Prove it, name this God? There are thousands of Gods, how can you be sure your God is the correct God? May I call you human? Do you understand my point human?
It's a BELIEF, meaning not backed up by anything we can test or have evidence that actually exists. Thus, it's neither false or true. What's your point?
I believe in the Lochness monster. I believe it's an ancient dinosaur, it has a long neck, it has fin like appendages, and it eats bottom dwelling fish. Why is this BELIEF false?
its not "wrong" However, if you want to say its true you must first:
1. Provide evidence supporting your claim including evidence to support each characteristic.
2. If you choose to reference the Bible, you must show evidence in support that what the Bible says is correct.
3. Explain to me WHY you believe this to be true.
I would like to hear why you hold these beliefs, I did not have enough time to create a video but if u could do a video response that would be great. thank you
I suppose for me, I see nature, the universe itself as being God like. I don't feel that it needs a human personality or conscience, just an intelligence and beauty which we can see throughout this cosmos.
Who knows, certainly I don't think anyone can call your(or my) belief false, least not until they prove otherwise :-)
John, I have a question for you. What is at stake for you in this argument? Are you attempting to show that you're not "crazy" or "stupid" or "irrational" in holding this belief? Is that all that this is about for you? If so then my advice is simply to ignore those who would assert that these adjectives accurately describe you.
But I suspect that there is something more to your objections. The larger debate going on about "the irrationality of religion" is really about something else.
It is about how seriously non-believers (or anyone for that matter) should take claims about reality and about normative injunctions that invoke god as an explanatory factor.
You have every bit as much right to believe in god as "Dicky boy" has to believe in his closet dragon and nobody should give one whit of concern over what is going on inside that head of yours or how you justify TO YOURSELF your ideas about how the world works or what kinds of actions are acceptable.
The trouble arises when you attempt to make those explanations public. We have sufficient reasons and explanations which do not invoke untestable claims for as much of our existence and as many of our normative injunctions as is important to our making reasoned judgments about them.
I think the greatest concern is not where you seem to want to place it (in the WHY of our universe) but is rather over the reasons we have for proposing and for wanting to follow certain moral injunctions.
Nobody should take seriously the answer "Because god said so" when trying to answer the questions why "should" we act one way or another. The greatest shifts in our moral values have come not from people saying "god said so so shut up and obey". Quite the opposite, they have always come from people offering good *secular* reasons why we should abandon this policy or adopt that one. Indeed the greatest *resistance* to moral change has always come from those who invoke god and no other reason.
My point in this video is for you at least to demonstrate to me why the universe, with human beings in it, does *not* point to something more profound than itself, does *not* point to something glorious, and does *not* point to a MIND being behind all of this.
I understand your point John, but you see it doesn't matter to me that you think it does, and I don't need to justify to you that I think it does not. If all this is about is whether we think there is something "profound" behind existence then there is nothing to argue about.
My question remains, what is at stake for you in this debate? What do you think to gain by winning it? Is it just that you feel insulted by those who view your beliefs as irrational? Or is there something more?
You see John, unless this is only about your "feelings" about how others view you, there is no symmetry between our positions. I don't use my beliefs about the "ultimate truths" about the universe to justify my moral views. I will grant that those views are largely informed by what I think about purpose, meaning and the like. But I do not justify them on these grounds. That is what I see as being at stake in these discussions. So I ask again, what is at stake for YOU?
@vbfl920 it really doesn't point towards this. You only think it does because you are insecure (as most religious people) with there being no gaurenteed higher meaning for everyone. If you actually take the time to look at the naturalistic evolution of the cosmos and life, you can easily see that it does NOT point toward your god, but rather, a slow emergence and development of life and the cosmos.
Btw our planet is doomed in the next 5 billion yeas. It will be gone, thats a fact.
I MERELY hold a belief in an intangible, invisible, floating, silent, heatless dragon in my closet.
Now, EVERYBODY knows you can't demonstrate this believe to be false (so your own request that we demonstrate your God belief to be false is either unintelligent or dishonest.)
So my question to you is not, why is my belief false, but rather, why is my belief jaw droppingly stupid?
"You have an opinion and so do I. How is your opinion anymore valid than mine? "
I think that was exactly my point. You refused to provide "some positive argument" for the non-existence of my intangible, invisible, floating, heatless closet dragon.
It's just a belief. Like yours. Neither is more valid than the other. Neither can be demonstrated to be false.
Because there is no valid reason to believe there would be an intangible, invisible, floating dragon in my closet.
"Well, I think atheism is stupid given the fact that you think ALL of this JUST happened. "
Well it definitely happened. I think it happened because my intangible, floating, heatless, invisible closet dragon played a trick on another invisible dragon to win a bet.
LOL, thank you for demonstrating my point exactly. I asked you twice to provide a positive argument against my invisible intangible closet dragons and twice you refused.
Kind of puts your whole "provide positive arguments against my God" thin in perspective doesn't it?
If you still don't see it, then I am truly sorry that I bothered you again.
Why in the world would I have to demonstrate that God equates to invisible dragons?
That was not even close to my intention. My point was to demonstrate that you cannot even demonstrate the non-existence of invisible dragons, so "demonstrate the non-existence" is a LUDICROUS criteria to expect to be met with respect to anything.
If your God can stand up to that criteria (and I'm not even admitting he does), then so what? My invisible dragon can too!
After this whole "project" of shifting the burden of proof, you cannot even provide the tiniest bit of positive argument why there is not an intangible, invisible, floating dragon in my closet.
Only someone with serious mental problems can insist on people providing positive arguments against their fantasy, when they can't even provide a positive argument against someone else's mockery.
Listen...you keep ASSERTING that the existence of invisible dragons equates with the existence of God. But you have STILL not demonstrated how these two are similar.
1. There is NO EVENT which has occurred that would require the need to posit an invisible dragon. So that's why nobody posits one.
2. The REASON we posit a God is because a series of events have occurred, that need an explanation.
And I very clearly said it was my invisible dragon playing a trick on another invisible dragon to win a bet.
Instead of providing a positive argument as to why my belief is false, you hilariously refused again.
If "demonstrate it's non-existence" was a valid criteria, you would have demonstrated the non-existence of my STUPID dragon assertion, but because it IS NOT a valid criteria, you refuse.
"So your position is that on my view, immaterial things can/do exist? I have to agree. Thanks for clarifying."
I claim that by your definition, imaginary things are real. i.e. Unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, cosmic tepots, etc. I think that's a lousy definition for reality.
"Are you really prepared to argue that logical contradictions can exist?"
Why is it true? The logical position of any unsupported claim is to believe it false until proven true. Positive assertions are not said to be true until they can be shown to be so.
I would ask what reason do you believe this to be true?
well its neither true nor false. It cannot be proven or disproven.
No problem with your belief in a god, personally for me i need evidence that cannot be explained through natural processes and is specific of a certain god. I cannot accept faith, it can lead to a willful ignorance of modern discoveries.
But yeah, your claim isnt false, but its not true either. its just a claim, just a belief
ever heard of abiogenesis? thats a plausible process for the origin of life. And actually, organic molecules are quite common in space, including some found on asteroids. we do not know for certain where life came from, and i wont claim to know, however i have researched and found that there is a possible natural process that can account for it, and who knows maybe even something we havnt discovered yet
the reason i dont think its a god is because of other factors
no abiogenesis describes the process of non living organic molecules becoming living things. it explains the process, abiogenesis is not one event, it takes time and it IS indeed a process
and ide just like to say im not ruling out the possibilty of a god, its very possible, but due to other factors, i do not believe it would be a god of any religions on earth
@VBFL920 You belief is false because you believe in a non-existent entity. Now if you want to know why I think your God doesn't exit? Watch my video, Yes I am a positive Atheist, here is why.
1. The depravity of man, which, all you have to do is turn on the news to see it, or look at the selfishness of those in your own family. Christianity speaks on this
2. Matter came to life. This is significant enough to warrant a belief in the extraordinary
3. The universe cannot explain itself and seems to act towards an end,
1. So does the Bhagavad Gita, so did Plato and Hobbes. Stating the obvious hardly merit divinity.
2. By what we define as life, yes. Extraordinary, perhaps: unexplainable by natural processes, no.
3. We've yet to fathom why the universe came into the from we see. But does that mean that is must then have been made by an intelligent agency, one which you claim to be benevolent?
You may feel that this is sufficient justification.
matter coming to life, for you may warrent the belief in the extraordinary or supernatural, for me its not enough. The fact that it exists does not constitute a reason enough to believe in the supernatural, but some people need more convincing than others i guess
John you're missing the point of the question why. If I said I had an timeless, spaceless, immaterial gnome living in my head, and you said "why am I wrong". I couldn't really argue against it unless you tell me why. If I did argue against it, and then you said "I believe it because he tells me lottery numbers", and then produced evidence that you had won the lottery 52 weeks in a row then your belief would be much more likely to be true.
The very fact that we are discussing my teapot proves that it is mentally conceivable.
People may imagine all sorts of impossible or contradictory things. Why do you think we need logic, if we cannot imagine the illogical? The very need for logic by humans demonstrates that we have an overactive illogical imagination as human beings. Logic helps sort the logic from the illogic.
I don't believe there are, and may ever be any decisive arguments in favor of atheism or theism; no argument that will ever truly end the discussions. I have seen almost every logical argument break down in one way or another. From my studies the debate really breaks down into evidential cases for or against god. Therefore I cannot say your belief is false, but very much likely false with the evidence I have seen.
I agree, if it breaks down into an evidential case, like the one I am proposing, then yes I would have to present my end of the burden of proof.
I agree god's existence isn't contingent upon our awareness, but neither is anything that is allegedly objective, right? Unfortunately it is all filtered through our subjective mind, so we must rely on evidence unless it can be proven that something necessarily exists, which would be a decisive argument for god's existence if it was successful.
The same definition game can be applied to God (but to the true theist, this doesn't proven anything): Space-Time define our reality and anything beyond reality is purely imaginary. God is outside reality, so God is purely imaginary. QED
Nice John. Lot's of people saidthey couldn't understand Rational Dawn's video's because they didn't know what they meant by God, maybe this will Help. God Bless.
A single personal TEA POT responsible for all of creation which is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and has the classical properties of being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and self existent.
Why is my belief FALSE?
I'm not trying to be funny. But thinking about this type of question by swapping out the word "God' helped me quite a bit to think about the logical coherence. Fundamentally, belief is personal preference.
"We both know however that BELIEF in magic teapots is."
When you can convince yourself that my teapot doesn't exist, you can use the same argument to disprove your God.
If we are using the argument that a teapot cannot exist outside of space and time, then I ask what CAN exist outside space and time? Certainly not a being because to be, there must be a context. Space and time is the only context for being because if there is nowhere to be or nothing to be, then what is IT?! Contradict'n
Because it's logically impossible to be both spaceless and omnipresent, as well as omnibenevolent and omnipotent (I'm assuming you also believe he exists in OUR world), as well as the concept of omnipotence in and of itself, and is the idea of a timeless being creating something at some point in time.
why is your belief false? beliefs are psychological states. they may refer to intellectual positions which can be true/false warranted/unwarranted evidence/no evidence/evidence against etc. beliefs strictly speaking cannot be true/false
I don't know, and don't care, BUT if you use that belief to justify things like discrimination against homosexuals, or tell me I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity if I don't believe what you believe, and want to convince me, you better be able to come up with good evidence for that belief. Otherwise I'll tell you you're nuts for believing that sex between two consenting adults is wrong based on a 2000 year old book, with no good reason to believe what it says.
My point is, in case I wasn't clear, that I don't care about weak theists who simply believe in a God. I'm concerned with those who claim, or behave as though they KNOW God exists, and live their lives following bronze age texts which they claim are the words of, or inspired by the creator of the universe, and want others to believe those claims. Those theists have the burden to prove such a claim.
"If my belief is FALSE, how do you go about demonstrating this?"
I don't think a weak theist would be making a "truth" claim. One would simply be stating an opinion, and opinions can't necessarily be proven to be true, or false. They can just be shown to be less likely than other opinions.
I see insufficient reason to believe they're true, but given that I don't know why you hold such a belief I can't really argue that you're wrong, but if you tell me the reasons you hold such beliefs I'll tell you why I think your reasoning is faulty, if that is the case.
"The real weight is whether you are RIGHT that there is no God, Mike, not what I do to you."
But in the long run, if I'm right, or a deist/weak theist is it doesn't matter, it only matters if a strong theist is right, so they are the only ones who have the incentive to make positive arguments in support of their position. I only have the incentive to argue against basing your world view on those beliefs, and only when it affects me in the real world.
A "weak" theist in my opinion would essentially be a deist. Someone who simply claims that their "default" opinion is that the universe appears designed, and designed with me in mind. That designer would necessarily have to be powerful enough to create existence, and would have to know in advance the end result of that creation.
"So, your NOT telling me that I'm nuts for believing in God"
If by "personal agent" you mean the universe was created with us as an end goal in mind, then no I don't think you're nuts. If you believe that God is actively involved in the universe, in other words all the religious baggage (talking snakes, virgin births, raising from the dead etc) then yeah that's irrational.
Believing the other things isn't necessarily nuts, but their is no 'good" evidence for them, and some are logically contradictory. Someone who believed in all that other baggage, and lived their life based on it (as I pointed out) couldn't be considered a "weak" theist.
Well you'll have to let the atheists answer this one, John (obviously this video is for them) and to do that they'll need to come up with a convincing positive argument for why God doesn't exist. Actually, come to think of it I'm sure Hindus and Bhuddists (if there are any out there) can answer this too. They need to provide convincing arguments for why their belief is true as well as refute yours.
"Well you'll have to let the atheists answer this one, John (obviously this video is for them) and to do that they'll need to come up with a convincing positive argument for why God doesn't exist."
This atheist doesn't care to argue against the existence of God. A weak theist (one who believes in God even though they have no evidence for his existence) is presumably not going to be following insane rules in a 2000 year old book because essentially he is an agnostic.
That said the more I think about it the more I feel the concept of being atemporal and immaterial is likely just not possible. It certainly isn't possible with our minds.
Aside form that, such a being could logically exist, but it could not be responsible for things existing. That is to say it could not be a creator.
If an Eternal Omniscience existed, then absolutely everything in all possible worlds would correspond to a perfect representation in the mind of the Omniscience, having absolutely no difference. The representations would correspond down to it's infinitesimally smallest detail. These representations would exist, eternally, therefore uncreated.
Actually, I phrased that wrong. Starting from the bottom up I think that your belief is false because the Old Testament, New Testament and the Koran are all products of human minds and nothing more. The God described in these texts is a character of human invention who's description has been embellished over centuries of theology and apologetics to now resemble the being you believe in. The belief is false as it rests on the assumption that one or more of these texts were more than man made...
Top down if you posit such a being (immaterial yet conscious? timeless? originator of objective values...I have no frame of reference to evaluate this. I don't accept the idea of objective values so I might claim there is a contradiction there.)
Explain why an omnipotent, omniscient, timeless, and omnibenevolent god would create a world where people could actually be separated from him. Such a god would know up front, at the point of creation exactly what his creation would do, for all time, and, if truly omnibenevolent, would create a world where all creatures would somehow find their paths to redemption.
So, if this god exists, then we're all saved, whether we believe or not.
I had just started working on a video response to some random dude, but I'm dropping that in favor of responding to this. School's starting this week though so I might need a few days.
Ermm because synthetic a priori propositions tell me this.
I don't need a spec of an argument! The burden of proof is on him. I let him slid on this! Gave my objection and ask him to be more concise with his argument.
Synthetic apriori reasoning is metaphysical by necessity so this actually undermines your entire position-- but lets assume I grant this fallacy: You've nonetheless illustrated nothing.
Now, you absolutely do need a spec of argument, you made this claim with respect to those properties: "does not exist". I will not let you cop out of this as most atheists do, you have assumed an apriori negation of these properties without any reason to do so, and unless you have one, I deem it spurious.
How laughable could it be that I ask you to even in a fundamental way support that argument, as it was overly weighty and most certainly in need of some clarification.
Ok well, have fun. I would recommend that you really think through your response, this is getting very sloppy. It is standard within epistemological naturalism to deny synthetic apriori reasoning due to the implications it has on the nature of the world, so really be careful in your argumentation.
Perhaps also take some time to think through how you are ready (apart from almost the entire field within the philosophy of religion) to make that sort of claim about the existence of those properties.
Haha No need to think things through your just lodging bold assertions. 1st of all in my formal objection I never said God doesn't exist. Tho I would say he doesn't exist. I simply stated criticism by mentioning to him, the definition of God he gave. Basically defined it out of existence.
2ndly its not epistemological naturalism I was referring to. We are arguing from a logical positivism.
When I stated to you that "synthetic A priori knowledge" tells me this! I was infact saying that in the branch of metaphysics "God" is not interpretable no logical. Remember Theo37 "metaphysics" is not just the about ontology but also the branches of space and time. But according to your friend vbfl God is spacless and timeless.
This doesn't undermind my argument. It supports it. Your committing to a red herring by saying otherwise.
This is what I was afraid of, you're not actually supporting your assertion here.
Saying that "metaphysics=just space, time" (which is actually false) and therefore "aspatial and atemporal things don't exist" isn't an argument. And you've ignored precisely the nature of synthetic apriori reasoning. I have a video on this if you're interested, but apart from this you really do need to completely rephrase your original assertion. It doesn't even follow with valid logic, much less with soundness.
Theo37 I never said Metaphysics is JUST space and time. I said it has to do with not just ontology but space and time as well! Pls go read my comment again.
Sigh.. "Synthetic a priori" Would obviously be dependent on how your using it. If you agree with Quine's critique of this! Then we can argue that! But I was drawing from Kant's paradigm of his original distinction.
As to not argue in a vacuum! Let me try to be more concise.
Synthetic concepts lend to another predication to justify it, but are not contained in the subject concept. Ex: Don is at his house!
Vbfl920 in his video was talking about things that are self evident. Synthetic a priori" are concepts independent of experience. Such as mathmatics! This is my understanding of it.
Now when I mentioned God! From a logical positivist claim. God is not even logical!
There is a merely informal atheism, which is the negation of God in terms, but not in reality. A man says, There is no God- that is, there is no God WHO originates in himself, WHO ever was originated, but a God Who always was and has been, who is the cause of existence, who is the MIND and the PROVIDENCE of the Universe, and therefore, the ORDER, BEAUTY, and HARMONY of the world of matter and mind do not indicate any plan or intention of Divinity
Your implicitly engaging in performative contradiction. You have used "synthetic a priori" to attack my position. Yet on the right side denying the meaning of it to defend your own argument.
Borrowing from my world view. Which you haven't even demostrated your own, and why your world view is more sensical? Vbfl seems to think he can make self referential statment's pleading to argument from ignorance.
I ask that you please be more clear on your position.
The qualities of God are recognized, and they affirm HIS existence; it is a mere change of name to call the possessor of these qualities Nature and not God.
Maybe you should think a bit harder about where your rediculous ideology comes from before you start going off on all this stuff when you, much less the trall of brainwashed christians, dont even know WHO God is.
Ok BB, remember you argued that you essentially had a Apriori argument against the existence of God, and that you would appeal to the laws of logic (where-in they would be metaphysical truths) and the synthesis of them using what would be Pure reason, to show that God does not exist.
I know of no atheist philosopher, ever to make this argument, it certainly DOES NOT exist in the (now thoroughly refuted) mainstream school of positivist thought.
So, please provide us with it and prove your claim.
ha I knew I knew you from somewhere. Yes Theo37! I would love nothing more than to have some type of dissertation with you! But from watching DeistPaladin I realize that you are very deceitful, and do not defend your position veraciously!
I thank you for the discussion thus far but do not intend on engaging in anytype of discourse in the future.
John claims because I picked a specific canon of scripture to quote from-- and then quoted it. . .
I did not lie to John, this was one of his many evasion tactics to get out of his inability to answer, I quoted the same translation I always have, and even cited it in the sidebar. He has also failed to even address clear illustrations of the bankruptcy of his philosophical views.
And yes, you've yet given us defense of your original special pleading.
In short, "emily" you are evading supporting your assertions by quoting johnlarmstrong, who claims I am a liar by his own ignorance to different translations of scripture or for the surrounding verses of passages in Deuteronomy? Are you aware that he directly took his argument from a fundie atheist website? The details and fraudulence of his arguments are both disturbing and embarrassing.
But, do I understand you correctly? You are now opting out of your (what I can tell) unfounded assertions?
But Nature that is powerful, wise, active and good; Nature originated within itself, or perhaps, it always was and has been, the cause of its own existence, the mind of the Universe and its own Providence. Clearly there is a plan and purpose from which proceed order, beauty, and harmony. But this is the plan and purpose of Nature. In such matters the absolute negation of God is only formal and not real.
Because my definition of omnipotent is different from yours, and my definition of omnipotent is logically contradictory, which makes God logically contradictory.
Jk, but I suspect someone will make this argument if you get enough comments.
Haha, isn't it quite telling that atheists will often resort to the most convoluted justifications for why they don't have to justify their claim that no God exists rather than just presenting a positive argument in support of their own claim?
Prove it, name this God? There are thousands of Gods, how can you be sure your God is the correct God? May I call you human? Do you understand my point human?
bigboy45454545 5 months ago
It's a BELIEF, meaning not backed up by anything we can test or have evidence that actually exists. Thus, it's neither false or true. What's your point?
I believe in the Lochness monster. I believe it's an ancient dinosaur, it has a long neck, it has fin like appendages, and it eats bottom dwelling fish. Why is this BELIEF false?
mbbm13 9 months ago
its not "wrong" However, if you want to say its true you must first:
1. Provide evidence supporting your claim including evidence to support each characteristic.
2. If you choose to reference the Bible, you must show evidence in support that what the Bible says is correct.
3. Explain to me WHY you believe this to be true.
I would like to hear why you hold these beliefs, I did not have enough time to create a video but if u could do a video response that would be great. thank you
Debunker333 1 year ago
It's not false! :)
blashmet 1 year ago
@blashmet you can't claim it to be correct though
dhcrazy333 1 year ago
I suppose for me, I see nature, the universe itself as being God like. I don't feel that it needs a human personality or conscience, just an intelligence and beauty which we can see throughout this cosmos.
Who knows, certainly I don't think anyone can call your(or my) belief false, least not until they prove otherwise :-)
ulthea 2 years ago
Your belief is false because:
1. The characteristics "timeless, spaceless, immaterial" belong exclusively to things that do not exist.
2. Omnipotence and self-existence contradict, since it is impossible for one to have power to destroy the self-existent self.
3. Omniscience and omnipotence contradict each other, since it is impossible for one to know the future and to change it.
4. If there were an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent creator, pain would not exist.
h0tsex0r 2 years ago
John, I have a question for you. What is at stake for you in this argument? Are you attempting to show that you're not "crazy" or "stupid" or "irrational" in holding this belief? Is that all that this is about for you? If so then my advice is simply to ignore those who would assert that these adjectives accurately describe you.
But I suspect that there is something more to your objections. The larger debate going on about "the irrationality of religion" is really about something else.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
It is about how seriously non-believers (or anyone for that matter) should take claims about reality and about normative injunctions that invoke god as an explanatory factor.
You have every bit as much right to believe in god as "Dicky boy" has to believe in his closet dragon and nobody should give one whit of concern over what is going on inside that head of yours or how you justify TO YOURSELF your ideas about how the world works or what kinds of actions are acceptable.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
The trouble arises when you attempt to make those explanations public. We have sufficient reasons and explanations which do not invoke untestable claims for as much of our existence and as many of our normative injunctions as is important to our making reasoned judgments about them.
I think the greatest concern is not where you seem to want to place it (in the WHY of our universe) but is rather over the reasons we have for proposing and for wanting to follow certain moral injunctions.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Nobody should take seriously the answer "Because god said so" when trying to answer the questions why "should" we act one way or another. The greatest shifts in our moral values have come not from people saying "god said so so shut up and obey". Quite the opposite, they have always come from people offering good *secular* reasons why we should abandon this policy or adopt that one. Indeed the greatest *resistance* to moral change has always come from those who invoke god and no other reason.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Slavery was a secular battle?
Unborn life is a secular battle?
The only secular battles I see waged are battles for more types of promiscuity, drug use, and the right to take unborn life..to name just a few.
vbfl920 2 years ago
My point in this video is for you at least to demonstrate to me why the universe, with human beings in it, does *not* point to something more profound than itself, does *not* point to something glorious, and does *not* point to a MIND being behind all of this.
Dont just tell me that you "lack" belief in this.
Tell me why it is NOT the case.
vbfl920 2 years ago
I understand your point John, but you see it doesn't matter to me that you think it does, and I don't need to justify to you that I think it does not. If all this is about is whether we think there is something "profound" behind existence then there is nothing to argue about.
My question remains, what is at stake for you in this debate? What do you think to gain by winning it? Is it just that you feel insulted by those who view your beliefs as irrational? Or is there something more?
sammcalpine 2 years ago
You see John, unless this is only about your "feelings" about how others view you, there is no symmetry between our positions. I don't use my beliefs about the "ultimate truths" about the universe to justify my moral views. I will grant that those views are largely informed by what I think about purpose, meaning and the like. But I do not justify them on these grounds. That is what I see as being at stake in these discussions. So I ask again, what is at stake for YOU?
sammcalpine 2 years ago
@vbfl920 it really doesn't point towards this. You only think it does because you are insecure (as most religious people) with there being no gaurenteed higher meaning for everyone. If you actually take the time to look at the naturalistic evolution of the cosmos and life, you can easily see that it does NOT point toward your god, but rather, a slow emergence and development of life and the cosmos.
Btw our planet is doomed in the next 5 billion yeas. It will be gone, thats a fact.
dhcrazy333 1 year ago
I MERELY hold a belief in an intangible, invisible, floating, silent, heatless dragon in my closet.
Now, EVERYBODY knows you can't demonstrate this believe to be false (so your own request that we demonstrate your God belief to be false is either unintelligent or dishonest.)
So my question to you is not, why is my belief false, but rather, why is my belief jaw droppingly stupid?
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
Why would it be stupid Dicky boy?
Its not false so it's stupid?
Well, I think atheism is stupid given the fact that you think ALL of this JUST happened.
I think its STUPID to hold to atheism.
vbfl920 2 years ago
So what's your point?
You have an opinion and so do I.
How is your opinion anymore valid than mine?
vbfl920 2 years ago
"You have an opinion and so do I. How is your opinion anymore valid than mine? "
I think that was exactly my point. You refused to provide "some positive argument" for the non-existence of my intangible, invisible, floating, heatless closet dragon.
It's just a belief. Like yours. Neither is more valid than the other. Neither can be demonstrated to be false.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
"Why would it be stupid Dicky boy?"
Because there is no valid reason to believe there would be an intangible, invisible, floating dragon in my closet.
"Well, I think atheism is stupid given the fact that you think ALL of this JUST happened. "
Well it definitely happened. I think it happened because my intangible, floating, heatless, invisible closet dragon played a trick on another invisible dragon to win a bet.
Why is my belief false?
Provide some kind of positive argument.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
"Because there is no valid reason to believe there would be an intangible, invisible, floating dragon in my closet."
I have NEVER said that I believe in invisible dragons, STICK to the topic.
So apparently YOU have no "valid" reason to believe in God, so this means that no one else does either...
Great logic.
vbfl920 2 years ago
LOL, thank you for demonstrating my point exactly. I asked you twice to provide a positive argument against my invisible intangible closet dragons and twice you refused.
Kind of puts your whole "provide positive arguments against my God" thin in perspective doesn't it?
If you still don't see it, then I am truly sorry that I bothered you again.
That would be a mistake on my part, not yours.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
I refused because you have YET to demonstrate that God equates with invisible dragons.
All you are doing is asserting this.
And I notice that for the ENTIRE time this video has been up, you have STILL not provided an argument for why God does not, nor cannot exist.
I'm waiting.
You lack belief.
Oh thats right, that AUTOMATICALLY means God doesn't exist.
Once again, great logic.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Why in the world would I have to demonstrate that God equates to invisible dragons?
That was not even close to my intention. My point was to demonstrate that you cannot even demonstrate the non-existence of invisible dragons, so "demonstrate the non-existence" is a LUDICROUS criteria to expect to be met with respect to anything.
If your God can stand up to that criteria (and I'm not even admitting he does), then so what? My invisible dragon can too!
It's a useless criteria to live up to.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
So what are you left with then other than your OPINION that my belief is false?
That's real good epistemic grounding there, partner.
You could be dead wrong this entire time.
vbfl920 2 years ago
@vbfl920
Why do you refuse to provide some kind of positive argument against my invisible dragon?
Don't get defensive, just provide some kind of positive argument.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
What a joke.
After this whole "project" of shifting the burden of proof, you cannot even provide the tiniest bit of positive argument why there is not an intangible, invisible, floating dragon in my closet.
Only someone with serious mental problems can insist on people providing positive arguments against their fantasy, when they can't even provide a positive argument against someone else's mockery.
FAIL.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
Listen...you keep ASSERTING that the existence of invisible dragons equates with the existence of God. But you have STILL not demonstrated how these two are similar.
1. There is NO EVENT which has occurred that would require the need to posit an invisible dragon. So that's why nobody posits one.
2. The REASON we posit a God is because a series of events have occurred, that need an explanation.
vbfl920 2 years ago
"because a series of events have occurred"
And I very clearly said it was my invisible dragon playing a trick on another invisible dragon to win a bet.
Instead of providing a positive argument as to why my belief is false, you hilariously refused again.
If "demonstrate it's non-existence" was a valid criteria, you would have demonstrated the non-existence of my STUPID dragon assertion, but because it IS NOT a valid criteria, you refuse.
PWNED.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
No, you still do not understand what I mean here.
You telling me that your invisible dragon played a trick on another invisible dragon is NOT a series of events that we need explanation for.
A universe being here INEXPLICABLY, and matter coming to life, *is* a series of events that need some kind of explanation.
We posit God as an explanation to this event.
There is NO such event that would require anyone to postulate an invisible dragon to explain.
vbfl920 2 years ago
"A universe being here INEXPLICABLY, and matter coming to life, *is* a series of events that need some kind of explanation."
And I very clearly told you that my invisible dragon created the universe as a trick he was playing on another invisible dragon to win a bet.
You provided absolutely NO positive argument that my belief is false.
Ignore everything and PLEASE try to accomplish this one small request.
PLEASE PROVIDE A POSITIVE ARGUMENT THAT MY DRAGONS DO NOT EXIST.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
Well, WHAT reason do you have to BELIEVE an invisible dragon caused all of this to happen?
vbfl920 2 years ago
@vbfl920
THANK-YOU!
That is all I set out to demonstrate.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
See, Youre doing it again.
You are ASSERTING that I am having you provide positive arguments against my *FANTASY*
You are presupposing that like the invisible dragon, God is ALSO fantasy.
But you are not demonstrating how the two equate categorically.
Bald face assertions are worthless, just like your logic.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Holy hell.
Not only do I NOT assert their equivalence, it would be irrelevant to the point if I did.
"See, you are doing it again."
Look up the word fantasy, and then look up the word mockery. If their definitions are the same, then you have a point.
YOU CANNOT PROVIDE A POSITIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST MY DRAGON.
Guess what that means?
The criteria of "demonstrating it's non-existence" is STUPID!
Holy hell.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
Demonstrate that my belief in God is a FANATASY which would warrant your use of that term.
Other than that, you are making a bald face assertion.
p.s., why can't I send you a PM?
I tried posting a more detailed reply on here, but it wont let me.
vbfl920 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"So your position is that on my view, immaterial things can/do exist? I have to agree. Thanks for clarifying."
I claim that by your definition, imaginary things are real. i.e. Unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, cosmic tepots, etc. I think that's a lousy definition for reality.
"Are you really prepared to argue that logical contradictions can exist?"
They can and do exist in a person's mind.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
Why is it true? The logical position of any unsupported claim is to believe it false until proven true. Positive assertions are not said to be true until they can be shown to be so.
I would ask what reason do you believe this to be true?
thatisryan 2 years ago
well its neither true nor false. It cannot be proven or disproven.
No problem with your belief in a god, personally for me i need evidence that cannot be explained through natural processes and is specific of a certain god. I cannot accept faith, it can lead to a willful ignorance of modern discoveries.
But yeah, your claim isnt false, but its not true either. its just a claim, just a belief
dhcrazy333 2 years ago 2
So there are JUST these natural processes that exist that brought us to life?
No explanation for these processes?
vbfl920 2 years ago
ever heard of abiogenesis? thats a plausible process for the origin of life. And actually, organic molecules are quite common in space, including some found on asteroids. we do not know for certain where life came from, and i wont claim to know, however i have researched and found that there is a possible natural process that can account for it, and who knows maybe even something we havnt discovered yet
the reason i dont think its a god is because of other factors
dhcrazy333 2 years ago
Abiogenesis is not a prcoess, it was an EVENT.
vbfl920 2 years ago
no abiogenesis describes the process of non living organic molecules becoming living things. it explains the process, abiogenesis is not one event, it takes time and it IS indeed a process
dhcrazy333 2 years ago
How many times has it happened?
vbfl920 2 years ago
once again, its a process, i cannot claim to know "how many times" from my understanding its not something you can put a number on.
dhcrazy333 2 years ago
and ide just like to say im not ruling out the possibilty of a god, its very possible, but due to other factors, i do not believe it would be a god of any religions on earth
dhcrazy333 2 years ago
Well I guess Theologica37 is done?
Anyone else? I'll take on two! haha
bananabread119 2 years ago
With what, you've proven something?
Theologica37 2 years ago
@Theologica37
Hey welcome back! Well you kind of left me hanging there! =(
Give me a sec, let me get situated!
bananabread119 2 years ago
@VBFL920 You belief is false because you believe in a non-existent entity. Now if you want to know why I think your God doesn't exit? Watch my video, Yes I am a positive Atheist, here is why.
WayOfTheBastard 2 years ago
My belief is false because I believe in a non-existent entity?
Well, I BELIEVE He exists, lol!
vbfl920 2 years ago
What is your justification?
Aaberg123 2 years ago
I dont need to justify it. Its MY belief.
I merely hold to it.
How is my belief false?
vbfl920 2 years ago
@vbfl920
I believe there's a flying teapot in orbit around the Sun.
How is my belief wrong?
I regret I wasted my time on you.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
I agree that it is false, you dont have to convince me that it is.
What you are doing is ASSUMING the idea that God is like the teapot.
But you are NOT providing arguments why.
This is the bare assertion fallacy.
If all you do is claim that God is LIKE a flying teapot, without ever showing why, then it is YOU who is wasting my time.
vbfl920 2 years ago
@vbfl920
I'm not assuming anything. The concept of god is like the teapot to me.
Both concepts lack the same things: justification and evidence.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
Like a teapot to you.
Ok great argument.
Well, to ME, I feel that I have justification and evidence.
vbfl920 2 years ago
@vbfl920 that's fine if you feel justified. I don't agree, but then again why would I. I am not offended by your belief vbfl =)
WayOfTheBastard 2 years ago
@vbfl920
Care to elaborate what to YOU feel like a justification and evidence?
Aaberg123 2 years ago
Really quick.
1. The depravity of man, which, all you have to do is turn on the news to see it, or look at the selfishness of those in your own family. Christianity speaks on this
2. Matter came to life. This is significant enough to warrant a belief in the extraordinary
3. The universe cannot explain itself and seems to act towards an end,
vbfl920 2 years ago
@vbfl920
1. So does the Bhagavad Gita, so did Plato and Hobbes. Stating the obvious hardly merit divinity.
2. By what we define as life, yes. Extraordinary, perhaps: unexplainable by natural processes, no.
3. We've yet to fathom why the universe came into the from we see. But does that mean that is must then have been made by an intelligent agency, one which you claim to be benevolent?
You may feel that this is sufficient justification.
I am not convinced.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
matter coming to life, for you may warrent the belief in the extraordinary or supernatural, for me its not enough. The fact that it exists does not constitute a reason enough to believe in the supernatural, but some people need more convincing than others i guess
dhcrazy333 2 years ago
@vbfl920
John you're missing the point of the question why. If I said I had an timeless, spaceless, immaterial gnome living in my head, and you said "why am I wrong". I couldn't really argue against it unless you tell me why. If I did argue against it, and then you said "I believe it because he tells me lottery numbers", and then produced evidence that you had won the lottery 52 weeks in a row then your belief would be much more likely to be true.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
The argument needs to be made against the reasons for the belief not the belief itself.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Are you SERIOUS? Did he do a video response to me?
Or are you talking about his older garbage?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Canser
so your a deist
hens0w 2 years ago
This really is a question of research psychology. Can you cite any papers on these findings?
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
"you defy your own definition of reality"
I was using YOUR definition of reality.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
The very fact that we are discussing my teapot proves that it is mentally conceivable.
People may imagine all sorts of impossible or contradictory things. Why do you think we need logic, if we cannot imagine the illogical? The very need for logic by humans demonstrates that we have an overactive illogical imagination as human beings. Logic helps sort the logic from the illogic.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
1. I guess "miraculous" IS better.
2. "everything that exists"--My teapot exists in my mind, so it is real by your own definition. Now who's begging the question?
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
1. How about "miraculous"? Is that better?
2. Begging what question? My provided definition is a very generous version of the standard definition of reality. What's YOUR definition of reality?
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
I don't believe there are, and may ever be any decisive arguments in favor of atheism or theism; no argument that will ever truly end the discussions. I have seen almost every logical argument break down in one way or another. From my studies the debate really breaks down into evidential cases for or against god. Therefore I cannot say your belief is false, but very much likely false with the evidence I have seen.
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
Thanks for your honesty. I think the major point is whether you can totally hinge Gods existence on the "evidence" issue alone.
Evidence implies a thing that we are aware of.
Gods existence is not contingent upon our awareness of it, not necessarly at least.
If so, this is what the atheist would have to demonstrate. This is the point in Noahs video.
vbfl920 2 years ago
I agree, if it breaks down into an evidential case, like the one I am proposing, then yes I would have to present my end of the burden of proof.
I agree god's existence isn't contingent upon our awareness, but neither is anything that is allegedly objective, right? Unfortunately it is all filtered through our subjective mind, so we must rely on evidence unless it can be proven that something necessarily exists, which would be a decisive argument for god's existence if it was successful.
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
My tea pot is "magical". ;)
The same definition game can be applied to God (but to the true theist, this doesn't proven anything): Space-Time define our reality and anything beyond reality is purely imaginary. God is outside reality, so God is purely imaginary. QED
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
Nice John. Lot's of people saidthey couldn't understand Rational Dawn's video's because they didn't know what they meant by God, maybe this will Help. God Bless.
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago
I hold to a belief in a TEA POT, which is:
A single personal TEA POT responsible for all of creation which is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and has the classical properties of being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and self existent.
Why is my belief FALSE?
I'm not trying to be funny. But thinking about this type of question by swapping out the word "God' helped me quite a bit to think about the logical coherence. Fundamentally, belief is personal preference.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
Absent YOU making a case against God, I do not know that my belief in God is false.
We both know however that BELIEF in magic teapots is.
So why dont you make a similar case in regards to God not existing?
vbfl920 2 years ago
"We both know however that BELIEF in magic teapots is."
When you can convince yourself that my teapot doesn't exist, you can use the same argument to disprove your God.
If we are using the argument that a teapot cannot exist outside of space and time, then I ask what CAN exist outside space and time? Certainly not a being because to be, there must be a context. Space and time is the only context for being because if there is nowhere to be or nothing to be, then what is IT?! Contradict'n
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
Because it's logically impossible to be both spaceless and omnipresent, as well as omnibenevolent and omnipotent (I'm assuming you also believe he exists in OUR world), as well as the concept of omnipotence in and of itself, and is the idea of a timeless being creating something at some point in time.
AHughman08 2 years ago
Is there anything that would convince you that your belief is false?
Because if the answer is no, any atheist responding to you would only be wasting their time.
trumasamune 2 years ago 3
why is your belief false? beliefs are psychological states. they may refer to intellectual positions which can be true/false warranted/unwarranted evidence/no evidence/evidence against etc. beliefs strictly speaking cannot be true/false
tooltime9901 2 years ago 2
Hahaha, yeah, but tooltime, I think we all know what he's trying to convey here.
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago
Sweet, a tooltime comment!
Beliefs in and of themselves are not psychological states, at least not in the way I use the term in my video.
...*something* believed.
I am talking about the CONTENT of the thing in which I believe...
vbfl920 2 years ago
If I would have said why does ME BELIEVING it make it false, I could agree with you.
But that's not what I said.
I said, "Why is THIS belief false?"
See what Im saying?
vbfl920 2 years ago
I don't know, and don't care, BUT if you use that belief to justify things like discrimination against homosexuals, or tell me I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity if I don't believe what you believe, and want to convince me, you better be able to come up with good evidence for that belief. Otherwise I'll tell you you're nuts for believing that sex between two consenting adults is wrong based on a 2000 year old book, with no good reason to believe what it says.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
continued..
My point is, in case I wasn't clear, that I don't care about weak theists who simply believe in a God. I'm concerned with those who claim, or behave as though they KNOW God exists, and live their lives following bronze age texts which they claim are the words of, or inspired by the creator of the universe, and want others to believe those claims. Those theists have the burden to prove such a claim.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"Those theists have the burden to prove such a claim."
I mean if they want to be taken seriously, or have their opinions taken seriously.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
You are not concerned with weak THEISTS, so long as they dont bother you.
But thats not what Im asking.
I am asking you if you are concerned with weak THEISM, not those who believe it, and whether it is a true belief.
If my belief is FALSE, how do you go about demonstrating this?
vbfl920 2 years ago
"If my belief is FALSE, how do you go about demonstrating this?"
I don't think a weak theist would be making a "truth" claim. One would simply be stating an opinion, and opinions can't necessarily be proven to be true, or false. They can just be shown to be less likely than other opinions.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Im looking for your HONEST take on my beliefs here, for the sake of argument.
Are my beliefs false?
vbfl920 2 years ago
"Are my beliefs false?"
I see insufficient reason to believe they're true, but given that I don't know why you hold such a belief I can't really argue that you're wrong, but if you tell me the reasons you hold such beliefs I'll tell you why I think your reasoning is faulty, if that is the case.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
This is a game of two gunfighters bluffing each other.
If I do X then youll do Y.
No man.
The real weight is whether you are RIGHT that there is no God, Mike, not what I do to you.
vbfl920 2 years ago
You best be right man.
vbfl920 2 years ago
"The real weight is whether you are RIGHT that there is no God, Mike, not what I do to you."
But in the long run, if I'm right, or a deist/weak theist is it doesn't matter, it only matters if a strong theist is right, so they are the only ones who have the incentive to make positive arguments in support of their position. I only have the incentive to argue against basing your world view on those beliefs, and only when it affects me in the real world.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
If you base you political, and social opinion on demonstrable reason, and logic you can believe you have a leprechaun in your pocket for all I care.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
continued...
A "weak" theist in my opinion would essentially be a deist. Someone who simply claims that their "default" opinion is that the universe appears designed, and designed with me in mind. That designer would necessarily have to be powerful enough to create existence, and would have to know in advance the end result of that creation.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Possibly a weak theist just might be someone who holds belief in other peoples claims.
vbfl920 2 years ago
So, your NOT telling me that I'm nuts for believing in God, as defined in the description box?
vbfl920 2 years ago
"So, your NOT telling me that I'm nuts for believing in God"
If by "personal agent" you mean the universe was created with us as an end goal in mind, then no I don't think you're nuts. If you believe that God is actively involved in the universe, in other words all the religious baggage (talking snakes, virgin births, raising from the dead etc) then yeah that's irrational.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
Believing the other things isn't necessarily nuts, but their is no 'good" evidence for them, and some are logically contradictory. Someone who believed in all that other baggage, and lived their life based on it (as I pointed out) couldn't be considered a "weak" theist.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
*there
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Well you'll have to let the atheists answer this one, John (obviously this video is for them) and to do that they'll need to come up with a convincing positive argument for why God doesn't exist. Actually, come to think of it I'm sure Hindus and Bhuddists (if there are any out there) can answer this too. They need to provide convincing arguments for why their belief is true as well as refute yours.
God bless :)
Sophiethefembot 2 years ago
"Well you'll have to let the atheists answer this one, John (obviously this video is for them) and to do that they'll need to come up with a convincing positive argument for why God doesn't exist."
This atheist doesn't care to argue against the existence of God. A weak theist (one who believes in God even though they have no evidence for his existence) is presumably not going to be following insane rules in a 2000 year old book because essentially he is an agnostic.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Omnibenevolent?
aiyakaiya 2 years ago
I wouldn't say it's false I'd say it's unsubstantiated and unjustified.
That said if that was all you believed in regards to theism I wouldn't care.
smpunditz 2 years ago
That said the more I think about it the more I feel the concept of being atemporal and immaterial is likely just not possible. It certainly isn't possible with our minds.
smpunditz 2 years ago
Because a timeless person cannot have a personality.
Scientialist 2 years ago 3
Aside form that, such a being could logically exist, but it could not be responsible for things existing. That is to say it could not be a creator.
If an Eternal Omniscience existed, then absolutely everything in all possible worlds would correspond to a perfect representation in the mind of the Omniscience, having absolutely no difference. The representations would correspond down to it's infinitesimally smallest detail. These representations would exist, eternally, therefore uncreated.
Scientialist 2 years ago
Further, there would be no time for these representations to be duplicated outside the mind of this creator.
Scientialist 2 years ago
Good point. I've never seen anyone make real sense of an atemporal mind.
The best I've seen is the claim that it's not like *our* minds, by which they mean anything at all that might be called a mind.
It's right up there with square circles. (But not *our* circles.)
justicecallicles 2 years ago
a vbl brain teaser
mdean1215 2 years ago
Do you believe in super strings?
strontiumcrypt 2 years ago
Actually, I phrased that wrong. Starting from the bottom up I think that your belief is false because the Old Testament, New Testament and the Koran are all products of human minds and nothing more. The God described in these texts is a character of human invention who's description has been embellished over centuries of theology and apologetics to now resemble the being you believe in. The belief is false as it rests on the assumption that one or more of these texts were more than man made...
strontiumcrypt 2 years ago
Top down if you posit such a being (immaterial yet conscious? timeless? originator of objective values...I have no frame of reference to evaluate this. I don't accept the idea of objective values so I might claim there is a contradiction there.)
Is a belief in string theory false?
strontiumcrypt 2 years ago
Are you using "God was" in a past tense preverb?
Meaning he's neither of these things anymore?
bananabread119 2 years ago
Why do you think your belief is false?
WayOfTheBastard 2 years ago
I dont. Why do you think it IS?
Or do you have no comment about my belief?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Explain why an omnipotent, omniscient, timeless, and omnibenevolent god would create a world where people could actually be separated from him. Such a god would know up front, at the point of creation exactly what his creation would do, for all time, and, if truly omnibenevolent, would create a world where all creatures would somehow find their paths to redemption.
So, if this god exists, then we're all saved, whether we believe or not.
jagmarz 2 years ago
I had just started working on a video response to some random dude, but I'm dropping that in favor of responding to this. School's starting this week though so I might need a few days.
DeathToAmbivalence 2 years ago
Looking forward to it, and thanks for the response kiddo!
vbfl920 2 years ago
Of course you'll never see it because you haven't subscribed to me yet, you slut! D:
DeathToAmbivalence 2 years ago
Ohhhhh my bad!
We'll have to fix that right away!
vbfl920 2 years ago
I pity the fool that ain't s'cribed to me!
DeathToAmbivalence 2 years ago
So let me get this straight.
He's the slut when your the one subwhoring?
smpunditz 2 years ago
Slut is a term of endearment.
DeathToAmbivalence 2 years ago
I don't think vbfl is very receptive to that kind of endearment.
smpunditz 2 years ago
Well, it worked in this case ;)
DeathToAmbivalence 2 years ago
............errrr
If I threaten to unsubscribe will you shut up?
smpunditz 2 years ago
Lol, actually I dont mind.
vbfl920 2 years ago
I wasn't serious anyway.
smpunditz 2 years ago
If you say this creation is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, you have defined it out of existence.
bananabread119 2 years ago
Unpack what you mean.
I said *God* was.
How is my belief false?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Why? You have assumed (seemingly Apriori) that this "does not exist" and as is so unfortunately common.. you've done so without a spec of argument.
. . .
Theologica37 2 years ago
@Theologica37
Ermm because synthetic a priori propositions tell me this.
I don't need a spec of an argument! The burden of proof is on him. I let him slid on this! Gave my objection and ask him to be more concise with his argument.
bananabread119 2 years ago
Synthetic apriori reasoning is metaphysical by necessity so this actually undermines your entire position-- but lets assume I grant this fallacy: You've nonetheless illustrated nothing.
Now, you absolutely do need a spec of argument, you made this claim with respect to those properties: "does not exist". I will not let you cop out of this as most atheists do, you have assumed an apriori negation of these properties without any reason to do so, and unless you have one, I deem it spurious.
Theologica37 2 years ago
@Theologica37
Pshh hahaha! Gimme a sec I got to finish up this paper!
bananabread119 2 years ago
How laughable could it be that I ask you to even in a fundamental way support that argument, as it was overly weighty and most certainly in need of some clarification.
Theologica37 2 years ago
@Theologica37
Ohh you'll see! =P
bananabread119 2 years ago
Ok well, have fun. I would recommend that you really think through your response, this is getting very sloppy. It is standard within epistemological naturalism to deny synthetic apriori reasoning due to the implications it has on the nature of the world, so really be careful in your argumentation.
Perhaps also take some time to think through how you are ready (apart from almost the entire field within the philosophy of religion) to make that sort of claim about the existence of those properties.
Theologica37 2 years ago
@Theologica37
Haha No need to think things through your just lodging bold assertions. 1st of all in my formal objection I never said God doesn't exist. Tho I would say he doesn't exist. I simply stated criticism by mentioning to him, the definition of God he gave. Basically defined it out of existence.
2ndly its not epistemological naturalism I was referring to. We are arguing from a logical positivism.
Continued..
bananabread119 2 years ago
@Theologica37
When I stated to you that "synthetic A priori knowledge" tells me this! I was infact saying that in the branch of metaphysics "God" is not interpretable no logical. Remember Theo37 "metaphysics" is not just the about ontology but also the branches of space and time. But according to your friend vbfl God is spacless and timeless.
This doesn't undermind my argument. It supports it. Your committing to a red herring by saying otherwise.
bananabread119 2 years ago
This is what I was afraid of, you're not actually supporting your assertion here.
Saying that "metaphysics=just space, time" (which is actually false) and therefore "aspatial and atemporal things don't exist" isn't an argument. And you've ignored precisely the nature of synthetic apriori reasoning. I have a video on this if you're interested, but apart from this you really do need to completely rephrase your original assertion. It doesn't even follow with valid logic, much less with soundness.
Theologica37 2 years ago
@Theologica37
Ahh where to I start with you!
Theo37 I never said Metaphysics is JUST space and time. I said it has to do with not just ontology but space and time as well! Pls go read my comment again.
Sigh.. "Synthetic a priori" Would obviously be dependent on how your using it. If you agree with Quine's critique of this! Then we can argue that! But I was drawing from Kant's paradigm of his original distinction.
Continued..
bananabread119 2 years ago
2@Theologica37
As to not argue in a vacuum! Let me try to be more concise.
Synthetic concepts lend to another predication to justify it, but are not contained in the subject concept. Ex: Don is at his house!
Vbfl920 in his video was talking about things that are self evident. Synthetic a priori" are concepts independent of experience. Such as mathmatics! This is my understanding of it.
Now when I mentioned God! From a logical positivist claim. God is not even logical!
Continued..
bananabread119 2 years ago
There is a merely informal atheism, which is the negation of God in terms, but not in reality. A man says, There is no God- that is, there is no God WHO originates in himself, WHO ever was originated, but a God Who always was and has been, who is the cause of existence, who is the MIND and the PROVIDENCE of the Universe, and therefore, the ORDER, BEAUTY, and HARMONY of the world of matter and mind do not indicate any plan or intention of Divinity
Continued...
BeingInTheMessiah 2 years ago
3@Theologica37
Your implicitly engaging in performative contradiction. You have used "synthetic a priori" to attack my position. Yet on the right side denying the meaning of it to defend your own argument.
Borrowing from my world view. Which you haven't even demostrated your own, and why your world view is more sensical? Vbfl seems to think he can make self referential statment's pleading to argument from ignorance.
I ask that you please be more clear on your position.
bananabread119 2 years ago
The qualities of God are recognized, and they affirm HIS existence; it is a mere change of name to call the possessor of these qualities Nature and not God.
Maybe you should think a bit harder about where your rediculous ideology comes from before you start going off on all this stuff when you, much less the trall of brainwashed christians, dont even know WHO God is.
BeingInTheMessiah 2 years ago
Borrowing from your worldview lol.. where Abstract objects are what exactly?!
This is just too funny.
Theologica37 2 years ago
Ok BB, remember you argued that you essentially had a Apriori argument against the existence of God, and that you would appeal to the laws of logic (where-in they would be metaphysical truths) and the synthesis of them using what would be Pure reason, to show that God does not exist.
I know of no atheist philosopher, ever to make this argument, it certainly DOES NOT exist in the (now thoroughly refuted) mainstream school of positivist thought.
So, please provide us with it and prove your claim.
Theologica37 2 years ago
@Theologica37
There is no proof! I'm simply refuting your claim!
bananabread119 2 years ago
@Theologica37
ha I knew I knew you from somewhere. Yes Theo37! I would love nothing more than to have some type of dissertation with you! But from watching DeistPaladin I realize that you are very deceitful, and do not defend your position veraciously!
I thank you for the discussion thus far but do not intend on engaging in anytype of discourse in the future.
Thank you again, emily
bananabread119 2 years ago
Where did I lie to John? Be specific.
John claims because I picked a specific canon of scripture to quote from-- and then quoted it. . .
I did not lie to John, this was one of his many evasion tactics to get out of his inability to answer, I quoted the same translation I always have, and even cited it in the sidebar. He has also failed to even address clear illustrations of the bankruptcy of his philosophical views.
And yes, you've yet given us defense of your original special pleading.
Theologica37 2 years ago
"emily" ?
Theologica37 2 years ago
I'm not saying this to be demeaning, but Emily, or bananabread is a a transexual, so that's why the name is emily.
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago
In short, "emily" you are evading supporting your assertions by quoting johnlarmstrong, who claims I am a liar by his own ignorance to different translations of scripture or for the surrounding verses of passages in Deuteronomy? Are you aware that he directly took his argument from a fundie atheist website? The details and fraudulence of his arguments are both disturbing and embarrassing.
But, do I understand you correctly? You are now opting out of your (what I can tell) unfounded assertions?
Theologica37 2 years ago
But Nature that is powerful, wise, active and good; Nature originated within itself, or perhaps, it always was and has been, the cause of its own existence, the mind of the Universe and its own Providence. Clearly there is a plan and purpose from which proceed order, beauty, and harmony. But this is the plan and purpose of Nature. In such matters the absolute negation of God is only formal and not real.
Continued...
BeingInTheMessiah 2 years ago
Is my belief false or not?
You would need to at least provide some kind of positive arguments as to why it's false.
Care to do so?
vbfl920 2 years ago
@vbfl920
Your belief is illogical! You have not demonstrated otherwise!
bananabread119 2 years ago
Comment removed
Weallfart 2 years ago
Because my definition of omnipotent is different from yours, and my definition of omnipotent is logically contradictory, which makes God logically contradictory.
Jk, but I suspect someone will make this argument if you get enough comments.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Its more or less to get positive atheists to come out and make arguments justifying that NO God exists, including the God I mention in this video.
vbfl920 2 years ago
This is the kind of video I have been wanting someone to make for a long time, I'm ready to see atheist justify their view with arguments.
95TurboSol 2 years ago
Haha, isn't it quite telling that atheists will often resort to the most convoluted justifications for why they don't have to justify their claim that no God exists rather than just presenting a positive argument in support of their own claim?
jemerson85 2 years ago
@jemerson85
Your an idiot!
bananabread119 2 years ago
I like the vids, though could you make them a little longer than 30-45 seconds? ;)
jcrebel18 2 years ago