God, Religion, Fishes and Falsehoods - A Freedomain Radio Listener Question

[charronfamilyconnect]

So I suppose if you dont have any of the 5 senses then you dont exist or existence doesn't exist to you? Maybe in this case you have that 6th sense or should I say the perceiving/intuitive sense. I intuitively sense that there are more dimensions to existence then this one physical plane and that we are not able to sense all existence with a mere 5 senses that humanity has become constrained to in the plane of phsyciality. Too bad this otherwise smart presenter doenst agree.

[TheSteveMedia]

Hey, I'm agnostic but I had a question about your logic in this video. You say consciousness is an effect of matter and cannot exist without matter. Is it also possible that consciousness exists without matter? Where did this assertion come from or were you just behing hypothetical?

[Hashishin13]

@TheSteveMedia Name one instance of conciousness without matter. There is only conciousness in minds.

[TheSteveMedia]

@Hashishin13 From our narrow understanding of reality I will agree that consciousness only exists in matter but it doesn't mean that that is an empirical law of the universe. This is why religion is ridiculous from my perspective...It makes ignorant assertions about reality.

[Hashishin13]

@TheSteveMedia I didn't make any "ignorant assertions", I have been studying this as my hobby my whole life, as a matter of fact, accusing me of not knowing how science works was the real "ignorant assertion" here.

I know science can only prove what it can test, and since there is NOTHING to test here, science can't help. HOWEVER, since science can't help in this arguement then we know we aren't dealing with anything in the real world, as science can test everything in reality.

[TheSteveMedia]

@Hashishin13 Let's make something clear in both of our minds. From my perspective there are two kinds of assertions in reality. 1) Knowledge 2) Belief knowledge is something that comes from science in that it can be shared and regardless of individual biases it is universal. Beliefs are assertions made by individuals based off of their own experiences. The difference between you and I is that my beliefs come from science, and can be substantiated by evidence. Yours cannot.

[Hashishin13]

So you mean fact and belief not knowledge.

Fact:

There is no conciousness outside of matter that has ever been demonstrated to exist

Fact:

If there is no example of something, odds are it doesn't exist. Even if it does it's existence needs to be proven before it can be asserted.

"I will agree that consciousness only exists in matter but it doesn't mean that that is an empirical law of the universe."

So gravity goes one way, and has always done so but that isn't enough to make it a law?

[TheSteveMedia]

@Hashishin13 "If there is no example of something, odds are it doesn't exist."

and that is why i'm agnostic because it is possible but until it is proven, I'm not going to believe in it (or not). Gravity is a theory but the word means different things in different contexts. In science, the word theory is a collective culmination of evidence from different scientific fields that support a single hypothesis. We are still studying and understanding anti-gravity...

[Hashishin13]

@TheSteveMedia Okay so your agnostic to the long list of Greek gods? Thor, Odin? Jehova and Jesus' miracles too then? So when Zeus ejaculated into the ocean and created the god Aphrodite, you weren't there so you aren't going to make a judgement because you think it could have happend, but science hasn't proved it yet? When Moses heard a burning bush talk to him and when the Bible says that God made man from dirt, despite all the evidence for evolution, your agnostic to that too?

[TheSteveMedia]

@Hashishin13 I'm an agnostic atheist. it means I don't claim knowledge of nor do I worship. In regards to Zeus ejaculating into the ocean, there is no scientific evidence that Zeus, or aphrodite, or poseidon, or [insert any god from antiquity here] ever existed. Whatever point you were trying to make wasn't exactly clear to me. What point are you trying to make with your ocean ejaculate metaphor?

[Hashishin13]

@TheSteveMedia My point was that your really not willing to take that tiny step and say, No, Zues didn't exist, and he most definately did not ejaculate into the ocean to create yet another god.

Its kind of strange to say that there is no evidence for this ridiculously absurd claim, but I'm just going to say I dunno. There is such a thing as a reasonable presumption, like against a god, or that insane story.

[TheSteveMedia]

it's really time consuming to combating ignorance, especially stubborn ignorance so consider this my last response...

[Shezmu]

"hearsay from 5000 years ago is not evidence"

Am I a bad person for laughing my butt off at that?

[Danothy03]

(cont) if consciousness isn't an effect of matter then what could the nature of consciousness be? We aren't tempted to assert animals' and insects' consciousnesses come from anything other than matter. Humans only seem special because of our intelligence but that opinion is heavily biased by the fact we are human

[Danothy03]

@memewaryr There may not be PROOF for his assertion but there certainly is strong evidence. As I'm sure u know, no scientific theory is ever proven. It either grows stronger as new evidence accumulates and matches observations, or it's thrown out or tweaked if it doesn't match observations. In this sense his assertion isn't any more absurd than saying gravity is an effect of matter

[humacyrnus]

Continuing: There are possibly things that we have no way of currently detecting with out physical senses nor our insterments. Just because we can not currently detect something, does not prove or disprove its existence, but rather shows that we are not capable of detecting this currently. As our knowledge and ability increase so will what we know to exist and not to exist. So we simply do not know what may exist that we can not currently detect untill we develop different methods.

[humacyrnus]

I can barely understand the guy on the phone. I can hear like every 4 words.. IMO, though, this is all based on what we are able to currently percieve. There exists the posibility for things that we are unable to detect with our senses, bearing this in mind it is arrogant to assume that we are the end - all - be - all knowledge and ability to detect other 'things'. For isntance, there are many things that we can prove exist through clever tactics but can not percieve otherwise.

[memewaryr]

How can you assert with any certainty that consciousness is an effect of physical matter?

[Danothy03]

@memewaryr

We have no experience with any consciousness that is not the by-product of physical matter. We know that if we remove someone's brain or destroy it they cease to be conscious. We know if we alter the brain or damage it, this also alters the person's consciousness, usually in the form of some sort of mental disorder or retardation. The link between physical matter and consciousness is undeniable.

[Danothy03]

We are as certain that consciousness is an effect of matter as we are of anything else in science. If it's not the effect of physical matter then this would imply either non-physical matter (?) or some supernatural force, both of which cannot be detected and are indistinguishable from non-existence. Therefore, to argue for such things is would be merely blind assertion.

[memewaryr]

@Danothy03 Correlation does not imply causation. Until someone can prove HOW the brain gives rise to consciousness the supposition that it is an effect of matter is no more satisfactory than any of the fanciful explanations provided by religion.

[Danothy03]

@memewaryr

It's supported by experiment. It's possible some sort of a soul could be responsible, just like it's possible gravity is an effect of angels pulling us down to the earth, but the theories make more sense without these supernatural "explanations." Plus, if a soul is what gives someone their personality, then why can't brain damage victims retain their original personality? Personality comes from the brain and not from a soul otherwise the soul could override the personality change.

[memewaryr]

@Danothy03 I didn't say anything about the soul. I'm not interested in advocating one possibility over another. My point is that asserting certainty where there is none is disingenuous. I like stefbot, but I as an empiricist I think he gets a little sloppy when he starts asserting some of his positions as irrefutable fact. I don't question that there is evidence that suggests he's right, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no proof that consciousness is an effect of matter.

[ProfessorPEARL]

@memewaryr

Very quickly,

The fact, there has never been credible documentation of a consciousness existing outside of existence, and the subsequent factual statement, no test can be made of what does not exist, really does not provide enough basis for you to know (with as much certainty as one can know anything) consciousness to be an effect of matter?

There exists no PROOF ones next step will be effected by gravity, should one doubt their next step?

[memewaryr]

@ProfessorPEARL You'll have to forgive me for the cliche, but comparing gravity and consciousness is like comparing apples and oranges. Gravity has a MEASURABLE effect, whereas consciousness does not.

[ProfessorPEARL]

@memewaryr

Brain scans are directly effected by consciousness.

Should one doubt their next step?

[memewaryr]

@ProfessorPEARL Neuroimaging can be used to detect activity in the brain, but whether that activity equates to consciousness is pure conjecture on your part. We can and have performed "brain scans" on a number of animal species as well and detected similar activity in their brains, yet none of have been shown to exhibit the kind of self aware consciousness that human beings possess.

[ProfessorPEARL]

@memewaryr

When elation, depression, fear or many other emotions are being felt a subject's brain lights up in certain specific areas. Activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex is diminished in scans of depressed subjects. The anterior cingulate cortex lights up with negative emotions. We who are involved in the various fields of behavioral science (psychology in my case), know many chemicals that create emotion; dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, acetylcholine, norepinephrine etcetera.

1/?

[ProfessorPEARL]

@memewaryr

When imaging we've used various techniques to understand what facilitates the release & manufacture of these chemicals.

An easy test of cognition is simply thinking about a future occurrence, & measuring what areas light up, what chemicals are released & the specific type of stimuli. We can predict the local & the main chemicals of various cognitive processes. This means the mind is projecting; it is conscious of its presupposed reaction. It believes it should feel a certain way.

2/?

[ProfessorPEARL]

@memewaryr

The reaction to rape imagery in the mind of psychopaths when compared to non-psychopaths is another known expression of cognitive awareness. This is not guess work. It is empirical, factual, & demonstrably predictable.

As scientist, we are constantly testing the evidence with which we make theory; in this way our theories remain on the cutting edge of knowable reality.

Gravity worked for my last thousand footsteps, I have no reason to believe it will fail me in my next step.

3/3

[memewaryr]

@ProfessorPEARL Before I reply in full to your most recent response I would like as you a question in order to clarify something. I get the impression that you perceive the mind/brain relationship to be analogous to software (mind) that runs on hardware (brain), is this correct? 1/2

[memewaryr]

@ProfessorPEARL Also, I get your little quip about gravity. It's not necessary to continually beat me over the head with. I don't feel that it really adds anything substantive to our dialogue either as I'm not really interested to reducing our arguments to such overly simplistic terms. If you're not interested in having a mutually respectful conversation then we should agree to part ways now, agreed? 2/2

[ifreemantoo]

I'm still waiting to hear from Stefbot for an answer to, 'where does 'morality' come from other than the thinking of men to their most common conclusion of 'just because'?

Regardless of belief in a Creator of or in atheism isn't the real problem people? I come to many of the conclusions that Stef does without having blame atheists specifically for the problems of people.

I'm surprised that a man so gifted with communication that he can't speak in a way that lessens the 'Us agin' Them' crap.

[stefbot]

An excellent question, I have a free book on my website called Universally Preferable Behavior: a Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, which is I think a very compelling argument for where morality comes from, without gods or governments...

[ifreemantoo]

@stefbot Well I've gleaned a little & now I've read through pg 10 'ground rules'. Is that like 'rules in a knife fight'? I'm having a hard time with words like: theory, instinctively, intuition and even murder.

Instinctively & by a personal sense of intuition I have a theory that basic right & wrong were written in the hearts of people by a Creator. Right now I see your book as UPB: Just Because. I'm only on pg 10 out of 137, so I could be wrong at the end of the day.

I'll let you know.

[ifreemantoo]

@stefbot I got drawn back here & I rather not "argue"; that's what lawyers do, argue their truth to the point of view of a paying client. UPB is just someone's good intentions. Universally would not be everyone. It would be those that think they know better followed by sheeple that can't think for themselves. Preferable to the same & not everyone. Rational is like the word "reasonable" in an insurance contract; once again "rational" to whom.

NO ROOT. It's the same old game; different spin.

[herpiethelovebug]

@ifreemantoo Morality comes from your culture. For instance, If you where born in a tribe of head hunters, and had 10 heads on your wall, and I came and said, "that's horrible, doesn't that upset you? You would reply " Of course, my brother has 20"

Get it?

[ifreemantoo]

@herpiethelovebug I think that most people use morality as they do any other political tool. So where does right and wrong come from? If it comes from people, isn't that the same as morality? Isn't a head hunter's justification for murder a "right" based on the fact that his "culture agrees? Isn't that the exact same thing you're doing? You don't have a root or basis for believing what you do except you have enough who just simply agree with you. Political evolution is all you're about.

[herpiethelovebug]

@ifreemantoo Well, I'm not sure if your disagreeing with me or not :) But you are right, it is a political tool. And a religious tool. An educational tool, and so on. I'm just saying it is culturally induced, from what ever culture you are raised in. There are other factors for sure, but largely, that seems to be how they are formed.

[ifreemantoo]

@herpiethelovebug You do know that Stefbot's premise is based on a human conclusion or evolution. Steph's point of view not mine. It is no different than typical religious or political pandering. The reason for his ideal society is because people can't treat each other as the should. But, societal engineers just protect a thinking or ideology of those designing such society and their sheeple. Even the most fair society becomes the political opportunity for mischief.

[ifreemantoo]

@herpiethelovebug BTW is would seem that your premise for right and wrong is based on evolving consensus. So how would that make you really any different than a cannibal? Wouldn't that difference be purely just a different consensus?

If that's what right or wrong is about or without root as to right or wrong, then there really can be no right or wrong, but just a defensive tool to prolong existence for the weaker of the species & tools used by strong to keep it civil with less personal risk.

[daizee106]

Why is this even an argument. Believe what you want and do not try to convince anyone else what you believe is true.

[clemonsx90]

I shall continue believing otherwise - despite your attempt to convince me.

[1voluntaryist]

@daizee106 I could care less what anyone else believes if they would leave me alone. The problem is: Theists won't leave others alone. Atheists have to argue in self defense.

[daizee106]

bullshit. atheism is a religion and a zealous one at that.

[1voluntaryist]

@daizee106 Define what you call "religion". One can believe in god without following a religion, so even a theist can reject religion. Explain how rejection of the concept to "god" is a religion.

[Danothy03]

@daizee106

If atheism is a religion then so is not believing in Islam. Accorfding to your logic, u and I follow hundreds of thousands of religions. We follow the religion of not believing in Hinduism, Mormonism, Scientology, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, and so on, each non-belief a religion in itself. This, of course, is absurd. However, if this is not the way you're defining religion then i'd be curious to know how atheims qualifies as a religion according to u.

[daizee106]

@Danothy03 I was referring to the over zealous atheists that attack the Christians and belittle them for their beliefs. I have nothing against or for them. I have my own personal beliefs and feel I have no right or invitation to shove them down anyones throat. I see your point, however, there are alot of atheists who act as if it were its own religion,

[Danothy03]

I understand. I personally prefer not to attack people's beliefs but explain why I believe what I believe and why I disagree w/opponents' beliefs. Most of the time, unfortunately, this entails pointing out flaws in their beliefs/arguments. Some go about this respectfully. Others take a more humorous and even belittling approach. Both are effective, but, the latter may sound mean-spirited. Atheists in general are concerned about truth and I see how our zealotry may resemble that of a religion.

[dkleitsch]

Deaf people have no problem dancing to the music they can't hear.

They can feel the beat, and follow the flashing light show.

[BagOfEyebrows]

does gravity have a conscience? Does gravity exist?

[RLore18]

"Because you can't prove it, God may still exist."

Is that really a reason to obey all of organized religion's commands, just because god MAY or MAY NOT exist?

[nylonbill]

nice job, this argument was insufferable!!

[twistedbydsign99]

poor kid, his family abuses him with half truths.

[Cailwyn]

Wu Tang shout out!!

[MrMoodang]

stefbot: Are you a Positivist?

[PaperSoapy]

Ruebens tube would probably also be a good way to translate sound.

[nanciqwerty]

Excellent clarity, as usual :-)

[1schwererziehbar1]

i'm a subscriber and i favorite like every second video. but this video is totally uninteresting for me. i stopped watching after 10 minutes.

[stefbot]

@1schwererziehbar1 Thanks for the feedback, I agree that it is not particularly visual... :)

[DCLugi]

Hey Steffo. I'm reading UPB for the second time. First go around I found myself laser honed in on "what" you were saying. This second pass has me impressed with "how" it is written. It's like healthy food that tastes pretty good too. Just thought I'd throw you some jellies (I don't like Kudos)

[rivenrock]

His analogy was flawed, but the basic point he was making had merit. It is possible that god could exist and still be beyond our perception. I think the important follow-on question, however, is: if god exists beyond our perception, then how is god in any way relevant? If I cannot perceive god - do not have any sound way to discern his existence - then why should I care if it's true or not? And even if I did, why should I believe any particular interpretation of that imperceptible god?

[Enleuk]

very nice, would have like to hear more about the vanishing god though, although it too falls under the same category of epistemology; if its completely hidden we have no reason to assume its existence. well, it was a good listen anyway

[broeman]

I always found it curious that the socialist "atheists" in my country (Denmark) almost always stand by the state church. But the more I think about it, it is because both believe in relativism. "It doesn't matter if it doesn't exist, we must believe in something" ... like the virtue in the welfare state?

[Zerafinel]

This argument actually did influence my thinking for a very long time. But then I realized something. I've already accepted evolution and I have great respect and admiration for the process that has produced all these amazing lifeforms, and given them the best it could for them to survive. So, if evolution has created eyes and ears and all these organs to be able to take in vital information about the world, why would it miss such an important sense organ as the one detecting "god"?

[newperve]

Well is that an important sense organ? What does knowing where God is get you if God is omnipresent? Even if he isn't is it beneficial to an organism to avoid or approach God? Since He has a Divine Plan (from the French meaning "Plan made under the influence of wine") anything the organism does will not affect is already included in the DP. Divine Plan that is I'm not saying that God had anything to do with animals and double penetration. Although he did make bonobos.

[TruthSurge]

Since they have no evidence, they have to resort to the "you can't show there is no supernatural realm" slant. But I can disprove the Christian god. I can't disprove ALL gods but lucky for me, I don't have to. The only one that is causing havoc on our planet is Yahweh/Jehovah/El/Allah. And this god can be disproved IF the believer can be first nailed down to agreeing on the attributes and past actions of said god.

[bammbamm12]

To say that people in the ancient world were fundamentally insane is a sure sign that this guy is a phony and uses logic to plea bargain with his guilty conscience.

[nexalacer]

Red herring.

[bammbamm12]

It's easy enough to read the state of this guy's soul.

[drew335533]

Windows are a structural weakness. Don't use them.

[bawokoroma]

lmfao 5 star just for the wu tang clan reference.

[christopher81818]

Ideology of any kind whether it's a "workers paradise" or Yahweh's "Heaven", or anything else in between is utimately a denial of reality. Those that espouse "the ends justify the means" which usually means torturing and killing people are missing the reality that people don't like being tortured and killed and will do what they can to stop it, is precisely why it's doomed to fail. Ideology is just butting your forehead against the wall of reality saying "Any minute now it's gonna come down."

[iamacyborg]

Stef - do you ever watch SMBC? Their take on the immorality of the Christian God is like something straight out of one of your podcasts.

watch?v=x-d7Wof8QtY

[subjer0]

If you look at quantum physics, at the atomic level, logic breaks down.

And I've heard from quantum physicist, that if you zoom in, sooner or later the atom will disappear and you will see through the other side.

Can anyone really fathom this? That everything is made out of energy. Atoms, the building blocks of matter, is energy.

[DCLugi]

Interesting but nothing to do with any proclaimed god.

[bigleady]

err no it doesnt, hard mathematical determinism for single events is gone, but the outcomes are still logically bound.

Also the second statement is silly, at the scale that an atom "disappears" you are already beyond the point that "sight" with its annoying dependency on photon wavelengths is a meaningless concept.

[wizkid2000]

wow Stef I'm a big fan... but I got to say I'm disappointed by your lack of logic in this video.

[stefbot]

@wizkid2000 I must say that I'm even more disappointed by your lack of evidence for your assertion...

[wizkid2000]

I'm still kind of blinking in astonishment... perhaps you can reevaluate your video and find fault in your own argument.

[pink3y]

Yeah, how dare he not believe in invisible beings.

[Bristecom]

Stef, with all due respect, saying, Of all religious writings in history, not one scrap of one sentence is a fact that was not commonly available at the time implies that you have carefully looked over all religious writings. That statement is simply not true. Let me give you a couple of examples with my limited knowledge of history.

[Bristecom]

Yahweh told the Isrealites to do many things that were not understood until much later such as washing their hands to keep them healthy. The Sumerians made accurate diagrams of our solar system including pluto which wasn't discovered until recently. They claim they gained their great knowledge from giant beings from another realm (Anunnaki). There are also structures we cannot recreate today without advanced tools. It seems their intelligence wasnt so limited back then as we'd like to think...

[Bristecom]

I love how you guys just poo-poo my comments without even bothering to check for their authenticity. You just assume it's untrue because it contradicts what Stef says and your contemporary views. With that way of thinking, you'll never find truth.

[DCLugi]

Perhaps more accurate to say that it is "believed" that Yahweh told the Isrealites to do many things that were not understood until much later such as washing their hands to keep them healthy.

[Bristecom]

Well we can't verify that a God told them these things but we can verify that these commandments were given at a time before bacteria and micro-organisms were understood.

[DCLugi]

Interesting indeed. Animals wash their hands too. Instinct?

[Bristecom]

Well it wasn't common practice back then amongst men as far as we know. But that's just one example. There were other interesting laws given such as not eating certain animals which we now know can possess parasites and disease.

[easylyt]

The reason deaf people know there is sound is because the overwhelming majority of people can hear sound.

Anbody that tells you they have seen god is lying,nobody has seen god,nobody can prove he exists,that why it's called 'faith'.God only exists because beleive he does.

It's true that i can't prove that god does not exist ,but then i cant prove three headed horses exist either.But if i told you 3 headed horses exist you would want proof,would you not?

[stefbot]

@easylyt three headed horses are not self-contradictory in nature

[gosmokesome]

Well the thing is some freak of nature three headed horse could possiby be born, probably wouldnt live very long. But intersecting paralel lines can not exist ever. They can intersect OR be paralel. god would not be god if not for ceratin godlike attributes that would contradict eachother.

[easylyt]

My point was that you can't prove something exists just because you can't prove it does'nt.

My reply was meant to be to the guy asking for proof that god does not exist ,when there is no proof,but then theres absolutlely no proof he does exist either.the burden of proof should be with the people saying he does exist ,not the people saying he does not.

[99minerkc]

@easylyt , Isn't the burden of proof on the person making the claim? I mean, to say there's no god when nobody know for sure would require the person to prove there's no god!

[easylyt]

@99minerkc ,Thats the thing,nobody does know for sure.God only exists because people beleive he exists.

The very fact that theres no proof that god exists is proof he does not exist.

It's like me telling you that Wizards are real,then asking you to prove they're not after you call me an idiot.

[99minerkc]

"The very fact that theres no proof that god exists is proof he does not exist." I don't buy this statement. I would simply say to someone, we can neither prove or disprove the existence of a god at this time and to believe in a god is faith based!

[Bloodaxe1890]

@99minerkc Faith is only in your head. A unicorn is also only in your head, so you say that a unicorn exists cause you have faith in it?

[99minerkc]

Yeah-whatever!

[cheekieweekie]

There is consciousness without matter - all the logical tree based on that mistake is false. When you watch a CCTV camera pointed at nature where there are no observers; you are not present; nor are your electrons - yet you are conscious of the place the camera is pointed at. Consciousness is beyond matter, not constrained by it.

[Agitpropist]

You are conscious of the mechanical representation of that area, not the area itself; although the representation is astoundingly accurate. You are conscious of the light coming out of the screen; the light was transmitted either by wire or radio; matter and energy were involved throughout the whole transaction.

[cheekieweekie]

But i am conscious of the place the camera is focused on - i can *feel* it, as much as i can feel the expression of a person when their face smiles on the "mechanical screen". There is an empathy of consciousness that transcends the medium; and when we're dialed in, we feel like we've actually met, when in fact, it was only ever words and mecanics. Either the meeting and the love are a lie, or the mechanics a short explanation for the profundity of awareness.

[DCLugi]

I think the images from the screen trigger memories of previous knowledge/experience of similar events. If I watch an old movie shot in a time before I was born I may "feel" connected to it but it's not the same as existing at that time.

[bwelkk]

This kid is a really shitty devil's advocate.

[EdgeMugga]

Belief isn't a valid means of perception, any more than feelings are a valid means of cognition. Once this is realized, there really isn't any argument on the matter. As my woman said recently when derailing an increasingly forceful argument between two friends, one being rational, the other not so much: ... when you continue to argue with someone who is clearly being irrational, it makes it increasingly difficult for onlookers to tell just who is being irrational.

[CosmicBoss2]

I do not appreciate the use of mathematical terms by both participants. Mathematical objects do not exist (i.e. they are not composed of matter and/or energy)! Please, stop throwing mathematical terms around if you do not know their definitions. For example, a 2D circle in the supremum norm really is a square.

There is also no mathematical proof of any physical equation. These equations are not mathematical results! They are results of physics and their "proof" is experimental validation.

[CosmicBoss2]

Those, who think otherwise, will be widely considered insane in the future. LOL

[stefbot]

@CosmicBoss2 Before experimentation, physics equations are generally checked for consistency and logic.

[MisterC0]

I do not appreciate the use of mathematical terms by CosmicBoss2.  Geometrical discussions are usually Euclidean (i.e. they are not using noneuclidean norms). Please, stop throwing mathematical terms around if they're part of irrelevant and very obviously incorrect rebuttals.

[CosmicBoss2]

Sorry for hurting the feelings of MisterC0! I am not usual at geometrical discussions, so the example was not obvious to me.

I still stand by my evaluation: mathematical terms were used incorrectly in the video.

[CosmicBoss2]

Here is how to prove the non existence of god:

1) agree on definitions and relations between them;

2) assume that a properly defined god exists;

3) come to a logical contradiction between (1) and (2).

[Zorn101]

Can the Atoms in the in an Antelope and a soap bubble be the same?

[alique087]

Wow. Here we go again. This god(s) thing is just a joke. Notice how they always mention the christian god and no other.

[screenflicker1]

@alique087 he talks about god as consciousness which is the god in eastern religions

[kolomgorov]

Where can I find these proofs that God doesn't exist?

[kolomgorov]

I notice I got some thumbs down. I wasn't acting incredulous. I'm an atheist. I actually want to see the proofs Stef is talking about so I can read them.

[Kawlinz]

I'm pretty sure it's regarding the idea that something that has contradictory properties can not exist. If I say X is completely red, and completely blue (at the same time), does X exist?

[easylyt]

The reason deaf people know there is sound is because the overwhelming majority of people can hear sound.

Anbody that tells you they have seen god is lying,nobody has seen god,nobody can prove he exists,that why it's called 'faith'.God only exists because beleive he does.

It's true that i can't prove that god does not exist ,but then i cant prove three headed horses exist either.But if i told you 3 headed horses exist you would want proof,would you not?

[easylyt]

The reason deaf people know there is sound is because the overwhelming majority of people can hear sound.

Anbody that tells you they have seen god is lying,nobody has seen god,nobody can prove he exists,that why it's called 'faith'.God only exists because beleive he does.

It's true that i can't prove that god does not exist ,but then i cant prove three headed horses exist either.But if i told you 3 headed horses exist you would want proof,would you not?

[easylyt]

The reason deaf people know there is sound is because the overwhelming majority of people can hear sound.

Anbody that tells you they have seen god is lying,nobody has seen god,nobody can prove he exists,that why it's called 'faith'.God only exists because beleive he does.

It's true that i can't prove that god does not exist ,but then i cant prove three headed horses exist either.But if i told you 3 headed horses exist you would want proof,would you not?

[easylyt]

The reason deaf people know there is sound is because the overwhelming majority of people can hear sound.

Anbody that tells you they have seen god is lying,nobody has seen god,nobody can prove he exists,that why it's called 'faith'.God only exists because beleive he does.

It's true that i can't prove that god does not exist ,but then i cant prove three headed horses exist either.But if i told you 3 headed horses exist you would want proof,would you not?

[easylyt]

The reason deaf people know there is sound is because the overwhelming majority of people can hear sound.

Anbody that tells you they have seen god is lying,nobody has seen god,nobody can prove he exists,that why it's called 'faith'.God only exists because beleive he does.

It's true that i can't prove that god does not exist ,but then i cant prove three headed horses exist either.But if i told you 3 headed horses exist you would want proof,would you not?

[easylyt]

The reason deaf people know there is sound is because the overwhelming majority of people can hear sound.

Anbody that tells you they have seen god is lying,nobody has seen god,nobody can prove he exists,that why it's called 'faith'.God only exists because beleive he does.

It's true that i can't prove that god does not exist ,but then i cant prove three headed horses exist either.But if i told you 3 headed horses exist you would want proof,would you not?

[stefbot]

I posted them as a video response...

[PsyogiBottoms]

Pediatric AIDS For one.

[StrafingMoose]

@kolomgorov

Being that I can't see, smell or touch "God", someone needs to make a pretty darn good case (ie: burden of proof) that it exists, even the moreso if "it" created the universe...

[pink3y]

You don't prove a negative, this would be a contradiction.

[therealbombassa]

indeed

[GodOfTheInternets]

In my ass. Also, where can I find proof that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

[torq21]

Stef,

Thank you for another video. I appreciate the message that you are trying to get across here and I think it is a very important one. I do wish that you could re record your answers with more focus. It was quite difficult for me to follow many of your trains of thought. Anyway, thanks for all your hard work.

[sharperguy]

I have to say I was quite impressed with the success of this conversation. Myself and other people on the chat room were debating with him about an hour before the show and although he was trying to be open to our ideas the conversation still eventually went in circles.

[robzrob]

Seen this, Libertopians?

/watch?v=J62cadk9b4I&feature=s­ub

[brokenbrainz1]

Go troll somewhere else you commie.

[robzrob]

I'm not a troll nor a commie, I was drawing Stefbot fans' attention to something interesting - you twat.

[hughtub]

If scientific explanations known today were shown to religious people in the medieval ages, they'd perhaps immediately give up belief in gods. It seems like people believe in gods as a shortcut to success; not being able to succeed in this life, they think they can bypass it to gain wealth (pearl gates, streets of gold) in heaven. Religion offers the believer a quality life... only after it is objectively gone.

[tpsisokayiguess]

Who cares for god anymore?

[foolcow1976]

The overwhelming majority of people, from what I understand.

[ChoasTheory2000]

Is he arguing on behalf of his grandfather or himself?

[D3mi4n]

it sounds like he's doing it for himself.

Didn't he said "my uncle" at some point?

[MaikUniversum]

appeal to "science doesn't know everything." and "god of the gaps" theory. Of course science doesn't know everything and will NEVER know everything. But that doesn't mean that if something is unknown then the cause is God. That's very lame argument from ignorance and many believers keep repeating it over and over.

[hughtub]

@MaikUniversum Religous belief is essentially the belief that there's another reality out there, and that longing for another reality probably comes from a pscyhological need that is unmet in their current life, so they end up living a sort of zombie-like half alive/half dead existence. They live, but don't really mind if they die since death will bring them to the other reality, and they base this off of 3rd party testimony of impossible events thousands of years ago. SAD!

[tob1203]

FIRST!!!!

[bozeman14]

even if i give you a blank slate - which absolutely nothing exists( and at this point we can not explain how this happened) how does this turn into an interested god?

religion is a longing for immortality. hell, i wish i could exist forever; but either i believe that neither matter/energy is created nor destroyed it is just transformed into an increasing universe - if this is immortality then it is not what the religious would expect.