Atheists are "enemies of reason." Their worldview lacks the epistemic necessities to account for the Laws of Logic. They are emotionally driven and irrational, alogical, and anti-reasonable people who loath themselves as much as they loath truth and its foundations. Pity.
you didn't lead me down the slippery slope i still don't understand because we atheists are lost there has to exist a super infinite being?!!? maybe i have the wrong end of the stick
A posteriori synthetic proposition like: "I am communicating with you," presupposes the laws of logic, ongoing personal ID, other minds, a real world, moral law, casual actions, induction and deduction. Only theism can supply the grounding for such necessary things.
These murders were not in the name of atheism, but communism. Their goal with the murders wasn't primarily to destroy religion, but to silence possible revolutionistic people. In short, issue with the murders isn't religious, but political.
Once in power, one of the first decrees of Hitler was to outlaw the placing of crosses on church buildings as he rounded up pastors and minsters and had them killed, he was an occultist who had his buildings, flags, and rally's designed with symbols of the occult. Hitler committed suicide on a high-holiday of the occult. Like you, He did not believe in the God of the Bible, but affirmed the survival of the fittest and Darwinism.
If one's ethic is based on aiming for the strongest to survive over the weak: might makes right, if that is true, then men are just chance bags of amino acids, water & minerals. If there is no God you cannot disclaim Nazism, Fascism or Pol Pot. They were killing the weak -the least strong protein sacks & doing mankind a favor, if survival of the fittest rules as it does in Darwinism. In Christianity, truth makes right, the Law of God.
What is this 'only the strong survive' nonsense? Even nature doesn't work that way.
A species bids for it's survival through ingenuity, adaptation, association and cooperation with peers. This is what is seen in nature with every mammalian species, and so it is also seen with humans.
Christians can't disclaim Nazism. Hitler supposedly had god on his side. Religion is at the basis of Fascism. Communism is not based upon religion...so it's a bit of a moot point.
In evolution its the survival of the fit-in-est who survives. Or whoever adapts to their environment the best. Also evolution is no more a social code than thermodynamics anyway and "killing off the weak" is about as poductive to evolution as lighting fires to help thermodynamics.
Also if you want to live by the laws of god you must be able to live in a society that condones murder , slavery, treating women like crap etc.
Logic does not presuppose god. This is a common theme in your videos.
Ethics and morals exist outside of the concept of your religion. They do not validate it.
This super presupposition and appeal to authority are nonsense, which explains why you use this to undermine logic and reasoning. After all, they can only work against your argument, so we can't have that, eh?
j. p. Darlington wrote this in his book about evolution- "the first point is that selfishness and violence are inherent in us, inherited from the remotest animal ancestors...Violence is, then natural to man, a product of evolution"
I start with a theistic a priori apodictic principal not on the principal of utility.
The primary world view option of non-theism is the aim of utility. Another possible option is the atheist Nietzsche's anti-rational supposition that the "world is false, contradictory, senseless... we need lies to vanquish this reality, this truth." Either non-theistic starting point leads to absurdity.
Human ethics evolved the same way most social organism's ethics evolved, cooperation and empathy were beneficial to our survival. We see baboons who are able to deceive one another by crying wolf to gain better access to food but do not because other baboons learn they are untrustworthy. Did a baboon moses come and give them a set of ten commandments too? What about termites and dolphins and the other social organisms?
if one's ethic is based on aiming for the strongest to survive over the weak, if that is true, then men are just chance bags of amino acids, water & minerals. If no God, u can't disclaim stalin or Pol Pot. They were killing the weak, the least strong protein sacks & doing man a favor: if survival of the fittest rules as it does in Darwinism.
4 theism truth makes right - fixed moral laws is required for true communication & God is necessary for Moral Law, there is true communication, God exists
I'm ashamed that a fellow human being who's interested in rational argument can be so deluded as to try twisting it about enough so they can come to the conclusion that they must have an invisible friend who lives in the sky. It's excruciating to think that I share so much dna with you. No amount of pseudo-intellectual posing will make god spring into being. Your philosophy is ridiculous.
Yep, non-theists cling to their dopey self-stultifying world view as they willingly deceive themselves with kooky atheistic nonsense.
But let not your heart be troubled, atheism is stuck utilizing the universal and immutable laws of logic which only the universal and immutable God can account.
But yes, sure judgment hangs over their heads, so lets pray that they repent of their self-loathing loopy atheistic notions and find expiation and imputation.
You're a deluded moron. I wish the afterlife did actually exist for people like you, just long enough so you could percieve the truth that you've wasted your life on a sad lie.
2. Furthermore the Laws of Logic require moral law for the application thereof or one is not obligated to affirm that A=A or A~Non-A. His sovereignty is required to over see the Laws of Logic and moral Law or there is something above God, which is not possible unless it has His attributes to account for Laws. These Laws presuppose one another and are necessary but not sufficient for intelligibility. God is both necessary and sufficient.
All the attributes of the Laws of Logic require something with those attributes and more to ground them. The greater can account for the lessor. The Laws of Logic are immutable and universal; God is immutable and universal. And to ground these laws there must be something with aseity, God has such-
Here is a partial example of the certain argument for God's existence.
Take D (Laws of Logic: Changeless, transcendent, universal,necessary, non-tangible), it implies E (God: Changeless, transcendent, universal, necessary & sufficient, non-tangible).
God is defined as omnipotent. Therefore He can create an object that He Himself is unable to move. By definition, this is impossible. Therefore, God does not exist.
Incorrect. Try reading any classic or new work on systematic theology and affirm the correct definitions of omnipotence; i.e. God cannot deny His own ontology and epistemic essentials.
He cannot lie, He cannot be illogical, but atheists are illogical men who embrace non-reason.
There is obviously no changing your mind. Reason and evidence can never trump faith. I only hope others aren't fooled by your misguided confidence and circular reasoning.
Yes you live on complete blind faith, for you as an atheist, fail to account anything and you reject immutable immaterial and universal laws of reason.
The logical step that one thing cannot be true, therefore God exists is such a nonsequitur! This only works as a disproof.
Incorrect:
1+1 does not equal 3, therefore God exists.
(You simply posited God!)
Correct:
God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. If bad things happen in the world, God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent simultaneously. Bad things do happen in this world ("bad" as defined by people). Therefore God does not exist.
Yep. That is true as are all other immutable universal truths forasmuch as a non-immutable non-universal physical cosmos fails to account for said attributes.
Knowledge = x1, x2,...xN in which differing and distinct categories and properties inhere and are unified by another thing that must have those essential categories and properties and more. Theism lays the ground for x1-xN and brings unity to the diversity of the categories/properties therein. Materialism cannot account for x1-xN and cannot account for knowledge. Theism alone can.
Your atheism is an irrational mess which not only fails to supply the epistemic pre-essentials for the necessary Laws of Logic, it attempts to prove that the Laws of Logic aren't laws, which is impossible.
Non-theism presupposes theism as it is bound to the Laws of Logic which only theism has the necessary preconditions therein. You as a non-theist made my point. You deny the Laws of L are laws & you reject the only foundation that can supply the universals and immutables for the Laws of L: God.
Knowledge = x1, x2,...xN in which differing and distinct categories and properties inhere and are unified by another thing that must have those essential categories and properties and more. Theism lays the ground for x1-xN and brings unity to the diversity of the categories/properties therein. Materialism cannot account for x1-xN and cannot account for knowledge. Theism alone can.
Not when you must utilize the Laws of Reason as universals and perpetually presuppose them.
Bu then again many non-theists rush in to attempt to deny the Laws of Logic are laws (athism fails to supply universals & immutables), thus atheism is impossible.
If the Laws of Logic are not universals: types 1 sentence that doesn't use them and offer to all here_________________
Nope. Atheism hates the Laws of Logic and is alogical.
Turn to truth and find utter forgiveness for your appalling sin.
"U must provide evidence 4 your claims." - assertion.
Although all U have provided here R assertions, here is a juicy little proof 4 U:
If all R thoughts R nothing but random neuron firings in our heads, or, if U please, firings subject to the laws of physics, then we R not really thinking.
The former says R resulting thoughts R ultimately irrational.
Goodness, I hope your book is actually a satire. You're using nonsensical proofs based on entirely too many assertions and assumptions. Look, I'm not saying your conclusion that God exists is wrong. What I am saying, is that your method of proving His existence is not valid. You simply cannot start with any assumption that God exists when trying to prove that God exists.
If you cannot interact with the arguments, move on to the irrational non-theists sites that have vitriol and silliness in the place of justified contentions.
The Laws of Thought are universal because of impossibility of the contrary. You have to utilize them in all you assert and all you do, to deny the Laws of Logic is to presuppose them and employ them. So the rejection of the Laws of Th. is a self-stultifying assertion.
There's not a world one can conceive in all possible world, where the Laws of thought are not in effect.
If so prove it. And propose it without the utilization of the Laws of Logic.
You started by ASSERTING that God is the precondition for knowledge. You have proven nothing. You later ASSERT that a person cannot find his way to truth using reason or experience. (Absurd.) Then you ASSERT that God is the answer. Besides not presenting any evidence, how, I ask, can someone even trust you or God if they cannot trust their own reason or experience?
The truth of God is implied and necessary by every act of asserting or denying anything at all, thus by every act of asserting or denying God.
& the truth of God is exemplified by every possible act of asserting even your ridiculous propositions. Hence every non-theistic act of denying God implies and necessitates God who is exemplified by the exercise of the Laws of Thought in its application within all language, rhetoric, locution & expression.
As I read your comment, all I could keep thinking was "assertion, assertion, assertion." Your defense of your position continues to be based solely on assertions.
Just pretending for a moment that all he made was assertions, what is wrong with only making assertions? Does this violate some mythical (on atheism) criteria of rationality? If you assert atheism can supply such criteria, norms, and standards, then please, by all means get to proving it and stop asserting.
Nope.
Atheists are "enemies of reason." Their worldview lacks the epistemic necessities to account for the Laws of Logic. They are emotionally driven and irrational, alogical, and anti-reasonable people who loath themselves as much as they loath truth and its foundations. Pity.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
you didn't lead me down the slippery slope i still don't understand because we atheists are lost there has to exist a super infinite being?!!? maybe i have the wrong end of the stick
Jtking3000 2 years ago
A posteriori synthetic proposition like: "I am communicating with you," presupposes the laws of logic, ongoing personal ID, other minds, a real world, moral law, casual actions, induction and deduction. Only theism can supply the grounding for such necessary things.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
Plus your atheist grandfather, Stalin, murdered 30+ million in the name of atheism, Mao killed
50 million in the name of atheism.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
These murders were not in the name of atheism, but communism. Their goal with the murders wasn't primarily to destroy religion, but to silence possible revolutionistic people. In short, issue with the murders isn't religious, but political.
TheOddFinn 2 years ago
Once in power, one of the first decrees of Hitler was to outlaw the placing of crosses on church buildings as he rounded up pastors and minsters and had them killed, he was an occultist who had his buildings, flags, and rally's designed with symbols of the occult. Hitler committed suicide on a high-holiday of the occult. Like you, He did not believe in the God of the Bible, but affirmed the survival of the fittest and Darwinism.
Goddoesexist 2 years ago
If one's ethic is based on aiming for the strongest to survive over the weak: might makes right, if that is true, then men are just chance bags of amino acids, water & minerals. If there is no God you cannot disclaim Nazism, Fascism or Pol Pot. They were killing the weak -the least strong protein sacks & doing mankind a favor, if survival of the fittest rules as it does in Darwinism. In Christianity, truth makes right, the Law of God.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
What is this 'only the strong survive' nonsense? Even nature doesn't work that way.
A species bids for it's survival through ingenuity, adaptation, association and cooperation with peers. This is what is seen in nature with every mammalian species, and so it is also seen with humans.
Christians can't disclaim Nazism. Hitler supposedly had god on his side. Religion is at the basis of Fascism. Communism is not based upon religion...so it's a bit of a moot point.
Alkirin 3 years ago
In evolution its the survival of the fit-in-est who survives. Or whoever adapts to their environment the best. Also evolution is no more a social code than thermodynamics anyway and "killing off the weak" is about as poductive to evolution as lighting fires to help thermodynamics.
Also if you want to live by the laws of god you must be able to live in a society that condones murder , slavery, treating women like crap etc.
windex72 3 years ago
Ignorance.
Logic does not presuppose god. This is a common theme in your videos.
Ethics and morals exist outside of the concept of your religion. They do not validate it.
This super presupposition and appeal to authority are nonsense, which explains why you use this to undermine logic and reasoning. After all, they can only work against your argument, so we can't have that, eh?
Alkirin 3 years ago
j. p. Darlington wrote this in his book about evolution- "the first point is that selfishness and violence are inherent in us, inherited from the remotest animal ancestors...Violence is, then natural to man, a product of evolution"
(Evolution for Naturalists)
anthonymilessee 3 years ago
I start with a theistic a priori apodictic principal not on the principal of utility.
The primary world view option of non-theism is the aim of utility. Another possible option is the atheist Nietzsche's anti-rational supposition that the "world is false, contradictory, senseless... we need lies to vanquish this reality, this truth." Either non-theistic starting point leads to absurdity.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Human ethics evolved the same way most social organism's ethics evolved, cooperation and empathy were beneficial to our survival. We see baboons who are able to deceive one another by crying wolf to gain better access to food but do not because other baboons learn they are untrustworthy. Did a baboon moses come and give them a set of ten commandments too? What about termites and dolphins and the other social organisms?
DeimosSaturn 3 years ago
if one's ethic is based on aiming for the strongest to survive over the weak, if that is true, then men are just chance bags of amino acids, water & minerals. If no God, u can't disclaim stalin or Pol Pot. They were killing the weak, the least strong protein sacks & doing man a favor: if survival of the fittest rules as it does in Darwinism.
4 theism truth makes right - fixed moral laws is required for true communication & God is necessary for Moral Law, there is true communication, God exists
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Ratings disabled. You'd have to do that or be confronted by the fact that people think your stuff is rubbish.
Which it is.
Oceanus57 3 years ago
O57
Thanks for the encouragement, musta hit a nerve.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Yeah, you jangle my embarrassment nerve.
I'm ashamed that a fellow human being who's interested in rational argument can be so deluded as to try twisting it about enough so they can come to the conclusion that they must have an invisible friend who lives in the sky. It's excruciating to think that I share so much dna with you. No amount of pseudo-intellectual posing will make god spring into being. Your philosophy is ridiculous.
Oceanus57 3 years ago
O57
Yep, non-theists cling to their dopey self-stultifying world view as they willingly deceive themselves with kooky atheistic nonsense.
But let not your heart be troubled, atheism is stuck utilizing the universal and immutable laws of logic which only the universal and immutable God can account.
But yes, sure judgment hangs over their heads, so lets pray that they repent of their self-loathing loopy atheistic notions and find expiation and imputation.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
You like to use a lot of fancy-schmancy words, but you don't really understand what they mean.
You're a buffoon, and your voice is pompous and boring.
I challenge you to allow ratings on your very poor videos so people can give you the dissing you deserve.
Oceanus57 3 years ago
O57
Thanks for the encouragement, I always expect non-theists to hate my vids, or repent, anything less and I did something wrong.
And I do allow ratings on some vids to give the militant atheist fundies a place to vent.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
You're a deluded moron. I wish the afterlife did actually exist for people like you, just long enough so you could percieve the truth that you've wasted your life on a sad lie.
Oceanus57 3 years ago
2. Furthermore the Laws of Logic require moral law for the application thereof or one is not obligated to affirm that A=A or A~Non-A. His sovereignty is required to over see the Laws of Logic and moral Law or there is something above God, which is not possible unless it has His attributes to account for Laws. These Laws presuppose one another and are necessary but not sufficient for intelligibility. God is both necessary and sufficient.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
There is no god. He was invented by man. Maybe man finds him necessary, but that doesn't make him spring into being.
Oceanus57 3 years ago
1.
All the attributes of the Laws of Logic require something with those attributes and more to ground them. The greater can account for the lessor. The Laws of Logic are immutable and universal; God is immutable and universal. And to ground these laws there must be something with aseity, God has such-
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Empiricism fails:
1. All observed r's have been t's.
2. r, NOT yet observed, may or may not be a t.
Therefore,
3. Therefore it is illogical to have sense observation be the ground of one's world view.
Man cannot be the ground for epistemology:
Observed q1, q2, ...,
Cannot without omniscience yield knowledge of:
q(infinite)
God is the infinite base and fountainhead for knowledge and truth.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Here is a partial example of the certain argument for God's existence.
Take D (Laws of Logic: Changeless, transcendent, universal,necessary, non-tangible), it implies E (God: Changeless, transcendent, universal, necessary & sufficient, non-tangible).
The Denial of D implies E, as well.
The affirmation of E implies D
and the denial of D as well.
God must exist.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Correct:
God is defined as omnipotent. Therefore He can create an object that He Himself is unable to move. By definition, this is impossible. Therefore, God does not exist.
viper999999999 3 years ago
V999
Incorrect. Try reading any classic or new work on systematic theology and affirm the correct definitions of omnipotence; i.e. God cannot deny His own ontology and epistemic essentials.
He cannot lie, He cannot be illogical, but atheists are illogical men who embrace non-reason.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
There is obviously no changing your mind. Reason and evidence can never trump faith. I only hope others aren't fooled by your misguided confidence and circular reasoning.
viper999999999 3 years ago
V999
Yes you live on complete blind faith, for you as an atheist, fail to account anything and you reject immutable immaterial and universal laws of reason.
best wishes,
GDE
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
The logical step that one thing cannot be true, therefore God exists is such a nonsequitur! This only works as a disproof.
Incorrect:
1+1 does not equal 3, therefore God exists.
(You simply posited God!)
Correct:
God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. If bad things happen in the world, God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent simultaneously. Bad things do happen in this world ("bad" as defined by people). Therefore God does not exist.
viper999999999 3 years ago
Yep. That is true as are all other immutable universal truths forasmuch as a non-immutable non-universal physical cosmos fails to account for said attributes.
Theism alone can.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Knowledge = x1, x2,...xN in which differing and distinct categories and properties inhere and are unified by another thing that must have those essential categories and properties and more. Theism lays the ground for x1-xN and brings unity to the diversity of the categories/properties therein. Materialism cannot account for x1-xN and cannot account for knowledge. Theism alone can.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Your atheism is an irrational mess which not only fails to supply the epistemic pre-essentials for the necessary Laws of Logic, it attempts to prove that the Laws of Logic aren't laws, which is impossible.
Non-theism presupposes theism as it is bound to the Laws of Logic which only theism has the necessary preconditions therein. You as a non-theist made my point. You deny the Laws of L are laws & you reject the only foundation that can supply the universals and immutables for the Laws of L: God.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Im a deist that assumes and Accepts god as the precondition of all existance.
But then you claim 'God' was a flesh and blood person that lived and died.
That move is beyond all logic and seems contradictory.
god is not a man.
jesus is a man
~jesus is God
gusb232 3 years ago
all evidence for the existence of god is man made.
physics and god are two different things.
anarchyclayman 3 years ago
Knowledge = x1, x2,...xN in which differing and distinct categories and properties inhere and are unified by another thing that must have those essential categories and properties and more. Theism lays the ground for x1-xN and brings unity to the diversity of the categories/properties therein. Materialism cannot account for x1-xN and cannot account for knowledge. Theism alone can.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
"The Laws of Thought are universal" - assertion
"There's not a world one can conceive in all possible world, where the Laws of thought are not in effect" - assertion
"Theism lays the ground for x1-xN and brings unity to the diversity of the categories/properties therein" - assertion
You claim these things as if they are self-evidently true, when they are not. You must provide evidence for your claims.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Prove God exists.
viper999999999 3 years ago
V(
Not when you must utilize the Laws of Reason as universals and perpetually presuppose them.
Bu then again many non-theists rush in to attempt to deny the Laws of Logic are laws (athism fails to supply universals & immutables), thus atheism is impossible.
If the Laws of Logic are not universals: types 1 sentence that doesn't use them and offer to all here_________________
Nope. Atheism hates the Laws of Logic and is alogical.
Turn to truth and find utter forgiveness for your appalling sin.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
"U must provide evidence 4 your claims." - assertion.
Although all U have provided here R assertions, here is a juicy little proof 4 U:
If all R thoughts R nothing but random neuron firings in our heads, or, if U please, firings subject to the laws of physics, then we R not really thinking.
The former says R resulting thoughts R ultimately irrational.
The latter says they are not freely arrived at.
Ousias1 3 years ago
The laws of Logic =q are necessary but
not sufficient for
true knowledge of our world =r.
r require fixed ethics, objective truth, fixed personality, other minds, relations between propositions & obj. world, certainty.
r presupposes God=g through G's aseity, omniscience, etc. thus
g supplies the necessary preconditions for r.
God's existence is absolutely certain.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Goodness, I hope your book is actually a satire. You're using nonsensical proofs based on entirely too many assertions and assumptions. Look, I'm not saying your conclusion that God exists is wrong. What I am saying, is that your method of proving His existence is not valid. You simply cannot start with any assumption that God exists when trying to prove that God exists.
viper999999999 3 years ago
V9999999
If you cannot interact with the arguments, move on to the irrational non-theists sites that have vitriol and silliness in the place of justified contentions.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
V9
The Laws of Thought are universal because of impossibility of the contrary. You have to utilize them in all you assert and all you do, to deny the Laws of Logic is to presuppose them and employ them. So the rejection of the Laws of Th. is a self-stultifying assertion.
There's not a world one can conceive in all possible world, where the Laws of thought are not in effect.
If so prove it. And propose it without the utilization of the Laws of Logic.
If not today, try next week or in a decade.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
• T (Laws of Thought) have the property U (Universality)
• For All rational thought requires T, if T has the property U. And L (Logos of God) has the property U
Conclusion:
• If L has the property U, it can account for T.
• T is necessary for I (Intelligibility).
• I, hence L.
If not L, place your suggestion here:
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Incorrect - you need to re-listen to the Vid.
The laws of logic and reason are necessary and God is necessary for the laws of Logic.
God Does Exist.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
You started by ASSERTING that God is the precondition for knowledge. You have proven nothing. You later ASSERT that a person cannot find his way to truth using reason or experience. (Absurd.) Then you ASSERT that God is the answer. Besides not presenting any evidence, how, I ask, can someone even trust you or God if they cannot trust their own reason or experience?
viper999999999 3 years ago
The truth of God is implied and necessary by every act of asserting or denying anything at all, thus by every act of asserting or denying God.
& the truth of God is exemplified by every possible act of asserting even your ridiculous propositions. Hence every non-theistic act of denying God implies and necessitates God who is exemplified by the exercise of the Laws of Thought in its application within all language, rhetoric, locution & expression.
Only theism isn't alogical, atheism is alogical.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
As I read your comment, all I could keep thinking was "assertion, assertion, assertion." Your defense of your position continues to be based solely on assertions.
viper999999999 3 years ago
Viper...
Just pretending for a moment that all he made was assertions, what is wrong with only making assertions? Does this violate some mythical (on atheism) criteria of rationality? If you assert atheism can supply such criteria, norms, and standards, then please, by all means get to proving it and stop asserting.
Ousias1 3 years ago
That was feeble, god exists because you saw he exists.
mattblackcat 3 years ago
the word and Spirit at the same moment with faith.
you can email me if you have other doctrinal issues.
thanks
GDE
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Tell me, how does someone find God?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
God finds him and opens his heart. He must be born again and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
He's behind the sofa
mattblackcat 3 years ago