... but whoever claimed that naturalism is rational, it is not, it is rather an implication from feeling (proper sensible) and affection and therefore not logically necessary ... naturalism is a religion for the godless and nothing more
@drcraigvideos You sure do get a lot of 'crap' for not letting anyone comment on these uploads. I've seen where you block commenting. Kudos. But here you are slapping all your detractors with a big wet fish across their faces. Hardly keeps 'em quiet for a moment I bet.
sorry if i do not understand the argument, but if our minds came from evolution would not the cases of the mind being right come out as the one that survives and gets to reproduce, which must lead to morals, ideas and ways of living that are the right ways, after all is not mankind going through an evolution at the moment with the arab spring and the protests all over the west, where people are trying to change things for the better. surely knowing you are right is better than believing you are
@333derick333 Evolution tests for behavior not for intentions. The same behavior can come from different human thoughts, and different behavior can come from the same human thoughts. "Intentions can and do modify the brain over time" < xianphil.org Testing Causal Closure.
@shizzleman8 thanks for the link, but surely intentions of a large amount of people to change behavior will if successful change that behavior. if you take the race issue as example, once it was right for me as white man to make jokes about the other races now most of us know it is morally wrong to do so. in the 70s we would relay the jokes on tv in the school yard. now the intentions of the activists have changed our behavior and the way we think. unless it is a case of 'we know no better'
well our thinking minds are an adaptation for survival because it helped us work out how to make and use tools, share knowledge and experiences to one another. Knowledge is power, this is why human beings are the most successful species on the planet, because we think further and beyond. Hopefully we'll work out how to survive the death of our planet.
@RelativelyHostile1 We're a 'keystone species' not the most 'successful', that would belong to bacteria, sharks, and alligators. Kamodo Dragons! Me thinks you're interchanging the word 'mind' with 'brain'. If you're a naturalist you only have one without the other, and that leaves you without intentions unless you follow Dawkins 'Selfish Gene' or Dennett's 'Intentional Stance', in which case you're back on board! Bon voyage! I recommend Chalmer's The Conscious Mind, but I haven't read it.
@wildanS I bet you'd like dfpolis #21 The Two Subsystem Mind.
An introduction to the two subsystem theory of mind. Why physical science misses intentional acts. Dennett and the falsification of naturalism. There is a neurophysiological subsystem for data processing, and an intentional subsystem responsible for awareness and willing. Only such a model is adequate to all the available data. [Introspection] Search me O God and know my thoughts, try me and see if there be any wicked way in me
When you think you are not evolving. By the stage that religion started to come into prominence humans had a relatively easy life compared to their ancestors. This allowed us to devote time to other things such as art, cooking, the art of warfare, invention and also religion. Apart from the fact that it is due to evolution that we have such a large brain that gives us the mental capacity to do these things this argument has nothing to do with `naturalism`.
@rhyscw01 Evolution has targets. Means are prepared in advance of ends. Once targets are met evolution ceases. Check out dfpolis #22 The Mind Body Problem
The two subsystem mind controls physical acts by intentional acts. Because the laws of nature are not material, but intentional, they can be modified by human intent. Experimental data on psychokinesis confirms this beyond a rational doubt. [Psychokinesis] [It has everything to do with 'naturalism' because it 'disspells' it]
Atheists really do believe in God or they wouldn't spend so much time making noise about and struggling with that issue. It takes a great deal of energy to keep yourself convinced God really doesn't exist. Our minds fight back when you force a lie like that upon them.
Even dawkins had to write a book and make a big stink because he knows his chosen profession loses a huge portion of glory if he has to give credit to God. So he goes around fighting the truth knowing he's lying through his teeth.
@AtheistSpanker No. I would say the reason people write books and discuss religion (besides the fact that it is an interesting and far reaching topic) is that the religious will, as a result of their faith, often try to get laws passed, be sickeningly homophobic and cause a myriad of other social problems that non believers find unacceptable. If the religious stopped doing these things I'm sure there would be a much smaller backlash and much more civilized discussion.
@Hobo7o No, they are not born as "Christians", he mis-stated it, but anyways, they are born following Christian values and/or the ignorance of what evil is or that they are doing it. They are simple, curious, and innocent. Three of the main ideas Christians are to strive for.
it's interesting when talking to an atheist when the discussion of God comes up. It is sad and very typical. Starts off with "there is no God" and they cannot disprove that. Then it leads into evolution. When you bring up that there is insufficient proof and they are following theories, they respond with Bible portions of death and disease. Then you go into sin and the ongoing battle with Satan and they go back to the beginning "there is no God". I find the atheist mind to be missing something..
@mh11952 I guess you have been arguing with pretty stupid atheists. As you say, we can´t disprove god, neither can you prove that he exists. I can say that there exists a dog with 500 million heads and a unicorn riding it, you can´t disprove that, neither can I prove it.
What we do know is that god contradicts the laws of physics, these laws have never been disproved.
I can support my statements by simple mathematics and physics. You can´t support your statement that god exists.
@AllNames "These laws have never been disproved." True! You speak of the laws, disproving your theory could have ever began, as if it proves that God does not exist? Produce your Math and Physics that we all know disproves your theory but proves nothing about God either positive or negative.
The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis disprove the unnatural (evolution theory) because they are natural laws but they do not pertain to the supernatural (God).
@jlroberts9914 First explain how the laws of thermodynamics disprove evolution. Every time I heave heard someone use the laws of thermodynamics to try and disprove evolution they seem like absolute idiots. Second, the law of biogenesis only referred to the notion that maggots, fleas, other pests, etc spontaneously generated. It didn't suggest whether, or not, life could have arisen through natural means.
@LemUUU Usually they say something like that on the grounds of the 2nd law; that in a closed system entropy tends to increase. But the objection fails on 2 points.
1. The planet is not a closed system; we receive copious amounts of external energy from the Sun.
2. In theory isolated decreases in entropy can occur within a system, even though the total entropy of the system is tending toward increased entropy.
It is a distortion of evolutionary theory to say that beliefs as abstract as meta-philosophy would be selected for their survival value. Also, if this argument were logical within the bounds of evolution (which it is not) it would simply show that both arguments might be crap within a naturalist viewpoint, and in doing so take a rather bold stance against the ability of humans to use rational inquiry in deciding which is more likely true.
You trust the rules that the monkey slowly discovers, that show the monkey that small steps do lead to answers. You trust that knowledge built on bricks of knowledge is the way to move forward and understand the monkey's position in the universe, never forgetting that the monkey is easily tricked. So you test, and re-test. Reaffirm the conclusions that got the monkey here and re-test the suppositions that lead to those conclusions.
You can't trust a monkey's brain. They can be tricked into false arguments and into seeing the world for what it looks like rather than what it is. A monkey looks for patterns where there are none and can be tricked to bow before a display of strength, real or imagined. The monkey's brain is subject to logical fallacies like "the Texas sharpshooter" or "The Straw Man" or even "Affirming the consequent." No, you can't trust a monkey's brain. You trust the evidence of the universe around it
@ikawpipa Why? "Survival of the fittest" makes sense. A belief in the afterlife is just a BELIEF, it's something you can be about 99% sure on, but never 100%, real life however is 100% sure, that is why us atheists focus on improving on what we know for SURE is absolute (i.e., real life). Us humans are pack animals, wel live in groups, and so one way of our survival is to reinforce our pack (i.e. improving industries etc), wich would make us very fitting to society aswell as nature.
"Religion is a by product of what naturally occurs"
Did you even watch the video? As Dr. Craig points out, this argument is self-refuting: perhaps your ideas are simply the result of evolution and aren't correct.
"God probably isn't real"
Do you have evidence for this, or are you simply repeating Atheist dogma that you got from Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion".
Watch more Dr. Craig videos: it appears that God probably does exist.
Question 1: Who can trust better what they think and consider that what they think has more probability to be near the truth? Is the one who is stupid or the one who is intelligent? Probably the intelligent one.
The go to read the study of Lynn Harvey and Nyborg (2009), who showed in a cross national data that intelligence is correlated with atheism: the more people are intelligent and the more they are atheist. Or if you prefer, the more they are stupid and the more they are believers.
They believe their minds are given by God, and that God is good and would never deceive them. But how do they know God is good? Their minds tell them so. Could it be that God is actually evil, and merely deceiving them into thinking he is good?
The fact that the technology to post this video works supports the truth of naturalistic science. The fact that there exists so much needless suffering points to God being evil.
@IseeRightThrough2you Your argument is based on semantics, whether what we call good is ACTUALLY good. This is a meaningless question, if it were taken seriously, as it violates the law of identity.
The second fallacy you commit is begging the question, as you gratuitously take the success of science to be that of "naturalistic" science, but science is neutral when it comes to God's existence or not. How does my use of Youtube disprove the existence of God?
@IseeRightThrough2you The needless suffering in the world points to the sins of humanity. Christians trust God because they know him personally; for the same reason that people trust their close family and friends.
The ability to create technology points to God. The existence of a world in which premises and conclusions can be reached based on order and predictability point towards a Creator God.
@IseeRightThrough2you what would be more evil God controlling your every thought and action, or God allowing you to choose what you want to do? Last I check and I even think you'd agree with is God controlling your every thought and action. But then again as for you being an atheist you don't believe in evil now do you? Morals are subjective according to you, so how can you make the claim then that God is being evil? You're being dishonest in your worldview my friend.
@IseeRightThrough2you Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father‘?"
No, I see right thru you! You're using an example of operational science to prove that origins science is accurate and trustworthy. Wrong. Operational science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while in origins science, we make educated GUESSES about the unobservable unrepeatable past. It's not nearly as precise or dependable. Christians do normal science as well as any atheist and we have no problem with it.
@IseeRightThrough2you No, sir, Christians don't believe God is good because their minds tell them so; they believe God is good because the Bible, which is God's Word, tells them that he is. Although their minds are a gift from God, Christians are commanded in the Bible not to trust their hearts, but rather God's Word which is a faithful guide in life. And the fact that suffering exist doesn't make God evil. Why don't you say God is good because their happiness in the world? Both can't be true.
@luis204118 first off, if god is deceiving you then he would be doing it THROUGH his WORD (The Bible as you claim) so your argument doesn't hold up. Moreover, how do you know it's the word of god? Cuz it says so? It seems you're trying to defend your circular reasoning with another circular reasoning.
So basically William Lane Craig is saying that if you're a naturalist then ultimately everything you believe is instinctively for survival reasons and thus the only reason you would believe in naturalism is for survival reasons as well ultimately making your brain unreliable. It took me a while to wrap my head around this, but I think I get it now haha
I bet someones already said this but it's worth repeating. Both accurate truth AND "bendable truth" are very useful for survival. For better and worse. Everyday experience shows us that our knowledge is at least relatively true enough to live by. It could also be said that since our brains are capable of delusion for survival use, that religious myth may be a useful delusion. Which is likely to be somewhat true since it's miracles etc... only seem to exist if you truly "believe" in them.
A simple answer is simply thus: In order for you to make this video and record and upload it, we had to have cognitive, logical, and rational capabilities sufficient to figure out electricity, conductivity, as well as chemical interactivity, network operations, and a whole host of complex and not-necessarily-related concepts.
That alone should tell you our minds and senses can be trusted to work this stuff out.
Cognitive and sensory faculties are selected for or against based on the accuracy and precision of information they can acquire about the surrounding environment. Therefore they are very useful for discerning what's going on and it is then up to the brain, an organ capable of rewiring itself based on received and calculated information, to discern what is valid and what is not valid. The difference is that science actively investigates for fact where religion gives opinion instead.
he is right until he says that our thoughts are biased by survival. sure our cognitive capacities developped as a result of necessity and competition, but that also makes a bland generalization and absolutism of this. of course we filter information so as do be efficient (i.e. survive) but that doesn't mean every single thought is shaped around survival. How addressing abstract questions have to do with survival? if anything it goes against instinct... i don't feel he is making a valid argument
I cannot bear this idiot. The world is natural. Your feelings (anxiety, frustration, anger so on so forth) are a product of evolutionary selection. But what does that have to do with anything? We believe what we believe based on two things: family tradition (bias, bias, bias, bias, bias) and the discoveries we ourselves lead to.
So Lane makes the argument that because you believe that the world is natural, you have to be wrong because the natural brain is faulty and based on survival instinct?
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW all he's saying is, quite simply, that to impeach the rationality or reliability of the human mind or logic itself in any one category is to impeach it in ALL, at least to some degree.
"the argument that because you believe that the world is natural"
This isn't naturalism. Naturalism is the discrete metaphysical doctrinal assumption in the exclusiveness of the physical universe. Even atheist scholars agree that such beliefs are unfalsifiable, unprovable and cannot be maintained as an empirically neutral position.
The empirical precept of maintaining absence of belief until evidence does not apply at the foundational level, due to the nature of perception.
but u haven't addressed the counter position that refutes his argument all u did is attacking his idea. prove otherwise. can u draw a link between a mind and a brain, a mind is metaphysical yet we accept it. without any verbal diahrrea.
What Craig is saying boils down to an assertion that the human mind is biased, which is not controversial, and that this bias cannot be overcome, which *is* controversial.
Science and philosophy have safeguards and methods for overcoming bias *as far as possible*. While it's not possible to rule out bias altogether, we can come close.
The theist world-view also has a biased human brain, unless you claim that the brain perfectly comprehends the entirety of the world - ie. that men are Gods.
those who "dislike" this video are only proving that you can't handle the truth. You want to APPEAR to be skeptical, but when it comes to your own natural senses and cognition, you're too afraid to be skeptical. Which is inconsistent, irrational and definitely not objective. Great video. Thank you for sharing
@bjjolley If you actually understood this argument you'd know that wasn't the case since the theist doesn't accept the same premise as the naturalist. I mean duh!
@drcraigvideos except its based on the false premise that evolution is directed towards an end point, in this case that the brain evolved for survival. Newsflash! Natural selection is not the only means of evolution. I mean duh!
@drcraigvideos Well technically speaking an atheist could trust his own mind, however a materialist could not, and atheism and materialism TEND to go hand in hand.
@bjjolley Here is what yo get when you substitute "naturalism" with "religion": (Starting at 8 sec)
"Is "religion"; that is to say the view that there is no God and that we are simply the products of the random interaction of chance and necessity..." ..wait..hold on..that doesnt work too well!
I don't completely disagree with the basic premise of what WLC is saying in this lecture, but I do disagree that there is any futility or contradiction. What is truth? Would the uploader of this video please define "truth" without invoking utility? Of what value is "truth" without utility? In fact, the truth value of anything is in its utility.
"Would the uploader of this video please define "truth" without invoking utility? Of what value is "truth" without utility? In fact, the truth value of anything is in its utility."
@SSJ3Ulcer Two weeks since you requested a definition and the uploader hasn't responded. I think your comments bear repeating to call attention to the question.
Along the same lines, if naturalistic evolution were true, belief in God is a result of evolution and believers have no choice. So why do atheists flock to videos like this to argue when arguments are meaningless to them?
@1980PintoMan Believers have no choice? Are you saying that because being able to pee at any time we want is an evolutionary utility, that we as humans are unable to hold it in? You are essentially arguing that humans are primitive animals without the ability to think for themselves.
You're confusing evolution with determinism. Belief in evolution does not necessarily entail a belief in determinism, nor does a belief in evolution conflict with a belief in free will.
uh why would atheism have more survival value. Christianity is widely accepted in the U.S. theres no reason that being a christian would affect your survival value in any way. in fact, if anything Christianity in America has MORE "survival value". Nearly every successful politician in the U.S. has claimed to be christian.
@BootyBot You don't understand the argument. We're not talking about what survives by the numbers. We're talking about TRUTH. What the naturalist conceives as "true" only has survival value to it, but you can never know if it's actually true or not.
@BootyBot LOL! Yes, genius. By "we" I mean those who adhere to Dr. Craig's argument. So by extension, yes, Dr. Craig too. I mean duh! He just stated the argument. But you didn't catch it.
@drcraigvideos please explain the argument then. How could they possibly know there is survival value in being an atheist if there are no numbers to back it up? An athlete works in the weight room for football because he knows there is survival value in the extra exercise. it's been shown with numbers. how could an atheist possibly conceive that there is survival value without the statistics to back it up?
If you disregard it on what basis do you disregard it? Even as a religious person any religious argument you make for the abillity to discern truth reliably is sabotaged by the notion that you could be wrong about that because of the very fallabillity you are trying to establish that you couldn't have.
So you see we humans can't escape this possibillity any more than we can guarantee that we are not all in a dream.
We don't need to consider the possibillity any more important either.
You don't need a naturalistic worldview to imagine that our minds might be fundamentally fallible in some way.
The moment you imagine this even as a religious person you can not avoid making a choise between either disregarding the possibillity or accepting it as possible.
@gamesbok You're a typical atheist clown. listen genius, humans believe many things that they can not prove. for people who believe in nothing you certainly are obsessed with people people who believe in something. Its actually quite transparent and pathetic.
@AegeanKing Theists are a threat to society, they gave us the Dark Ages before, and they'll do it again given half a chance. They have to be activly opposed.
@gamesbok wow, you are seriously brainwashed. If there was no religion there would be no western civilization. Plain and simple. The only reason you can read Plato and Aristotle in school is because Christian monks took the time to copy these things. Otherwise, you wouldnt be able to read anything. If it wasnt for Christian monks you couldnt drink beer. If it wasnt for judeo-Christian values you would not have western law or diplomatic practices. (continued)
@AegeanKing beer has been made for centuries before christianity ever took hold, plato and aristotle claim is correct, the western law has a lot of history with roman law as well so you can't just credit the justinian code or christianity alone, the arabs and certainly the east has probably effected the west the most when the arabs introduced mathematics and astronomy. Also you can't forget the renaissance giving us vast scientific discoveries. you can't give christianity all the credit.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Beer in the form we drink it today was made by monks. Secondly, the Arabs did not introduce mathematics or astronomy to anybody. In fact, it was Europe and Persia who introduced the arabs to astronomy and mathematics. It was the Byzantine Empire who had copies of the ancient Greek manuscripts on astronomy, mathematics and medicine and when the Fatimid and Ummayad Cailphates were established they acquired the manuscripts from the Byzantines and expanded on them.
@AegeanKing do you credit the people who copied the knowledge or the actual thinkers who brought it up? I think we should give credit to all not just one, we have the world to thank for it's contributions on our modern society.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I think we've strayed from the original point. That being, without religion and religious people, there would be no western civilization. Even the United Nations rules of war are based on the just war theories of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Atheists love to ignore those facts.
@AegeanKing Aren't you ignoring ancient rome? Without the romans we wouldn't have the many things in which you attribute to religion. aqueducts, concrete, early philosophy, early politics, and so many other things which you ignore. I know religion helped but it can't claim full ownership to all the knowledge in the west especially when it is so far and widespread.
@Requiemxtoxinno I guess Im not articulating my point well. yes, ancient civilizations are of course the bed-rock of western civilization. But, it is the Judeo-Christian religions that have shaped our society and its values. Without monks, we wouldn't know about the majority of the classical works that were written in ancient rome and Greece. It was Monks who were the preservers and guardians of classical civilization. Without Monks, you would not be able to read Plato or Aristotle in school.
@AegeanKing I'm aware monks helped preserve the writings of those people but you need to balance the credit not give it all to religion that's just selffish. I mean plenty of secular thinkers have influenced society as well. The end point should really be thank the ancients for being the first inventors and thinkers, thank the religious for helping preserve the different ideas and along with secularists expand those ideas. sound fair to you?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence yea, sounds about right. Except I would say that the religious folk didnt just preserve things. Our western law, diplomatic practices, rules of war etc. all have thier roots in religious culture. So, they are just as important if not more important than secular thinkers.
@AegeanKing well what about separation of church and state instead of divine law? what about the new philosophies that have given way to other means of thinking? Or the expanse in knowledge because people didn't stop at god? I'd say our society is built on equilibrium on both.
It's rather because of the muslim that the western world is now advanced in technology, may discoveries and sciences foundation and mdoern notions from physics and engineering to botanics and manufacturing was a result of the muslim contribution to the renaissance.
@gamesbok If it wasnt for Saint Augustine the modern world would not have rules for war. I could keep going all day on the contributions of religion. Stop drinking the atheist kool aide and learn to think for yourself.
I'm astounded when talking to Atheists how many of them believe that there is no such thing as spirit. That is to say they do NOT believe we have spirits in our physical bodies. Atheists tend to think more with their minds and not with their hearts. SEEK TRUTH it will set you free.
@bigboyburnsy Well I hope they think with their minds, that is the only organ capable of thinking.
Atheists do not believe spirits exist because there is no evidence of them. Rational thought is the only way to find truth. Intuition and compassion have value, but truth can only be obtained through logical, rational, and testable processes.
@trj1370 What are Atheists doing when they are in REM sleep? Or do Atheists not acknowledge the dream realm which is also the spirit realm? There is much evidence for spirits, what about DMT, the spirit molecule? DMT is naturally produced by our pineal glands in our brain when we dream and produced in larger amounts in near death or death. Logic, rational and testable processes do not help you see the unseen, only what is seen to the naked eye, we're more than our mental processes.
@bigboyburnsy Wow, thanks for the laugh. REM sleep and dreams are fairly well understood phenomenom; the brain activity during them has been well mapped. DMT is a psychedelic drug, which could explain why people think they experience the supernatural during dreams or near death. I'm sure it could make you see spirits, so can LSD. That doesn't make them real.
The only way to filter fact from fiction is logic, observation, and testing. Dreams may feel real, but they are just in your brain.
@trj1370 DMT is not only a psychedelic drug, its produced in your brain naturally when you sleep.
"Dreams may feel real, but they are just in your brain."
So just because they are "in your brain" they are not real? Then what are you seeing when you dream? Is that not real? I don't know about you but i've had dreams that were very real that even when i woke up i felt i was in the dream. Your body goes through paralysis during REM, spirit is out of body during REM.
@bigboyburnsy Dreams can feel like reality because we experience reality purely through the interactions of brain impulses and chemicals. If the impulses and chemicals are replicated or convoluted (by dreams or chemicals like DMT) the difference between reality and dreams/hallucinations can be difficult to see.
We trust that our waking experiences are actually reality (and not the Matrix) through logic, observation, and testing. Dreams and spirits do not pass this basic scientific standard.
@trj1370 Don't you see though that brain impulses and chemicals are just the surface of what is going on on a much deeper level? Logic is common sense, observation is important but if you're only going by what your eyes can see then its flawed because the human eye cannot see everything and testing is good but if its not on a deeper level whats the point? (...)
@bigboyburnsy Observation is not limited to sight alone. Yes, the human eye and other senses can only observe so much. That is why humans invented tools.
If something has an effect in reality, it must be observable in one way or another. Otherwise the effect would be meaningless because it would not actually affect us. There is no reason to believe in something unless it can somehow be observed and the hypothesized cause can be logically linked to the effect.
@trj1370 (...) For example you do not believe in dreams and spirits simply because they do not pass basic scientific standard. But can you truly trust a scientists judgment? Science is changing just like you and I are changing every year, how trustworthy can a scientists word be? You can't trust everything this world tells you, because this world is changing, stop trusting everyone else and go seek truth yourself you won't regret it.
@bigboyburnsy You are confusing science and scientific evidence. Science (the scientific method, google it) does not change. As new scientific evidence is presented, the conclusions of previous evidence are altered and updated. Scientists do not just give their word, they present the data and methods they used and welcome people to replicate or refute it. Good evidence is replicated over and over.
You do not have enough understanding of this subject to debate it, so I am done debating you.
@trj1370 How is something deemed as good evidence? Even if so called good evidence is replicated over and over, does it make it true? When a person passes away their SPIRIT has left their body. The spirit world cannot be perceived through our physical eyes, that is why science cannot prove it as YOU are looking with your eyes but you cannot see. Like the heat in the room you walk into, like the air you breathe, just cuz you cannot see it does not mean it is not there.
@bigboyburnsy You keep thinking science only involves the human eye. Your understanding is embarrassingly limited. Heat and air can both be measured, understood, and proven to exist. Extremely abstract things like dark matter cannot be measured directly, but even their effects can be seen.
The day you prove a spirit exists is the day you win the Nobel Peace prize, as well as the Randi $1M challenge. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm also still waiting on the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery."
@trj1370 See the thing is that spirits are supernatural so obviously scientists cannot prove they exist nor can I for that matter but they are still there. Buddhists discovered that the spirit enters a fetus at 50 days of the gestation period, before that the fetus is lifeless. All i can suggest is that you look this stuff up in your own time thoroughly just the same way i did, there are so many truths i discovered on my own that no scientist would have helped me realize.
@bigboyburnsy Good luck with your "truth" discovery.
Try talking to me again when you understand things like confirmation bias, control groups, and logical fallacies. I'm going to stop wasting my time and get back to publishing useful research.
@trj1370 I've already discovered truth. The fact that you have to ask me for proof on certain things tells me you haven't. The things you are talking about are based on human understanding and that seems to be it. You must go deeper than your own logical understanding, we're human, we make mistakes, how can you trust what YOU or what scientists who are mere mortals believe? All men make mistakes ESPECIALLY if they trust themselves or other men.
@bigboyburnsy So how do you know what you have "discovered" is truth? How can you trust what YOU a mere mortal believe? How do you know you're not really in the matrix and the machines are just trying to fool you?
Anyone can ask questions like that all day. Everything I define as truth is supported by evidence and is testable and repeatable. "All men make mistakes" And some of us learn from them.
@trj1370 I know not what tomorrow holds but i know who holds tomorrow, my faith and trust is in the One who holds tomorrow, The LORD of heaven and Earth, The LORD of the starry hosts. God showed me what truth is. I'm not saying your way is wrong, heck there are even scientists who can prove the existence of God, all i'm saying is that you must go deeper than mental processes because our human minds are finite where as God's is infinite. Also things are always changing, never staying the same.
@bigboyburnsy Well I sure hope you've never worked on Sunday before:
Exodus 31:15 "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death."
Millions of people do work on Sunday. Anyone with decent morals can see that it would be a mistake to put them to death.
@trj1370 Do you know why the sabbath was put in place by the LORD?
Genesis 2:3 "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." ~Genesis 2:3
Look at what Jesus Christ says about the sabbath, Mark 2:27 "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:" ~Mark 2:27
@trj1370 Also look at most daily workout exercise programs, what do most of them tell you? To workout 6 days of the week and leave one day of the week to rest, we need rest to recover just like we need sleep to recover.
@trj1370 plz dont try to talk about the bible if you dont know it. There are plaenty of things in the old testament that our society today would consider bad, but 1) you were raised in a society with a certain aspect of thinking and therefore cant say this is wrong; its an opinion. 2)This is the old testament(evereything in the old testament changed when jesus came. so "working on the sabboth" or anything is a sin that can easily be forgiven, and not a death punishment.
@trj1370 Scientists hardly ever if at all research the supernatural as many of them are brainwashed into believing that if you cannot see it with your eyes or grasp it with your 5 senses then its either not there or that its going to be impossible to prove so many scientists don't even bother. What about love, peace, patience and faithfulness? These things themselves prove the spirit as there is no LAW against these things.
@trj1370 You think you only think and make decisions with your mind? What about when you lust after something or someone? Thats from the heart. How about when you are angry with someone, thats from the heart. Love is from the heart. Sure you can have lustful thoughts, angry thoughts or loving thoughts but ultimately they stem from the heart.
@bigboyburnsy The heart pumps blood. Lust, love, and anger are caused by hormones and chemicals in the brain like testosterone, oxytocin (the "love hormone"), vasopressin, and dopamine.
You need more education. If you can't afford it, wikipedia is free.
Consider: p1 the universe consists only of matter & energy. P2 Naturalism is the athiests’ explanation for the origin & existence of a rationally intelligible universe. P3 If Science is defined as the study of the natural world it must ultimately be able to explain everything without recourse to a spiritual dimension. p4 there exists phenomena & questions that are metaphysical or philosophical in nature & hence beyond science Therefore materialistic reductionism (atheism) FAILS!
@dashan091 nah, that's just god of the gaps, u would have to argue for their supernatural nature, dont get me wrong, im a theist, i just dont think this argument makes much sense, also, u have to argue for those, not just assert them. =)
@atbigdog24002 Sorry bigdog, you have made an assertion but not surprisingly fail to point out where my argument (premises & conclusion) fails. Naturalism is more like "science of the gaps" for Hawking& others to say "the laws of physics created themselves and then the universe out of nothing " and then by blind faith, accept that the origin, & existence of immutable, immaterial laws need no explanation. Please visit my videos & check out my arguments why Naturalism fails. I dare u!
The way I figure it is that evolution has obviously shaped our minds into an abstract program which we can call logical. That it is logical is evidenced by our understanding of the world and the applications those understandings have. The mind, however, is definitely not 'free', but that does not mean we can not reason. To say we cannot is obviously wrong, so I think perhaps the nature of the mind is presently unknown, and perhaps even unknowable because of its 'absurd' character.
He purports that atheists "believe that faculties are not aimed at truth but survival value. . ." What else can religion be but a philosophy based entirely around the idea that one is eternal? Religion is the biggest form of death denial the mind is capable of conceiving i.e. religion is based on psychological survival value.
@ATHFANATIC all brain activity is the result of chemical reactions Celibrated atheist Bertrand RUSSELL says : That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; … all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. = Materialistic reductionism!
...cont.. and darwin was correct, we cannot trust our own minds as the soul source and discriminator of what is true (about the nature of the universe) which is why science has so GREATLY improved the quality of human life. With the structured method of testing ideas, measuring results, and compiling a baseline of knowledge across millions of people, for hundreds of years, THEN we can know what the 'Truth' is regarding the reality of our existance.
Uh...so you're saying if a scientist has a bunch of different data and is trying to determine which ones are more accurate and truthful, they are not using their mind to discriminate between the different data?
@MrHobiecat "darwin was correct, we cannot trust our own minds as the soul (sole?) source and discriminator"
Tell us then if Darwin is correct does that tell u there's no such thing as absolute truth? Then can I ask by whose authory can u reason that the truths that your ape-evolved mind is even capable of a truth statement? If my 1st question is correct isnt your last statement re, Godexistence self-refuting? How does a bunch of selfish genes reason to the non-existence of an abstract reality?
the video is making the common religous error of focusing on what a person believes, instead of what they know and understand. This is because they believe in magical thinking, if I think one thought I will live forever in a city of gold, and if I think another thought (belief) I will burn forever in a lake of fire.
In reality, it doenst matter what you think or believe, what matters is what you LEARN and UNDERSTAND about the universe....
@MrHobiecat - Christianity isn't based on just believing. It needs to be accepted then followed by repentance. The Bible says in James 2:19 - " You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!"
@MrHobiecat You say there's an error of focusing on what a person "believes" instead of knows/understand. May I ask the clear-cut difference between the two when justifying different methods of epistemology?
Our beliefs change from many different factors(region,time etc).Evolution is a moral-free theory.You can't use it to explain how morals came and enter our societies.Sociology does that.You can apply "evolution of ethics and beliefs" in a more poetic way..But in no way does evolution explain beliefs and how they change.
@Stevoukos actually, living things that nuture and care for each other, thrive in a community. A human being living alone has a very slime chance of survival, much less reproduction
therefore many of the characteristics that we consider morally right, are encoded in our genes.
A person born with a tendency to rape and kill and destroy wont live long, and if you kill your offspring, your genes die with you.
So are you saying in places/times where slavery was moral, that it really was moral because it was encoded in our genes, and that people against slavery were actually the immoral ones because they had faulty genes?
You have no idea about evolution "Doctor".Evolution has nothing to do with beliefs or anything else.Natural selection is not whipping out beliefs but genes..
@gulbirk you have to call it random if you are a naturalist because admitting that it is not random shows that there was a choice made by a deliberate will with an intelligence, lol random is meant to devoid anything of a deliberate will or an intellgient cause, thats why it has to be random.
@StarRonKid no, random is when "something" THAT is awera of exictence make a choice that is not based on anything, a pick. If you no other options, and no one to chose something else then it isnt random.
If I understand the argument right your are linking survival traits and ethics to belief. When if fact they are not linked by belief. It is a social interaction use to help each other survive. We depend on each other which really has nothing to do with a god. not to mention our ability to seek truth and understand our world has extended our lives way beyond anything of value in any religious text. Religion has nothing to do with survival, it was used to understand our world at a primitive level.
the only human references to a creator/god are from people who CLAIM to have seen it or talked with it, and oh guess what? God put THEM in charge and made THEM his sole spokemans, and collector of gods money.
Isnt it funny how it always works out that way. The belief in the supernatural is a natural outcome of the pattern recognition functions of the human mind. When the mind sees action, it assumes there must be a conscious being there.
@MrHobiecat If you cant see God, then thats something pitiful. There are those who dont see our creator because they dont want to, and thats your kind, if you dont change that hatred towards the Lord, youll be blind toward his actions. Science is good for us all because it improves our environment and superfluos wants, but God can fill your spiritual needs with that sublime wisdom known as Faith.
@MandGmusics If you can see people that no one else can see, you need stronger meds.
Your self rightious attitude that you can see a creator/god and other people cant, because you are somehow better than us, is the same attitude that religious people use to justify killing other people in the name of their imaginary friend.
When you believe in absurdities, you WILL commit atrocities. YOU already have, by accusing me of being somehow defective.
@MrHobiecat Hahaha poor soul of yours, if you cant believe on what you cannot see i think you will always be a failure on earth. Succes which is not bound to religion, yet it is tied to Faith aswell as religion. The best things on earth are those which are sublime, but you dont understand anything about that, your only an atheist, dont speak any more to me cause i wont answer you, bad pet.
@MandGmusics You can think whatever you want (clearly), that has no bearing on my accomplishments or any other aspect of my life.
You are using the language of a con man. Someone who tells you an absurd story with outragious claims, and when someone asks you for evidence to support your claims, you say "dont you have any faith? you are not a very trusting person, are you? Are you calling ME a LiaR?!?!?"
Religion is a scam. You know it, you use the language of it perfectly.
... but whoever claimed that naturalism is rational, it is not, it is rather an implication from feeling (proper sensible) and affection and therefore not logically necessary ... naturalism is a religion for the godless and nothing more
thomasjrbg 1 month ago
@drcraigvideos You sure do get a lot of 'crap' for not letting anyone comment on these uploads. I've seen where you block commenting. Kudos. But here you are slapping all your detractors with a big wet fish across their faces. Hardly keeps 'em quiet for a moment I bet.
shizzleman8 1 month ago
@shizzleman8 Nope. A lot of atheists here are just venting their frustrations and anger.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago 4
@shizzleman8 That's because Atheist blowhards like yourself will spam the dislike bar before even watching the video.
Autumn6 1 month ago
sorry if i do not understand the argument, but if our minds came from evolution would not the cases of the mind being right come out as the one that survives and gets to reproduce, which must lead to morals, ideas and ways of living that are the right ways, after all is not mankind going through an evolution at the moment with the arab spring and the protests all over the west, where people are trying to change things for the better. surely knowing you are right is better than believing you are
333derick333 1 month ago
@333derick333 Evolution tests for behavior not for intentions. The same behavior can come from different human thoughts, and different behavior can come from the same human thoughts. "Intentions can and do modify the brain over time" < xianphil.org Testing Causal Closure.
0 ;8¬*) Smiling Angel with bugger.
shizzleman8 1 month ago
@shizzleman8 thanks for the link, but surely intentions of a large amount of people to change behavior will if successful change that behavior. if you take the race issue as example, once it was right for me as white man to make jokes about the other races now most of us know it is morally wrong to do so. in the 70s we would relay the jokes on tv in the school yard. now the intentions of the activists have changed our behavior and the way we think. unless it is a case of 'we know no better'
333derick333 1 month ago
well our thinking minds are an adaptation for survival because it helped us work out how to make and use tools, share knowledge and experiences to one another. Knowledge is power, this is why human beings are the most successful species on the planet, because we think further and beyond. Hopefully we'll work out how to survive the death of our planet.
RelativelyHostile1 1 month ago
@RelativelyHostile1 We're a 'keystone species' not the most 'successful', that would belong to bacteria, sharks, and alligators. Kamodo Dragons! Me thinks you're interchanging the word 'mind' with 'brain'. If you're a naturalist you only have one without the other, and that leaves you without intentions unless you follow Dawkins 'Selfish Gene' or Dennett's 'Intentional Stance', in which case you're back on board! Bon voyage! I recommend Chalmer's The Conscious Mind, but I haven't read it.
shizzleman8 1 month ago
Any human that is interessted in truth should question his own mind and beliefs.
wildanS 1 month ago
@wildanS I bet you'd like dfpolis #21 The Two Subsystem Mind.
An introduction to the two subsystem theory of mind. Why physical science misses intentional acts. Dennett and the falsification of naturalism. There is a neurophysiological subsystem for data processing, and an intentional subsystem responsible for awareness and willing. Only such a model is adequate to all the available data. [Introspection] Search me O God and know my thoughts, try me and see if there be any wicked way in me
shizzleman8 1 month ago
When you think you are not evolving. By the stage that religion started to come into prominence humans had a relatively easy life compared to their ancestors. This allowed us to devote time to other things such as art, cooking, the art of warfare, invention and also religion. Apart from the fact that it is due to evolution that we have such a large brain that gives us the mental capacity to do these things this argument has nothing to do with `naturalism`.
rhyscw01 2 months ago
@rhyscw01 Evolution has targets. Means are prepared in advance of ends. Once targets are met evolution ceases. Check out dfpolis #22 The Mind Body Problem
The two subsystem mind controls physical acts by intentional acts. Because the laws of nature are not material, but intentional, they can be modified by human intent. Experimental data on psychokinesis confirms this beyond a rational doubt. [Psychokinesis] [It has everything to do with 'naturalism' because it 'disspells' it]
0 ;8¬*)
shizzleman8 1 month ago
Atheists really do believe in God or they wouldn't spend so much time making noise about and struggling with that issue. It takes a great deal of energy to keep yourself convinced God really doesn't exist. Our minds fight back when you force a lie like that upon them.
Even dawkins had to write a book and make a big stink because he knows his chosen profession loses a huge portion of glory if he has to give credit to God. So he goes around fighting the truth knowing he's lying through his teeth.
AtheistSpanker 2 months ago
@AtheistSpanker No. I would say the reason people write books and discuss religion (besides the fact that it is an interesting and far reaching topic) is that the religious will, as a result of their faith, often try to get laws passed, be sickeningly homophobic and cause a myriad of other social problems that non believers find unacceptable. If the religious stopped doing these things I'm sure there would be a much smaller backlash and much more civilized discussion.
jenko4292 2 months ago
@Hobo7o No, they are not born as "Christians", he mis-stated it, but anyways, they are born following Christian values and/or the ignorance of what evil is or that they are doing it. They are simple, curious, and innocent. Three of the main ideas Christians are to strive for.
0Maloy1 2 months ago
it's interesting when talking to an atheist when the discussion of God comes up. It is sad and very typical. Starts off with "there is no God" and they cannot disprove that. Then it leads into evolution. When you bring up that there is insufficient proof and they are following theories, they respond with Bible portions of death and disease. Then you go into sin and the ongoing battle with Satan and they go back to the beginning "there is no God". I find the atheist mind to be missing something..
mh11952 2 months ago
@mh11952 I guess you have been arguing with pretty stupid atheists. As you say, we can´t disprove god, neither can you prove that he exists. I can say that there exists a dog with 500 million heads and a unicorn riding it, you can´t disprove that, neither can I prove it.
What we do know is that god contradicts the laws of physics, these laws have never been disproved.
I can support my statements by simple mathematics and physics. You can´t support your statement that god exists.
AllNamesWereOccupied 2 months ago
@AllNames "These laws have never been disproved." True! You speak of the laws, disproving your theory could have ever began, as if it proves that God does not exist? Produce your Math and Physics that we all know disproves your theory but proves nothing about God either positive or negative.
The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis disprove the unnatural (evolution theory) because they are natural laws but they do not pertain to the supernatural (God).
jlroberts9914 2 months ago
@jlroberts9914 First explain how the laws of thermodynamics disprove evolution. Every time I heave heard someone use the laws of thermodynamics to try and disprove evolution they seem like absolute idiots. Second, the law of biogenesis only referred to the notion that maggots, fleas, other pests, etc spontaneously generated. It didn't suggest whether, or not, life could have arisen through natural means.
LemUUU 2 months ago
@LemUUU Usually they say something like that on the grounds of the 2nd law; that in a closed system entropy tends to increase. But the objection fails on 2 points.
1. The planet is not a closed system; we receive copious amounts of external energy from the Sun.
2. In theory isolated decreases in entropy can occur within a system, even though the total entropy of the system is tending toward increased entropy.
Satarack 2 months ago
It is a distortion of evolutionary theory to say that beliefs as abstract as meta-philosophy would be selected for their survival value. Also, if this argument were logical within the bounds of evolution (which it is not) it would simply show that both arguments might be crap within a naturalist viewpoint, and in doing so take a rather bold stance against the ability of humans to use rational inquiry in deciding which is more likely true.
superhumane504 3 months ago
con't...
You trust the rules that the monkey slowly discovers, that show the monkey that small steps do lead to answers. You trust that knowledge built on bricks of knowledge is the way to move forward and understand the monkey's position in the universe, never forgetting that the monkey is easily tricked. So you test, and re-test. Reaffirm the conclusions that got the monkey here and re-test the suppositions that lead to those conclusions.
vicdmise 3 months ago
You can't trust a monkey's brain. They can be tricked into false arguments and into seeing the world for what it looks like rather than what it is. A monkey looks for patterns where there are none and can be tricked to bow before a display of strength, real or imagined. The monkey's brain is subject to logical fallacies like "the Texas sharpshooter" or "The Straw Man" or even "Affirming the consequent." No, you can't trust a monkey's brain. You trust the evidence of the universe around it
vicdmise 3 months ago
There are, however, plenty of atheist philosophers who don't hold naturalism. So this isn't an argument for theism directly.
peteface24 3 months ago
This might be relevant if true beliefs aren't more likely to help you survive.
LordZentei 4 months ago
Naturally the survival instinct failed against truth seeking mind.
ikawpipa 6 months ago
@ikawpipa Why? "Survival of the fittest" makes sense. A belief in the afterlife is just a BELIEF, it's something you can be about 99% sure on, but never 100%, real life however is 100% sure, that is why us atheists focus on improving on what we know for SURE is absolute (i.e., real life). Us humans are pack animals, wel live in groups, and so one way of our survival is to reinforce our pack (i.e. improving industries etc), wich would make us very fitting to society aswell as nature.
drag0nfis7 4 months ago
178 atheists disliked this video. It's alright. Since their conception they were bound to do this anyway. They couldn't help it.
GJB1993 6 months ago
Does anyone know if there's a link to an english translation of this?
JonasPlanck 7 months ago 5
Hi All. I don't utilize these forums but I do study neuroscience and religion. And
I thought the following site will help you all with your discourse. Enjoy and continue learning.
Dr. Andrew Newberg - His work provides lots of understanding of how the brain works.
Search for: "Objective Reality and Beliefs: How Our Brain Misleads Us - Dr. Andrew"
Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz
"Mind-Brain Interaction and the Breakdown of the Materialist Paradigm"
MultiAquinas 7 months ago
Religion is a by product of what naturally occurs. God probably isn't real, but you should still have a good day anyways.
Thephyguy 7 months ago
@Thephyguy
"Religion is a by product of what naturally occurs"
Did you even watch the video? As Dr. Craig points out, this argument is self-refuting: perhaps your ideas are simply the result of evolution and aren't correct.
"God probably isn't real"
Do you have evidence for this, or are you simply repeating Atheist dogma that you got from Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion".
Watch more Dr. Craig videos: it appears that God probably does exist.
THEEVANTHETOON 7 months ago
Question 1: Who can trust better what they think and consider that what they think has more probability to be near the truth? Is the one who is stupid or the one who is intelligent? Probably the intelligent one.
The go to read the study of Lynn Harvey and Nyborg (2009), who showed in a cross national data that intelligence is correlated with atheism: the more people are intelligent and the more they are atheist. Or if you prefer, the more they are stupid and the more they are believers.
andyoupretendtoknow 7 months ago 3
Can Christians trust their own minds?
They believe their minds are given by God, and that God is good and would never deceive them. But how do they know God is good? Their minds tell them so. Could it be that God is actually evil, and merely deceiving them into thinking he is good?
The fact that the technology to post this video works supports the truth of naturalistic science. The fact that there exists so much needless suffering points to God being evil.
Who can't trust their own minds?
IseeRightThrough2you 7 months ago 63
@IseeRightThrough2you Your argument is based on semantics, whether what we call good is ACTUALLY good. This is a meaningless question, if it were taken seriously, as it violates the law of identity.
The second fallacy you commit is begging the question, as you gratuitously take the success of science to be that of "naturalistic" science, but science is neutral when it comes to God's existence or not. How does my use of Youtube disprove the existence of God?
tynytian 7 months ago
@IseeRightThrough2you The needless suffering in the world points to the sins of humanity. Christians trust God because they know him personally; for the same reason that people trust their close family and friends.
The ability to create technology points to God. The existence of a world in which premises and conclusions can be reached based on order and predictability point towards a Creator God.
DragomirSA 2 months ago
@IseeRightThrough2you the very last thing you said negates everything you said prior.
The mind does not tell you that God is good or evil. Experience with God confirms that.
Technology is a CREATION, not a natural occurence.
The fact of evil supports Adam and Eve sinning against God. It was their choice and now you can clearly see the results.
GREATGAIWAIN 2 months ago
@IseeRightThrough2you what would be more evil God controlling your every thought and action, or God allowing you to choose what you want to do? Last I check and I even think you'd agree with is God controlling your every thought and action. But then again as for you being an atheist you don't believe in evil now do you? Morals are subjective according to you, so how can you make the claim then that God is being evil? You're being dishonest in your worldview my friend.
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@IseeRightThrough2you How can the acts in the Bible be atrocities when all actions are amoral?
Fleefles 1 month ago
@IseeRightThrough2you Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father‘?"
godriczimmerman 1 month ago
@IseeRightThrough2you
No, I see right thru you! You're using an example of operational science to prove that origins science is accurate and trustworthy. Wrong. Operational science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while in origins science, we make educated GUESSES about the unobservable unrepeatable past. It's not nearly as precise or dependable. Christians do normal science as well as any atheist and we have no problem with it.
jimangmay 3 weeks ago
@IseeRightThrough2you No, sir, Christians don't believe God is good because their minds tell them so; they believe God is good because the Bible, which is God's Word, tells them that he is. Although their minds are a gift from God, Christians are commanded in the Bible not to trust their hearts, but rather God's Word which is a faithful guide in life. And the fact that suffering exist doesn't make God evil. Why don't you say God is good because their happiness in the world? Both can't be true.
luis204118 2 weeks ago
@luis204118 first off, if god is deceiving you then he would be doing it THROUGH his WORD (The Bible as you claim) so your argument doesn't hold up. Moreover, how do you know it's the word of god? Cuz it says so? It seems you're trying to defend your circular reasoning with another circular reasoning.
jaekim314 1 week ago
So basically William Lane Craig is saying that if you're a naturalist then ultimately everything you believe is instinctively for survival reasons and thus the only reason you would believe in naturalism is for survival reasons as well ultimately making your brain unreliable. It took me a while to wrap my head around this, but I think I get it now haha
FollowingChrist44 7 months ago
I bet someones already said this but it's worth repeating. Both accurate truth AND "bendable truth" are very useful for survival. For better and worse. Everyday experience shows us that our knowledge is at least relatively true enough to live by. It could also be said that since our brains are capable of delusion for survival use, that religious myth may be a useful delusion. Which is likely to be somewhat true since it's miracles etc... only seem to exist if you truly "believe" in them.
pgod45 7 months ago
You don't need a "Highly evolved truth seeking gene" to seek truth.
chilledkirby 7 months ago
A simple answer is simply thus: In order for you to make this video and record and upload it, we had to have cognitive, logical, and rational capabilities sufficient to figure out electricity, conductivity, as well as chemical interactivity, network operations, and a whole host of complex and not-necessarily-related concepts.
That alone should tell you our minds and senses can be trusted to work this stuff out.
Lyinginbedmon 8 months ago 2
Cognitive and sensory faculties are selected for or against based on the accuracy and precision of information they can acquire about the surrounding environment. Therefore they are very useful for discerning what's going on and it is then up to the brain, an organ capable of rewiring itself based on received and calculated information, to discern what is valid and what is not valid. The difference is that science actively investigates for fact where religion gives opinion instead.
Lyinginbedmon 8 months ago
he is right until he says that our thoughts are biased by survival. sure our cognitive capacities developped as a result of necessity and competition, but that also makes a bland generalization and absolutism of this. of course we filter information so as do be efficient (i.e. survive) but that doesn't mean every single thought is shaped around survival. How addressing abstract questions have to do with survival? if anything it goes against instinct... i don't feel he is making a valid argument
UnitedNewThinkers 8 months ago
I cannot bear this idiot. The world is natural. Your feelings (anxiety, frustration, anger so on so forth) are a product of evolutionary selection. But what does that have to do with anything? We believe what we believe based on two things: family tradition (bias, bias, bias, bias, bias) and the discoveries we ourselves lead to.
So Lane makes the argument that because you believe that the world is natural, you have to be wrong because the natural brain is faulty and based on survival instinct?
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 9 months ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW all he's saying is, quite simply, that to impeach the rationality or reliability of the human mind or logic itself in any one category is to impeach it in ALL, at least to some degree.
ShawDAMAN 9 months ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForW
"the argument that because you believe that the world is natural"
This isn't naturalism. Naturalism is the discrete metaphysical doctrinal assumption in the exclusiveness of the physical universe. Even atheist scholars agree that such beliefs are unfalsifiable, unprovable and cannot be maintained as an empirically neutral position.
The empirical precept of maintaining absence of belief until evidence does not apply at the foundational level, due to the nature of perception.
Crownw3 8 months ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW
but u haven't addressed the counter position that refutes his argument all u did is attacking his idea. prove otherwise. can u draw a link between a mind and a brain, a mind is metaphysical yet we accept it. without any verbal diahrrea.
warrior4just 8 months ago
What Craig is saying boils down to an assertion that the human mind is biased, which is not controversial, and that this bias cannot be overcome, which *is* controversial.
Science and philosophy have safeguards and methods for overcoming bias *as far as possible*. While it's not possible to rule out bias altogether, we can come close.
The theist world-view also has a biased human brain, unless you claim that the brain perfectly comprehends the entirety of the world - ie. that men are Gods.
Mistwraith99 9 months ago
those who "dislike" this video are only proving that you can't handle the truth. You want to APPEAR to be skeptical, but when it comes to your own natural senses and cognition, you're too afraid to be skeptical. Which is inconsistent, irrational and definitely not objective. Great video. Thank you for sharing
SkullRocKetS 9 months ago
All you have to do is substitute "naturalism" with "religion" and his argument kills religion for the same reasons.
bjjolley 9 months ago
@bjjolley If you actually understood this argument you'd know that wasn't the case since the theist doesn't accept the same premise as the naturalist. I mean duh!
drcraigvideos 9 months ago 35
@drcraigvideos except its based on the false premise that evolution is directed towards an end point, in this case that the brain evolved for survival. Newsflash! Natural selection is not the only means of evolution. I mean duh!
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@drcraigvideos He's an Atheist so you can't really expect him to understand basic logic or reason. ;)
AtheismKills 3 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@drcraigvideos Well technically speaking an atheist could trust his own mind, however a materialist could not, and atheism and materialism TEND to go hand in hand.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@bjjolley Here is what yo get when you substitute "naturalism" with "religion": (Starting at 8 sec)
"Is "religion"; that is to say the view that there is no God and that we are simply the products of the random interaction of chance and necessity..." ..wait..hold on..that doesnt work too well!
1patnick1 7 months ago
Comment removed
SSJ3Ulcer 9 months ago
I don't completely disagree with the basic premise of what WLC is saying in this lecture, but I do disagree that there is any futility or contradiction. What is truth? Would the uploader of this video please define "truth" without invoking utility? Of what value is "truth" without utility? In fact, the truth value of anything is in its utility.
SSJ3Ulcer 9 months ago
"Would the uploader of this video please define "truth" without invoking utility? Of what value is "truth" without utility? In fact, the truth value of anything is in its utility."
@SSJ3Ulcer Two weeks since you requested a definition and the uploader hasn't responded. I think your comments bear repeating to call attention to the question.
MySocksSmell2 8 months ago
Along the same lines, if naturalistic evolution were true, belief in God is a result of evolution and believers have no choice. So why do atheists flock to videos like this to argue when arguments are meaningless to them?
1980PintoMan 9 months ago
@1980PintoMan Believers have no choice? Are you saying that because being able to pee at any time we want is an evolutionary utility, that we as humans are unable to hold it in? You are essentially arguing that humans are primitive animals without the ability to think for themselves.
ikt123 9 months ago
@1980PintoMan
You're confusing evolution with determinism. Belief in evolution does not necessarily entail a belief in determinism, nor does a belief in evolution conflict with a belief in free will.
Mistwraith99 9 months ago
uh why would atheism have more survival value. Christianity is widely accepted in the U.S. theres no reason that being a christian would affect your survival value in any way. in fact, if anything Christianity in America has MORE "survival value". Nearly every successful politician in the U.S. has claimed to be christian.
this argument is weak.
BootyBot 9 months ago
@BootyBot You don't understand the argument. We're not talking about what survives by the numbers. We're talking about TRUTH. What the naturalist conceives as "true" only has survival value to it, but you can never know if it's actually true or not.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos by "we" do you mean dr. craig? and that rule applies to everything.
BootyBot 9 months ago
@BootyBot LOL! Yes, genius. By "we" I mean those who adhere to Dr. Craig's argument. So by extension, yes, Dr. Craig too. I mean duh! He just stated the argument. But you didn't catch it.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos please explain the argument then. How could they possibly know there is survival value in being an atheist if there are no numbers to back it up? An athlete works in the weight room for football because he knows there is survival value in the extra exercise. it's been shown with numbers. how could an atheist possibly conceive that there is survival value without the statistics to back it up?
BootyBot 9 months ago
@BootyBot Here's the argument in more detail: watch?v=vTln0akSdhc
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
"aimed at beliefs that help you to survive"
aka, eternal life.
MrAnthonyfilms 9 months ago
If you disregard it on what basis do you disregard it? Even as a religious person any religious argument you make for the abillity to discern truth reliably is sabotaged by the notion that you could be wrong about that because of the very fallabillity you are trying to establish that you couldn't have.
So you see we humans can't escape this possibillity any more than we can guarantee that we are not all in a dream.
We don't need to consider the possibillity any more important either.
stiaa04 9 months ago
You don't need a naturalistic worldview to imagine that our minds might be fundamentally fallible in some way.
The moment you imagine this even as a religious person you can not avoid making a choise between either disregarding the possibillity or accepting it as possible.
stiaa04 9 months ago
Comment removed
Ripley747 10 months ago
@Ripley747 You can't even trust the idea of falsifiability, genius. You don't get what's being said, do you? *cough* Ignoramous *cough*.
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
Comment removed
bevillenz 10 months ago
@bevillenz He doesn't follow the same premise as the naturalist, genius. Please try to understand the argument.
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO WATCH THIS VIDEO ARE ATHEISTS. I FIND THAT INTERESTING.
AegeanKing 11 months ago
@AegeanKing It's not all that surprising when you look at the tags.
Skakoan 10 months ago
@AegeanKing Yet another thing you believe that you can't substantiate, and we certainly aren't obliged to accept.
gamesbok 10 months ago
@gamesbok You're a typical atheist clown. listen genius, humans believe many things that they can not prove. for people who believe in nothing you certainly are obsessed with people people who believe in something. Its actually quite transparent and pathetic.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing Theists are a threat to society, they gave us the Dark Ages before, and they'll do it again given half a chance. They have to be activly opposed.
You still haven't substantiated your claim.
gamesbok 10 months ago
@gamesbok wow, you are seriously brainwashed. If there was no religion there would be no western civilization. Plain and simple. The only reason you can read Plato and Aristotle in school is because Christian monks took the time to copy these things. Otherwise, you wouldnt be able to read anything. If it wasnt for Christian monks you couldnt drink beer. If it wasnt for judeo-Christian values you would not have western law or diplomatic practices. (continued)
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing beer has been made for centuries before christianity ever took hold, plato and aristotle claim is correct, the western law has a lot of history with roman law as well so you can't just credit the justinian code or christianity alone, the arabs and certainly the east has probably effected the west the most when the arabs introduced mathematics and astronomy. Also you can't forget the renaissance giving us vast scientific discoveries. you can't give christianity all the credit.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 10 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Beer in the form we drink it today was made by monks. Secondly, the Arabs did not introduce mathematics or astronomy to anybody. In fact, it was Europe and Persia who introduced the arabs to astronomy and mathematics. It was the Byzantine Empire who had copies of the ancient Greek manuscripts on astronomy, mathematics and medicine and when the Fatimid and Ummayad Cailphates were established they acquired the manuscripts from the Byzantines and expanded on them.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing do you credit the people who copied the knowledge or the actual thinkers who brought it up? I think we should give credit to all not just one, we have the world to thank for it's contributions on our modern society.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 10 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I think we've strayed from the original point. That being, without religion and religious people, there would be no western civilization. Even the United Nations rules of war are based on the just war theories of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Atheists love to ignore those facts.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing Aren't you ignoring ancient rome? Without the romans we wouldn't have the many things in which you attribute to religion. aqueducts, concrete, early philosophy, early politics, and so many other things which you ignore. I know religion helped but it can't claim full ownership to all the knowledge in the west especially when it is so far and widespread.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 10 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinno I guess Im not articulating my point well. yes, ancient civilizations are of course the bed-rock of western civilization. But, it is the Judeo-Christian religions that have shaped our society and its values. Without monks, we wouldn't know about the majority of the classical works that were written in ancient rome and Greece. It was Monks who were the preservers and guardians of classical civilization. Without Monks, you would not be able to read Plato or Aristotle in school.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing I'm aware monks helped preserve the writings of those people but you need to balance the credit not give it all to religion that's just selffish. I mean plenty of secular thinkers have influenced society as well. The end point should really be thank the ancients for being the first inventors and thinkers, thank the religious for helping preserve the different ideas and along with secularists expand those ideas. sound fair to you?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 10 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence yea, sounds about right. Except I would say that the religious folk didnt just preserve things. Our western law, diplomatic practices, rules of war etc. all have thier roots in religious culture. So, they are just as important if not more important than secular thinkers.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing well what about separation of church and state instead of divine law? what about the new philosophies that have given way to other means of thinking? Or the expanse in knowledge because people didn't stop at god? I'd say our society is built on equilibrium on both.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 10 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Yes, I agree with that.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Side note: they have recently discovered that it was the ancient Macedonian Greeks who discovered concrete, not the Romans.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing thanks for the correction.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 10 months ago
@AegeanKing
It's rather because of the muslim that the western world is now advanced in technology, may discoveries and sciences foundation and mdoern notions from physics and engineering to botanics and manufacturing was a result of the muslim contribution to the renaissance.
warrior4just 8 months ago
@gamesbok If it wasnt for Saint Augustine the modern world would not have rules for war. I could keep going all day on the contributions of religion. Stop drinking the atheist kool aide and learn to think for yourself.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
I'm astounded when talking to Atheists how many of them believe that there is no such thing as spirit. That is to say they do NOT believe we have spirits in our physical bodies. Atheists tend to think more with their minds and not with their hearts. SEEK TRUTH it will set you free.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@bigboyburnsy Well I hope they think with their minds, that is the only organ capable of thinking.
Atheists do not believe spirits exist because there is no evidence of them. Rational thought is the only way to find truth. Intuition and compassion have value, but truth can only be obtained through logical, rational, and testable processes.
trj1370 11 months ago
@trj1370 What are Atheists doing when they are in REM sleep? Or do Atheists not acknowledge the dream realm which is also the spirit realm? There is much evidence for spirits, what about DMT, the spirit molecule? DMT is naturally produced by our pineal glands in our brain when we dream and produced in larger amounts in near death or death. Logic, rational and testable processes do not help you see the unseen, only what is seen to the naked eye, we're more than our mental processes.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@bigboyburnsy Wow, thanks for the laugh. REM sleep and dreams are fairly well understood phenomenom; the brain activity during them has been well mapped. DMT is a psychedelic drug, which could explain why people think they experience the supernatural during dreams or near death. I'm sure it could make you see spirits, so can LSD. That doesn't make them real.
The only way to filter fact from fiction is logic, observation, and testing. Dreams may feel real, but they are just in your brain.
trj1370 11 months ago
@trj1370 DMT is not only a psychedelic drug, its produced in your brain naturally when you sleep.
"Dreams may feel real, but they are just in your brain."
So just because they are "in your brain" they are not real? Then what are you seeing when you dream? Is that not real? I don't know about you but i've had dreams that were very real that even when i woke up i felt i was in the dream. Your body goes through paralysis during REM, spirit is out of body during REM.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@bigboyburnsy Dreams can feel like reality because we experience reality purely through the interactions of brain impulses and chemicals. If the impulses and chemicals are replicated or convoluted (by dreams or chemicals like DMT) the difference between reality and dreams/hallucinations can be difficult to see.
We trust that our waking experiences are actually reality (and not the Matrix) through logic, observation, and testing. Dreams and spirits do not pass this basic scientific standard.
trj1370 11 months ago
@trj1370 Don't you see though that brain impulses and chemicals are just the surface of what is going on on a much deeper level? Logic is common sense, observation is important but if you're only going by what your eyes can see then its flawed because the human eye cannot see everything and testing is good but if its not on a deeper level whats the point? (...)
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@bigboyburnsy Observation is not limited to sight alone. Yes, the human eye and other senses can only observe so much. That is why humans invented tools.
If something has an effect in reality, it must be observable in one way or another. Otherwise the effect would be meaningless because it would not actually affect us. There is no reason to believe in something unless it can somehow be observed and the hypothesized cause can be logically linked to the effect.
trj1370 11 months ago
@trj1370 (...) For example you do not believe in dreams and spirits simply because they do not pass basic scientific standard. But can you truly trust a scientists judgment? Science is changing just like you and I are changing every year, how trustworthy can a scientists word be? You can't trust everything this world tells you, because this world is changing, stop trusting everyone else and go seek truth yourself you won't regret it.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@bigboyburnsy You are confusing science and scientific evidence. Science (the scientific method, google it) does not change. As new scientific evidence is presented, the conclusions of previous evidence are altered and updated. Scientists do not just give their word, they present the data and methods they used and welcome people to replicate or refute it. Good evidence is replicated over and over.
You do not have enough understanding of this subject to debate it, so I am done debating you.
trj1370 11 months ago
@trj1370 How is something deemed as good evidence? Even if so called good evidence is replicated over and over, does it make it true? When a person passes away their SPIRIT has left their body. The spirit world cannot be perceived through our physical eyes, that is why science cannot prove it as YOU are looking with your eyes but you cannot see. Like the heat in the room you walk into, like the air you breathe, just cuz you cannot see it does not mean it is not there.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@bigboyburnsy You keep thinking science only involves the human eye. Your understanding is embarrassingly limited. Heat and air can both be measured, understood, and proven to exist. Extremely abstract things like dark matter cannot be measured directly, but even their effects can be seen.
The day you prove a spirit exists is the day you win the Nobel Peace prize, as well as the Randi $1M challenge. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm also still waiting on the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery."
trj1370 11 months ago
@trj1370 See the thing is that spirits are supernatural so obviously scientists cannot prove they exist nor can I for that matter but they are still there. Buddhists discovered that the spirit enters a fetus at 50 days of the gestation period, before that the fetus is lifeless. All i can suggest is that you look this stuff up in your own time thoroughly just the same way i did, there are so many truths i discovered on my own that no scientist would have helped me realize.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@bigboyburnsy Good luck with your "truth" discovery.
Try talking to me again when you understand things like confirmation bias, control groups, and logical fallacies. I'm going to stop wasting my time and get back to publishing useful research.
trj1370 11 months ago
@trj1370 I've already discovered truth. The fact that you have to ask me for proof on certain things tells me you haven't. The things you are talking about are based on human understanding and that seems to be it. You must go deeper than your own logical understanding, we're human, we make mistakes, how can you trust what YOU or what scientists who are mere mortals believe? All men make mistakes ESPECIALLY if they trust themselves or other men.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@bigboyburnsy So how do you know what you have "discovered" is truth? How can you trust what YOU a mere mortal believe? How do you know you're not really in the matrix and the machines are just trying to fool you?
Anyone can ask questions like that all day. Everything I define as truth is supported by evidence and is testable and repeatable. "All men make mistakes" And some of us learn from them.
trj1370 11 months ago
@trj1370 I know not what tomorrow holds but i know who holds tomorrow, my faith and trust is in the One who holds tomorrow, The LORD of heaven and Earth, The LORD of the starry hosts. God showed me what truth is. I'm not saying your way is wrong, heck there are even scientists who can prove the existence of God, all i'm saying is that you must go deeper than mental processes because our human minds are finite where as God's is infinite. Also things are always changing, never staying the same.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@trj1370 "All men make mistakes" And some of us learn from them.
Granted, but still we all make mistakes, God does NOT make mistakes EVER. I'll follow God in all his perfection, not imperfect man.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@bigboyburnsy Well I sure hope you've never worked on Sunday before:
Exodus 31:15 "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death."
Millions of people do work on Sunday. Anyone with decent morals can see that it would be a mistake to put them to death.
This is too easy.
trj1370 11 months ago
@trj1370 Do you know why the sabbath was put in place by the LORD?
Genesis 2:3 "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." ~Genesis 2:3
Look at what Jesus Christ says about the sabbath, Mark 2:27 "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:" ~Mark 2:27
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@trj1370 sabbath is saturday mate....
RealBibletruth 11 months ago
@trj1370 Also look at most daily workout exercise programs, what do most of them tell you? To workout 6 days of the week and leave one day of the week to rest, we need rest to recover just like we need sleep to recover.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@trj1370 plz dont try to talk about the bible if you dont know it. There are plaenty of things in the old testament that our society today would consider bad, but 1) you were raised in a society with a certain aspect of thinking and therefore cant say this is wrong; its an opinion. 2)This is the old testament(evereything in the old testament changed when jesus came. so "working on the sabboth" or anything is a sin that can easily be forgiven, and not a death punishment.
antiform47 10 months ago
@trj1370 Scientists hardly ever if at all research the supernatural as many of them are brainwashed into believing that if you cannot see it with your eyes or grasp it with your 5 senses then its either not there or that its going to be impossible to prove so many scientists don't even bother. What about love, peace, patience and faithfulness? These things themselves prove the spirit as there is no LAW against these things.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@trj1370 You think you only think and make decisions with your mind? What about when you lust after something or someone? Thats from the heart. How about when you are angry with someone, thats from the heart. Love is from the heart. Sure you can have lustful thoughts, angry thoughts or loving thoughts but ultimately they stem from the heart.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
@bigboyburnsy The heart pumps blood. Lust, love, and anger are caused by hormones and chemicals in the brain like testosterone, oxytocin (the "love hormone"), vasopressin, and dopamine.
You need more education. If you can't afford it, wikipedia is free.
trj1370 11 months ago
Consider: p1 the universe consists only of matter & energy. P2 Naturalism is the athiests’ explanation for the origin & existence of a rationally intelligible universe. P3 If Science is defined as the study of the natural world it must ultimately be able to explain everything without recourse to a spiritual dimension. p4 there exists phenomena & questions that are metaphysical or philosophical in nature & hence beyond science Therefore materialistic reductionism (atheism) FAILS!
dashan091 11 months ago
@dashan091 nah, that's just god of the gaps, u would have to argue for their supernatural nature, dont get me wrong, im a theist, i just dont think this argument makes much sense, also, u have to argue for those, not just assert them. =)
atbigdog24002 11 months ago
@atbigdog24002 Sorry bigdog, you have made an assertion but not surprisingly fail to point out where my argument (premises & conclusion) fails. Naturalism is more like "science of the gaps" for Hawking& others to say "the laws of physics created themselves and then the universe out of nothing " and then by blind faith, accept that the origin, & existence of immutable, immaterial laws need no explanation. Please visit my videos & check out my arguments why Naturalism fails. I dare u!
dashan091 11 months ago
Non-spiritual atheists lack the philosophical thought to understand the mind/body duality.
alexross8 1 year ago
The way I figure it is that evolution has obviously shaped our minds into an abstract program which we can call logical. That it is logical is evidenced by our understanding of the world and the applications those understandings have. The mind, however, is definitely not 'free', but that does not mean we can not reason. To say we cannot is obviously wrong, so I think perhaps the nature of the mind is presently unknown, and perhaps even unknowable because of its 'absurd' character.
TheBiddleMan 1 year ago
He purports that atheists "believe that faculties are not aimed at truth but survival value. . ." What else can religion be but a philosophy based entirely around the idea that one is eternal? Religion is the biggest form of death denial the mind is capable of conceiving i.e. religion is based on psychological survival value.
ATHFANATIC 1 year ago 5
@ATHFANATIC all brain activity is the result of chemical reactions Celibrated atheist Bertrand RUSSELL says : That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; … all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. = Materialistic reductionism!
dashan091 11 months ago
you cant trust anyone who thinks they have a monkeys brain.
Gaaminator 1 year ago
...cont.. and darwin was correct, we cannot trust our own minds as the soul source and discriminator of what is true (about the nature of the universe) which is why science has so GREATLY improved the quality of human life. With the structured method of testing ideas, measuring results, and compiling a baseline of knowledge across millions of people, for hundreds of years, THEN we can know what the 'Truth' is regarding the reality of our existance.
And the Truth is, there is no god.
MrHobiecat 1 year ago 2
@MrHobiecat What justifies you to say that this is the truth? Are you really just stupid?
CarlosMarti123 1 year ago
@MrHobiecat
Uh...so you're saying if a scientist has a bunch of different data and is trying to determine which ones are more accurate and truthful, they are not using their mind to discriminate between the different data?
Fleefles 1 year ago
@MrHobiecat "darwin was correct, we cannot trust our own minds as the soul (sole?) source and discriminator"
Tell us then if Darwin is correct does that tell u there's no such thing as absolute truth? Then can I ask by whose authory can u reason that the truths that your ape-evolved mind is even capable of a truth statement? If my 1st question is correct isnt your last statement re, Godexistence self-refuting? How does a bunch of selfish genes reason to the non-existence of an abstract reality?
dashan091 11 months ago
the video is making the common religous error of focusing on what a person believes, instead of what they know and understand. This is because they believe in magical thinking, if I think one thought I will live forever in a city of gold, and if I think another thought (belief) I will burn forever in a lake of fire.
In reality, it doenst matter what you think or believe, what matters is what you LEARN and UNDERSTAND about the universe....
MrHobiecat 1 year ago 2
@MrHobiecat - Christianity isn't based on just believing. It needs to be accepted then followed by repentance. The Bible says in James 2:19 - " You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!"
gab197 10 months ago
@MrHobiecat Knowledge means justified, true belief...
and what do you mean "it doesn't matter"?
JaffarDS 10 months ago
@MrHobiecat You say there's an error of focusing on what a person "believes" instead of knows/understand. May I ask the clear-cut difference between the two when justifying different methods of epistemology?
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
Our beliefs change from many different factors(region,time etc).Evolution is a moral-free theory.You can't use it to explain how morals came and enter our societies.Sociology does that.You can apply "evolution of ethics and beliefs" in a more poetic way..But in no way does evolution explain beliefs and how they change.
Stevoukos 1 year ago
@Stevoukos actually, living things that nuture and care for each other, thrive in a community. A human being living alone has a very slime chance of survival, much less reproduction
therefore many of the characteristics that we consider morally right, are encoded in our genes.
A person born with a tendency to rape and kill and destroy wont live long, and if you kill your offspring, your genes die with you.
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
@MrHobiecat
So are you saying in places/times where slavery was moral, that it really was moral because it was encoded in our genes, and that people against slavery were actually the immoral ones because they had faulty genes?
Fleefles 1 year ago
You have no idea about evolution "Doctor".Evolution has nothing to do with beliefs or anything else.Natural selection is not whipping out beliefs but genes..
Stevoukos 1 year ago
Why does he call it random. THere is no random in nature, it just is.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk you have to call it random if you are a naturalist because admitting that it is not random shows that there was a choice made by a deliberate will with an intelligence, lol random is meant to devoid anything of a deliberate will or an intellgient cause, thats why it has to be random.
StarRonKid 1 year ago
@StarRonKid no, random is when "something" THAT is awera of exictence make a choice that is not based on anything, a pick. If you no other options, and no one to chose something else then it isnt random.
gulbirk 1 year ago
If I understand the argument right your are linking survival traits and ethics to belief. When if fact they are not linked by belief. It is a social interaction use to help each other survive. We depend on each other which really has nothing to do with a god. not to mention our ability to seek truth and understand our world has extended our lives way beyond anything of value in any religious text. Religion has nothing to do with survival, it was used to understand our world at a primitive level.
tddavis 1 year ago
We would not even think of a Religion if there was no God to be connected with.
MandGmusics 1 year ago
@MandGmusics
"We would not even think of a Religion if there was no God to be connected with."
Proof this hypothesis. Or did you just want to say something stupid?
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@MandGmusics So the people who thought the sun and the planets were gods, were correct?!
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
@MrHobiecat God our Lord is incorporeal. The Sun has already other things which to do.
MandGmusics 1 year ago
@MandGmusics What god? Where do you see any god?
the only human references to a creator/god are from people who CLAIM to have seen it or talked with it, and oh guess what? God put THEM in charge and made THEM his sole spokemans, and collector of gods money.
Isnt it funny how it always works out that way. The belief in the supernatural is a natural outcome of the pattern recognition functions of the human mind. When the mind sees action, it assumes there must be a conscious being there.
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
@MrHobiecat If you cant see God, then thats something pitiful. There are those who dont see our creator because they dont want to, and thats your kind, if you dont change that hatred towards the Lord, youll be blind toward his actions. Science is good for us all because it improves our environment and superfluos wants, but God can fill your spiritual needs with that sublime wisdom known as Faith.
MandGmusics 1 year ago
@MandGmusics If you can see people that no one else can see, you need stronger meds.
Your self rightious attitude that you can see a creator/god and other people cant, because you are somehow better than us, is the same attitude that religious people use to justify killing other people in the name of their imaginary friend.
When you believe in absurdities, you WILL commit atrocities. YOU already have, by accusing me of being somehow defective.
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
@MrHobiecat Hahaha poor soul of yours, if you cant believe on what you cannot see i think you will always be a failure on earth. Succes which is not bound to religion, yet it is tied to Faith aswell as religion. The best things on earth are those which are sublime, but you dont understand anything about that, your only an atheist, dont speak any more to me cause i wont answer you, bad pet.
MandGmusics 1 year ago
@MandGmusics You can think whatever you want (clearly), that has no bearing on my accomplishments or any other aspect of my life.
You are using the language of a con man. Someone who tells you an absurd story with outragious claims, and when someone asks you for evidence to support your claims, you say "dont you have any faith? you are not a very trusting person, are you? Are you calling ME a LiaR?!?!?"
Religion is a scam. You know it, you use the language of it perfectly.