (all the suffering in animals of evolution and of innocent humans in say the holocaust and the plague and africa) than would be required for this purpose. Psychologically we are such that evil can actually impare our ability to enjoy pleasure; we may be more "thankful" but probably obtain less good, even in non-consequentialist terms.
unassumption 2 years ago
Good and evil are concept that we use to relate what we find preferable. Its not absolute like a positive charge is. Something I find Evil you may find Good. You could say that when an electron is attracted to a proton that is good and evil when another proton steals it. The yin-yang balance is illusionary.
askirojadu 2 years ago
@askirojadu
Why's this a reply to me? That's all I was trying to say... it all depends on what you define morality as, the subjective feeling inside concerns our evaluations and desires, there is also the law / religious / social / catagorical imperative rules but these just tell us what's "right" or "wrong." We don't need 'evil' to be able to desire something or evaluate it as good though!
Even if it WERE the case, more important is that there's just too MUCH evil for this to justify it
unassumption 2 years ago
sorry not a reply to you, just a general comment on the convo.
askirojadu 2 years ago
Can you stop with the analogies yet?
Good is not relative to evil; I subjectively enjoy pleasure and desire fulfilment no matter how much pain I have, and do not enjoy pain no matter how much pleasure I have: deontic, areteic and consequentialist morality work by manipulating our subjective morals (or using the "logic" of the kantagorical imperative) to come to 'objective' conclusions, and in no case would the absence of evil have ANY baring on the amount of Good
unassumption 2 years ago
With his does no evidence count as evidence against god argument, he IS refuting divine hiddeness, in his own original yet inefficient manner; he probably just likes debating. The definition of a proposition must be known before it can be argued for or against, though if God objectively existed, he could just present evidence for it.
unassumption 2 years ago
It being actual blood drinking / flesh eating canibalism (in SOME interpriations of SOME demonimations) is somehow better? Considering what it says about blood drinking (in verses the jehovahs, in some ways just another sect, make it impossible for us to forget).
You didn't get this was a joke did you? Serious attacks on christianity can be mounted but its a joke and the best response is really to laugh at it.
unassumption 2 years ago
There is not one christian faith but thousands of logically and politically incompatable entities, with different metaphysics (non-trinitarian, relationship of jesus to god, the nature of jesus, miraicles, etc), scripture (alagorical or literal, how the OT fits in, prophecy, which bible translation or edition), epistomology (reformed, evidentialist, fideist, etc) ethics (what WERE his teachings, what IS nesicary for salvation), tradition, and the role of group vs. personal interpritation.
unassumption 2 years ago
I know, they see it more as cannibalism.
I would counter that Christianity is inherently flawed.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
I like the way you use music in your vids, this one was especially potent.
askirojadu 2 years ago
please give credit to the musicians.
windham666 2 years ago
you are awesome.
kylekage13 2 years ago
Oh, and sorry, Prodigy, I can be a condescending prick at times.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
Same here southparkgtaca,
We battle every so often, but I think it's good. Keeps each other sharp! ; )
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
At least we aren't arguing politics..... I go nuts in debating that.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
I'm really starting to dig you style.
p.s. Avi and I discussed video responses to you today...we'll see what happens.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Lookin forward to it!
Tell Avi he's scared. ; )
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
........You're are taking heat from both sides. lol
You must be stressed out. :|
Your videos are thought provoking, to say the least.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
Dude, he HAS a buttload of videos if you took the time to check them out. Once again, you put your foot in your mouth. I mean, do you want him to personally read bible stories to you?
vbfl920 2 years ago
As far as "persuasive evidence" goes:
1. How about the universal fact that mankind is depraved.? Dont believe me? Look at the nightly news and look at your own family. Look at your own heart. You KNOW you do some whacked out stuff. We all do. Christianity addresses this, specifically ie. "the sins of the world"
2. The historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.
vbfl920 2 years ago
1: You are assuming our problems come from Eve eating the apple.
2: There is no proof that historical Jesus rose from the dead. If there was, most historians would be Christians, this is not the case.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
1. No, thats a theological issue. I am however assuming that it *IS* a problem. You seem to agree.
2. A case CAN be made for the historicty of the resurrection. But its a historical case, one made from afar via inference. But I'd suspect the only evidence youd believe is if someone with a video camera was filiming Jesus' entire life.
vbfl920 2 years ago
There are historical documents from "eye whitenesses" saying they saw Muhammed rise to heaven from the Dome of the Rock. Do you believe it?
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
Are you implying that they are the same? If so, how are they BOTH lies?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Also, are you conceding that humans do some pretty f-ed up stuff?
How in the world would you know that to begin with?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Don't bring up morality in order to know what is right and wrong.
There are perfectly reasonable evolutionary explanations. And I, as an Atheist, HATE using evolution to defend Atheism.... But this fits.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
Again, how does 'humans do fucked up shit' add anything to the hypothesis that Christianity is true; In my first post I didn't mention that this idea implies the problem of Evil, but only because I know how distracted Christians become by that trigger phrase. Ignore that people doing fucked up shit implies the problem of evil, I've heard your defences of it, I know they're BS, there are more interesting problems with this reasoning.
unassumption 2 years ago
It gives me reason to believe it all the more since this is an ESSENTIAL point it addresses about mankind.
Heres what you need to think about.
Is it *TRUE* that humans ARE f-ed up?
Now HOW would we know this?
vbfl920 2 years ago
A)There are several philosophical means of differentiating between (objective) Good and Evil, from Utilitarianism to the Catagorical Imperative.
B) it is possible that ethics is merely subjective evaluation
C) How does God help you distinguish good and evil? If you mean objective good/evil, noteof the Euthreo Dillema. If you mean subjective morality then...
D) Social and biological evolution explanations our moral behaviors and evaluations without appeal to God.
unassumption 2 years ago
Are you implying one has to be true? That is illogical... =\
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
No, I'm saying I have reasons to BELIEVE that one is true.
You imply that both are false, which seems to me to be a bald face asserstion.
Well WHY are both false?
vbfl920 2 years ago
You believe one of them has to be true, what about the other religions stories? Hmmmm?
Are you trolling? I hope you are.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
Well, before I answer you, you need to answer my question.
How do you KNOW that both of them are false?
Because YOU dont believe it, that MAKES it false?
Nice argument.
vbfl920 2 years ago
You must be a troll. I'm done with this.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
Nope.
But thanks for answering my questions.
vbfl920 2 years ago
You didn't answer his question and I must now inquire; are you a troll? I assume you are not, but feel compelled to ask.
I also must ask; what makes YOU believe the story of Muhammed is FALSE? I swear, if you look at the evidence for the resurection, that whatever objection you raise to muhammed applies equally to jesus.
unassumption 2 years ago
We cannot KNOW the external world exists, that our perceptions are an accurate guide to it if it does, that the laws of physics are constant, that inductive or deductive logic apply - but it is as unlikely as it would be for these to be false, as it would be for either of these stories to be true, as they rely on beings with logically contradictory traits performing acts requiring extraordinary evidence and both have next to no ordinary evidence for them. No evidence makes them likely false.
unassumption 2 years ago
If you can "bald faced" assert all religions but yours are false, I can "bald faced" assert they are all false. Which is a simpler claim requiring no positive evidence (please don't debate on THAT, too much has been said about it already)
I'll ignore philosophical arguments against a creator / designer / free will / objective morality / afterlife (all required for the god of christianity) and contradictions in that god's description in script and between his description and reality.
unassumption 2 years ago
Well, if someone comes to me IMPLYING that because there were allegedly "eyewitnesses" for an account that I do not find reasons to believe, then IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that I should disbelieve the account I *do* believe in.
Nor does it follow that I should find that other account EQUALLY COMPELLING.
vbfl920 2 years ago
It would be like me telling you that one of your reasons for liking that corvette so much is because it's red.
So WHY dont you like this Kia, since its red too?
vbfl920 2 years ago
A) what problem is there in them both being false (B) they do not need to be intentional deceltions (lies) to be false (C) the post clearly implies the level of evidence available for the ascent of muhammed and for jesus resurection are reasonably equal not that the events themselves are equal (D) Jews - they hold "they are BOTH lies," as do Sikhs, Hindus, Budhists, athiests, etc.
unassumption 2 years ago
A. I believe one of them to be true. In a way you bear a burden to show me my belief is false.
B. All that matters to me is whether they are true or false. Nothing more is needed.
C. But with the underlying assumption that because I dont believe in the Islamic account, then it follows that I should not believe in the christian account as well.
So it follows that southpark is assuming that:
1. BOTH are false.
or
2. BOTH are equally compelling,
vbfl920 2 years ago
Which he'd have to demonstrate this.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Some Christian theologians (John Hick in particular) hold that the god of muhammed and of Jesus are the same - whilst I do not agree for reasons you can probably guess, it is not safe to simply assume they are not one in the same
unassumption 2 years ago
If we count the holy books themselves, and interpolated texts written centuries after the events were supposed to occur, then we can probably find evidence for every major mythological figure's great miraicles.
unassumption 2 years ago
@vbfl920
Neither of those are very persuasive, like... at all.
1. Whacked out stuff in the world?
2. Jesus rose? (i actually kinda think he did lol Wouldn't effect my stance in the least)
I'd love to see you make a video explaining these...
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Do you really believe Jesus rose, Prodigy? :O
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
I'm open to it lol
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Scale from 1 - 10, what is it?
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
Provide the reasoning behind your being open to the idea, and any evidence that has influenced you in this regard.
Are you also open to any of the numerous logically incompatable deities that have been professed to exist throughout history? Is it an open possability to you, that Wotan sold his eye to be wise?
unassumption 2 years ago
You DONT think anything is wrong with how humans act?
You DONT think humans "sin"?
I see this all around me. I see this at work, in my family with all of their bickering and selfishness. I see this in myself.
Its pretty self evident.
So when Jesus talks about judgement entering the world BECAUSE of the way we act...it makes an awful lot of sense to me.
When Jesus speaks about the need for us REPENTING and changing our ways, this makes an awful lot of sense to me.
vbfl920 2 years ago
vbfl,
we need to have a nice long chat...
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
This is the kind of person your videos attract....
unassumption 2 years ago
I take it your going to school me about how people are NOT f-ed up.
Where and when?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Makes perfect sense.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
Did you come up witht hat one all by Dawkinself?
unassumption 2 years ago
Nope. Zombie Jesus Demotivator.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
No one denied that humans act in ways other humans feel is 'wrong.' This simply shows it goes against their subjective morals, which can be influenced by and influence the religion of their society but are non homogenous and do not match that well with "sin" anymore, which is not as clearly defined as it once was.
Your not doing much to alieviate the christicism that Christianity is anti-human dogma.
Can't you just see the good things people do?
Change our ways - to what?
unassumption 2 years ago
Is child molestation not REALLY wrong?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Is child molestation only wrong because God says its wrong?
Oh wait, god DOESN'T say child molestation is wrong, so if your divine law, i guess it's NOT wrong.
Everything i said about ethics in general applies to this case; there are many secular arguments for objective morality: Euthreo dillema: being subjectively wrong is real (to the subject) in the same way colors are subjective but real to you. I'll ruin the argument now by being honest and admitting i'm a nihilist :P
unassumption 2 years ago
How does 'repenting' solve anything if we are not fitting with impersonal objective morality?
Why should we 'repent' to jesus for violating the subjective morals of other people, if we do 'wrong,' or the subjective morality of god if we 'sin' ?
I don't see how its self evident - if it were you wouldn't have to evidence it, as you are!
unassumption 2 years ago
1) it may be a bad choice of phrase but we know what he means by "whacked out stuff in the world"
2) How would the resurection not influence you at ALL?
it'd be identical to all the other fundie appologetics out there :I
unassumption 2 years ago
1)a) more liberal theological arguments for the origin of evil see this as an allagory ,for the evil resulting from our free will for example (b) you are simply stating what this man probably believes - this does nothing to refute his views, in itself (c) perhaps it is not an assumption but is evidenced somehow
2) (a) can you evidence the assertion that most historians are not christian (b) there are explanations (Satans involvment, free will) that could cause historians to reject jesus
unassumption 2 years ago
1)a) christianity is not the only or the most likely explanation for percieved depravity (b) What is good/evil (c) how does depravity relate to this (d) how do you know this? (e) Spotlight bias in the news (f) you cannot know hearts of other people (g) 'sins' are not always the same as good/evil
2)a) source of miraicle/magic uncertain (b) miraicle reports always less likely than natural (c) contradictions in resurection acount (d) less contempory secular evidence of jesus than expected
unassumption 2 years ago
It has real life substance if you try meditating every once and while....
Jus sayin ; )
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
But how do you know that what your mind is "revealing" during meditation is right? Conscience is a chemical process within the mind, there is not evidence to suggest otherwise.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
There's no evidence to suggest consciousness even exists...
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Brain waves. They change as you think about different things. This is your conscience.
Unless you are talking about some deeper meaning of it.... Of which I don't even want to go into. :\
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
We percieve other people behaving in ways explained with least assumptions by concluding that they are conscious. As well as their behavior, we ourselves are conscious, we percieve others to have the same physical form as ourselves, and so could conclude that they are conscious, as it appears (from our ability to influence consciousness with physical things like drugs and exercise and observations of the efects of brain dammage on others) that our physical form influences consciousness
unassumption 2 years ago
The perception of percieving my perception of this monitor and keyboard and percieving the perception of your imagined responses to my immagined responses, shows that the perception of perception (i,e. consciousness) exists.
This reeks of a god of the gaps argument. The problems of qualia and consciousness may well be explained most simply (by which i mean "with least assumptions explaining most perceptions" lest you mistake it) by ideas like "the brain modeling its own future behavior"
unassumption 2 years ago
What do you mean by meditation? I can't see a sense in which any activity sharing that name could lead to new knowledge.
Perhaps you mean that by meditating, we can identify what the phrase means; but this would merely involve translating it. Why not describe what 'god is within us' means in more detail so it is more acceptable and less ambiguous? Because it'd be less poetic and entertaining I suppose =P
unassumption 2 years ago
I'd hate to break it to you..... But you are also starting from an assumption. You are assuming that there is a "God" or a "force" that can be given god-like traits "somewhere".
The Theist assumes that there is a "personal" God that intervenes in human affairs here on Earth.
The only thing that Atheists assumes is that there is on "personal" God. There are Atheists that believe in other forms of god(s).
We all assume, how can we not. Just assume with logic.
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
We have to assume even logic; there is no way of evidencing that A =/= A'.
The only thing you can assume about someone, if the only thing you know about them is that they are athiests, is that they do not believe in god.
If they are reasonable the athiest does not assume god does not exist; they base this belief on the contradictory and incoherent nature of 'god' and the sheer lack of evidence for its existence combined with an evidentialist epistomology .
unassumption 2 years ago
God dammit, Paul......
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
@southparkgtaca
Dont go dropping mah name :O
Not that i care ;P
unassumption 2 years ago
I'll drop mine: Ryan.
Happy? :)
southparkgtaca 2 years ago
@southparkgtaca
I know it bothers you moar than it does me, so yeah, i'm happy :D
unassumption 2 years ago
Great Video. Love the background music along with Video.Most enlightened Theists deny Hell exists. Then it follows if Hell does not exist then Theists only offer an eternity in some pleasure filled Heaven that they can't even describe. Non Believers would only receive eternal death which is what is believed anyway, right?
MST3KonBlog 2 years ago 2
Dude....
Your production skills.... I love them. :)
southparkgtaca 2 years ago