Within "naturalism", there's nothing that refers to the concept of "infinity" or "eternal", thus one cannot base logic completely on "naturalism", or that which we detect with our senses. In addition, we don't ultimately know what "nature" is comprised of, thus have no bases to really distinguish it from the word "supernatural". God could be more natural than the "natural", thus most "Natural".
Yes, God is "bound" by that which logical absolutes refer, because they refer to God. He has eternal relationship within himself, thus can account for all absolute abstractions which things refer to. This is moreover why you're borrowing, not us. Thus God is bound by himself, yet in that case he's not really bound, but is just being himself. You wouldn't say you're bound by yourself, but that you just are the way you are, and are not someone else, or not a tree.
@solaphyde [You wouldn't say you're bound by yourself] Yes I would. I wish I could fly, I wish I could read minds, I wish I could breath underwater. I can´t. To be myself is to be restricted to my nature. I can´t be other being except me, and so does God. For a omnipotent fellow, that´s a shame.
@lfzadra Your exception is that you "wish" you could do something. God does not wish he could sin, etc. So that's a bad example. Again, God is omnipotent in accordance to his pleasure and will. So it's the opposite of a shame. It's wonderful.
@solaphyde [Your exception is that you "wish"] God wish to save all souls. He´s not gonna make it, at least not if the method he is using to save souls is to demand belief without evidence. And since this method arises from his "perfect" nature, god himself is bounded by his own holy stupidity, irrational behavior, arbitrary demands and commandments. For a being that does not exist, he is executing his imaginary plan pretty well.
@lfzadra As a Calvinist, I disagree that he ultimately wants to save all souls.I'm well prepared to look at any text of Scripture to back that point.Also, you're not critiquing Christianity by saying he demands belief without evidence.The Biblical context for faith is to accept that Jesus is whom he claimed to be.Even an atheist who sees God after death rejects Christ's claims.Faith is a change of heart that God can grant to anyone at anytime.So he executes his plan perfectly. Nice try
@solaphyde [wants to save all souls] Take no offense, please, but it seems to me that your version of the christian god is more psychopathic than the others.
[to accept that Jesus is whom he claimed to be] Based in no evidence whatsoever. Ancient texts containing reports of miracles are not evidence, something a omniscient being should know. If his plan is perfect, it should be impossible to me do deny his existence, in the same way I can´t deny yours.
@solaphyde [Even an atheist who sees God after death rejects Christ's claims] You are hilarious. Not only you claim to know that there is a creator of the universe and you already know who he is, but you have telepathic powers that endure after the death of others. Why somebody faced with the undeniable truth of the choice between heaven and hell will choose to burn forever? It´s embarrassing to see how christians have to rape their minds in order to protect their dogmas. You are no exception.
@lfzadra I'm happy to debate the existence of God, but one thing at a time. You're missing my point. Again, you're not critiquing Christianity. Remember? It teaches that faith in God is in the context of accepting Christ as Lord, NOT having empirical acknowledgment. This is the second time I've had to say it. A lot of people on youtube want to be spoon fed. You're better than that.
@solaphyde [Again, you're not critiquing Christianity. Remember?] Our little chat started with the idea that God is bounded by his nature. Since your version of the christian god does not have at least the desire to save everybody, his nature is imperfect, and he is bounded by this imperfection. This alone demonstrates that your version of the christian god, that is, in principle, perfect, is incoherent, and a prisoner of his own immutable nature, like everybody else.
@lfzadra Again, you're not critiquing Christianity when you say he's imperfect if he doesn't want to save anybody. The real problem for the Christian shouldn't be why doesn't he then save everyone. Christians believe we're evil and don't deserve it, and that God is perfect and holy. The real problem is why he wants to save anyone at all when we utterly don't deserve it.
Nice try. You're the one who's only critiquing your misconceptions.
@solaphyde [Christians believe we're evil and don't deserve it] In other words, you have a religion who preaches low self esteem, or maybe the idea that we inherit the sin of others, in the case of the immoral original sin doctrine. Even if none of us deserve it, to save anyone would be immoral too. But this has nothing to do with God´s necessary desires. If he is omnibenevolent, he will wish at least. Again, please, don´t take offense, this is just how I see christianity.
@lfzadra I'm only going to respond to your critiques of Biblical Christianity. All other false views of gods I have issues with as well. God saving us isn't immoral, but is just because our deserved punishment is carried out vicariously in Christ. Nice try. Just is always upheld 100% in the gospel. Some get wrath, some love, the only difference is grace. God IS still all loving even when punishing sinners. He's all loving to himself by upholding justice. Happy new year.
@solaphyde how about god creating many of us unwilling to believe something with insufficient evedence, then being unwilling to provide sufficient evidence to justify that belief he supposedly wants, and then punishing those creations for not believing....in effect, punishing us for the way he created us.
Its like creating a chess board with unstable pieces, then punishing the pieces when they fall over.
@stiimuli I'll keep saying it on youtube until atheists get it. Sorry, but you're not critiquing Christianity with your misconceptions. Biblical faith is in the context of accepting whom Jesus claimed to be, NOT having empirical acknowledgement. The Biblical anthropology is that people reject Christ's claim because we are all sinful at heart. Being lawless at heart is the reality of this world. God is loving to himself by upholding justice to lawless sinners.
@solaphyde So basically, we must adhere to a concept which is contradicted by all reliable information. God wants us to believe blindly without justification upon penalty of infinite suffering. This demonstrates that the biblical concept of a deity is not only unworthy of belief but unworthy of worship even if it was demonstrated existant.
We are not lawless at heart. We have developed intricate systems of behavior over thousands of generations of living in cooperative societies.
@solaphyde and the Islamic version of god and worship adheres to the exact same logical inconsistancies yet you've decided that religion is not worthy of observance.
You've come to two different conclusions in the face of two similar mandates based on either personal preferance or the social paradigm you were born into.
You say God should be able to create something that can contradict if he can create something that can lie. He does create people who contradict, and when they do they're lying. On the flip side, if God could create people who could truly contradict, then he wouldn't be creating people who were lying, since if contradictions were truly allowed, there'd be no such thing as lying. Sorry, but your argument does't work.
@TheoreticalBullshit "can god make eggnog?" Somewhere there is a deaf atheist trying to argue against the existence of God by using The Problem of Eggnog, lol.
I think your objection fails, the theistic position is that God cannot contradict his essence, (and God is not subjected to his essence, God is his essence, thus God cannot contradict God):
if God would lie it would contradict his essence, if God would do something evil it would contradict his essence, however if God would create something contradictory it would contradict his essence. However to create an other being that contradict God is not impossible. What then of you objection?
I think your objection fails, the theistic position is that God cannot contradict his essence, (and God is not subjected to his essence, God is his essence, thus God cannot contradict God):
if God would lie it would contradict his essence, if God would do something evil it would contradict his essence, however if God would create something contradictory it would contradict his essence. However to create an other being that contradict God is not impossible. What then of you objection?
@andrejuthe The point is that God can't lie but he can create something that can lie (humans). However, God can neither be inconsistent with logic nor can he create something that can be logically inconsistent in terms of logical absolutes. The difference between these two is the key. God can't lie because it's not in HIS nature while he can't create something that is logically inconsistent because it goes contrary to the nature of existence.
@andrejuthe The point is that logic, or rather what it refers to (the logical absolutes), is not contingent upon God because it does not require a mind to exist for the absolutes to exist; the absolutes are basically the ways of nature or existence.
@RussianAssassin21 But in that case one could argue that logical absolutes are an expression of Gods nature since God is a necessary existence and his nature is the basis for everything else. The basis of the law of non-contradiction would then be God's nature; the metaphysical principle that being is not non-being. God i is being in itself and God is perfect there is no contradiction in him and everything he creates is consistent with that.
@andrejuthe No we don't know that God is a necessary existence because that's what the discussion is about. The ontological argument completely begs the question. Someone could try to make your argument but it's a complete blind assertion. If there was no God then these laws of logic would still be true; God does not keep things from not being what they are etc. Obviously you could make the argument you make in the last sentence but there's no basis for it, anyone could make that up.
No, what I discussed was one of his objections against TAG, the very definition of God is that he is a necessary being so that is not begging any questions; you are confusing logical necessity with ontological necessity. I am not trying to defining God into existence. The ontological argument is irrelevant here. You on the other hand begs the question by stating: ”If there was no God then these laws of logic would still be true ”because that is what TAG is all about.
@andrejuthe Ok but I can make up an entity who is also defined the same way and that gets us nowhere, it's a bald assertion. There has to be some basis for that particular definition of God being accurate or else anyone could make up anything and it's the same thing. Why is he necessary? That's what needs to be explained before you can continue. TAG claims that the laws of logic, which represent how nature is, couldn't exist without God so this needs to be demonstrated; so far it has not been.
@RussianAssassin21 No you are wrong; in order to discuss weather x exist or not one first have to define x. There is nothing wrong in defining God, how else could be know what we were talking about? The argument for x:s existence is unrelated to how x is defined (the ontological argument may be an exception). Furthermore, we do not need to explain why God is necessarily in order for TAG to work. All one have to show is that the logical absolutes must assume a necessary being in order to exist.
@andrejuthe ok but these logical absolutes (which are the laws that refer to the way nature operates, unless you define it differently) don't need a necessary being, that's the point. What needs to be demonstrated is why a particular being must exist in order for nature to operate the way it does. This has not been done.
@RussianAssassin21 I agree that Matt's version did not do the job, however there can be many formulation of TAG. I personally believe that both the moral and cosmological argument in their proper versions do the job,
@andrejuthe Naturalism is the default claim because it's the most we know, we KNOW nature operates this way because that's what we're talking about. For someone to say it takes this extra thing, that by definition we know less about, for nature to behave how it does requires extra reasoning to demonstrate how it is so.
@RussianAssassin21 No it is not the default claim, what we know is the facts about nature, to take the extra step to the philosophical position of naturalism (“that empirical nature is the only thing that exist”) one one has to provide extra reasoning to demonstrate how this is so, as much as supernaturalism (“empirical nature is not the only thing that exist”)
@andrejuthe No because what we are observing is nature so that's all we can know exists, anything extra requires extra reasoning of some sort. I'm referring to a more passive naturalism that doesn't assert that our natural world is all there is but kind of a weak naturalism where that's all we know and anything else has to be demonstrated somehow.
@andrejuthe The way nature behaves, which we use the laws of logic to represent; something can't exist and not exist, something can't be something that it's not, etc. This is how things are, it's the way of nature as far as we know. For someone to claim that some entity must exist for this to remain true requires extra reasoning.
@andrejuthe We know how nature operates according to the laws of logic because they are in the same existence as we are. God is not in the same existence as nature is so to say that there is any connection requires a demonstration of some sort of reasoning at the very least. The fact is that there's no reason to believe that the laws of logic could be any different even without the existence of a God; that's what remains to be demonstrated. To be honest, God seems very unnecessary in this case.
@RussianAssassin21 You are discussing an irrelevant question here, I am not saying that TAG in the version by Matt is tenable (personally I do not believe so) but one of the author's objection were faulty and that is what I pointed out. In order to show that God is the ontological ground for logic one have to give an argument, I agree with you on that. However if being is the ground for the laws of logic, there has to be a necessary being that exists since logic apply to all possible worlds.
@andrejuthe Ok, so for the laws of logic to be then there has to be necessary being. True I guess, but that doesn't mean that there has to be a necessary entity as in a god.
@andrejuthe The naturalist claim is that there is only nature and this is how it operates. If someone comes along and says that a God is necessary for nature to behave the way it does then that has to be demonstrated in some way because he or she is making the extra claim. It would have to be shown one way or another how a god would be necessary for nature.
No matter how much we try to quantify and theorize a way to describe an infinite God with words that we can articulate, we end up arguing in circles. God himself said it best when he said "I am what I am."
He just is and all we can do is observe and live in it whether one believes it or not. There is two things no one can deny. Time and space are infinites. If God is exist as an omnipresent being and has always been then He has to be the reason for the infinite existence of time and space.
The root word nature does not belong to a world view it's just a word we use to describe the way things are observed to be. The term nature is not the ruling limitation over anything that exist; God is. To say that God can change His nature is to say that God has a multiple personality disorder. God Is one to keep His promise; that is his nature. One may say that time and space has to exist for God to exist and I would say time and space exist because God exist; all are infinites.
Logic is not a tangible substance that must be inferred on something that exist, it is our way of rationalizing what does exist. We use Logic to describe God because we can't quite quantify God in a limited form. In geometry we learn about infinity and that is God's existence in a nut shell. We can describe space and time as infinites and God is known as an infinite being. To argue logic on semantics is illogical at best. A square circle is an oxymoron. Why even ask if God could create it?
Fantastic video. I loved your rebuttal from around the 4 minute mark to the 6 and a half minute mark. I agree if Dillahunty would have pursued that line of reasoning his rebuttal to TAG would have been that much more effective.
So, based on the Euclid vs Lobachevski simple example we can see that no such thing as logical absolute exist becase it's all relative and dependant on the certain set of parameters that will define if something is logical or not, and that doesn't exist then no god exist either, at lwast based on that premise.
What is interesting is that God cannot create square circle and yet a human can. Of course we are not talking specifically about circle, but about contradictory proven absolutes that coexist perfectly - Geometry of Euclid > true > parallel lines don't ever cross and in Lobachevski geometry they do and that is also true. Same with physics of Newton vs. physics of relativity of Einstein – both true and contradictory to each other at the same time. So God can't and human can.
God lies in the bible. He told Abraham he was gonna kill his kid. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice the kid. God didn't go through with it. That is a LIE.
Is not a thing's nature what that thing is bound to act upon? Is that not the definition of a nature? You've failed there.
For example. I am a human. It is in my nature to act human, because I have a human nature. If I was acting inconsistent to my human nature I wouldn't be human.
@djchozen91 What does it mean to "act human"? That doesn't really mean anything to me as humans all over the world behave in a large variety of very differfent manners.
If you pick something more specific... say it is in your nature to be honest. That does not necessarily mean you are incapable of dishonesty, just that you are unlikely to exhibit it.
I get tired of logical contradictions because I haven't seen anyone address them realistically. Logic is bound by the laws of our universe as surely as science. Can god make a square circle, not as long as a square and circle are defined differently. God could make an existence that had no distance. Then a square and a circle would be the same but it would lose meaning. Logic can not be applied to anything outside of our universe because it is impossible to comprehend.
the universe exists in such a way that truth becomes evident. like A is always A. up cannot be down and right cannot be wrong. "logic" to my understanding, is simply the attributes of the universe so to speak. weather or not the universe creates the effect of logical absolutes or logical absolutes transend the universe and are larger truths at a whole.
I think the ultimate problem with TAG, and I wish you would address this, is the total lack of physical evidence for God. At the end of the day, we can bash heads on logic all we want. But the ultimate determinant of what is true is the ability to predict and explain events. So the ultimate problem for TAG is: "Where is your God?"
If TAG is correct, it should also be demonstrable in some way. Otherwise, it is just a logical conclusion sitting in its own little vacuum.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The problem with that statement anticitizen even if i don't want to say it is your kind of poo pooing alot of physics by asking for evidence like that. Its the same as for atoms we can't see them but by necessity they must exist otherwise the observations and maths do not make sense and so Tag can claim the same
Except that atoms are demonstrable on many levels. Atomic theory predicts and explains events in ways that no other theory does. TAG makes no predictions and explains nothing. It is an empty conclusion.
All conclusions the the realm of physical science are, at least in principle, redeemable on demand. TAG is not. So again, the question for TAG is, "if you're wrong, how can we tell?"
@AntiCitizenX Lmfao. How can you ask for a physical evidence of a non-physical concept? The only evidence in questions of God and Faith are logic-based, deductive. Demostrable by logic and deduction, not physical evidence.
So are you telling me that God is a "non physical concept?" Because if so, you are basically telling me that God does not exist in external reality and is nothing more than a conceptual human construct. In other words, my point exactly.
@AntiCitizenX Being the cause of Existence itself (time, space and matter), how do you expect God to be subject to the limitations of the creation? In other words, the Cause of time, space and matter cannot by defintion be subject to time, space and matter. It's sheer logic.
If you are so cock-sure that this God thing of yours created everything, then where is he? Show him to me. Explain to me an experimental test that will differentiate between a purely natural universe and one that your magic-man built. What demonstration do you have to show me that God is more than just a construct of your imagination? Conclusions, deductions, and logic are all useless without some empirical basis to ground them in.
@AntiCitizenX You didn't read anything I've said. It is grounded in the same empirical basis anything else is grounded in: Existence itself, its laws and its logic. Once again: you do not need physical evidence for something by definition non-physical. You can't show me love, for example, or a formula for it. "Magic man" is YOUR concept, not mine. You are the one who simplifies it to feel comfortable (I highly doubt you're 30), while I reason out an absolute logical necessity of a Creator.
And what if you are wrong? How would you know it? You cannot logically deduce reality. You can only make inference through empirical observation. So unless you have an experimental test that would potentially validate or disprove your God-thingy, then all of your "logic" is moot. You are so cock-sure that this God of yours is real, so why is it so difficult to demonstrate?
Existence itself is proof of nothing more than existence itself. Logic is nothing more than a human construct. "Laws" are nothing more than patterns inferred through empirical observation. So once again, you are completely cock-sure of the existence of a conscious deity you cannot even test for in principle to validate or refute your deductions. Your magic-man is functionally equivalent to an imagined construct.
@AntiCitizenX Say "cock-sure" again, and I'll be 100% cock-sure you're an agenda troll.
Now. Every scientific achievement, every job, every system relies on the principle of causality. Every action has a reaction, and every effect has its cause. It IS "nothing more than human construct", that's why we have intellect. Existence as an effect logically requires a Cause. It IS a conclusion through deductive thinking and observation, while you keep asking for physical evidence.
" every system relies on the principle of causality"
And how do you know this? You only deduced it through empirical observation and logical inference. How do you know that causality must apply to everything at all scales?
You also seem to be confusing "cause" with "deliberate, conscious engineer." Even if the universe itself has a "cause" is no excuse to postulate an anthropomorphic magic-man.
@AntiCitizenX Keep saying "Magic man", I know that makes you feel better, although the concept is vastly more complex. Existnce = time, space, matter, therefore Cause of Existence = timeless, spaceless, non-physical. Something that is timeless, spaceless and non-physical can't be abstract, since abstraction can't create. Therefeore, personal Creator is logically deducted.
First, you ask for empirical observation, then empirical observation means nothing to you. "Bla bla bla" is all you hear.
(1) If Existence is non-causal, it is eternal. And since time, space and matter are dimensions that constitute Existence, they would be eternal as well. Which goes against any modern scientific claim about Universe. The Big Bang is inception of Existence as we know it. Causeless? Logical impossibility.
(2) Yes it is, necessarily. I've explained: abstract objects (like numbers) by definition can't create anything. Without personal will a creating Deity is logically impossible.
Your logic is not the ultimate determination of reality. Reality determines reality. Your logical conclusions are only as good as the assumptions on which you base them. Experimental demonstration is the ultimate test as to the validity of your assumptions. If you have no experimental test, then your conclusions are functionally worthless. This is the concept you need to understand, because it explains why no one is compelled by your argument.
"Which goes against any modern scientific claim about Universe."
Since when was science perfect and all-knowing? Science has nearly nothing concrete to say about the ultimate origins of everything. Besides, if you are going to admit science as a useful tool of figuring things out, then you must accept the premise that experimental demonstration is the ultimate arbiter of reality. So WHERE IS YOUR DEMONSTRATION? Do not just deduce God, but DEMONSTRATE him.
Are you 100% confident in your ability to form assumptions about reality? Are you 100% confident in your ability to form conclusions based on those assumptions? Is there any remote possibility that a fallible human being such as yourself could form logical deductions about reality that appear solid to you, but actually contain errors? Yes or no?
@AntiCitizenX I'm 100% confident in my ability to reason things out, yes. In that, I'm confident. The only place for error is if logic and common sense THEMSELVES turn out to be worthless, which I highly doubt, because it's what society has relied on until today. Of course, there's a "remote possibility" that deductive logic turns out to be false, but ONLY if someone finds a substitute for logic itself. Doubt that'll happen.
" I'm 100% confident in my ability to reason things out, yes."
Virtually everything you think you know to be true inevitably contains some degree of error. The only way to fix this is by seeking out errors and correcting them. Since you can't even admit the mere possibility of error in your reasoning, you have a philosophy of wrongness that will stay wrong forever and never even know it. So until you drop your arrogant attitude of "I'm right no matter what," we're done here.
(3) No. Since God is omnipotent by definition - there is absolutely nothing "better" is "many gods". In fact, that'd be another logical impossibility :)
You cannot go around defining subjective constructs into existence. Just because you say one omnipotent God is "better" than many does not automatically mean reality must conform to your wishes. Unless, of course, you have an experimental test to verify that only one God exists as opposed to two.
@AntiCitizenX@AntiCitizenX You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. You don't listen. You invent. You even understand what you've just said?
"Just because you say one omnipotent God is....doesn't mean reality must conform"
That's WHINING now, pure whining. It's not "just because I say" or "wish", I GROUND it in sheer LOGIC. Find me a LOGICAL flaw in my reasoning, because proof and evidence is Existence itself.
Your logical flaw is the assumption that reality gives a damn about your logic. Case in point:
All Tribbles hate Klingons.
Worf is a Klingon
Tribbles therefore hate Worf.
This is a perfectly sound logical statement that has exactly ZERO BASIS IN REALITY. Unless I can physically produce a tribble or a Klingon, neither of these things exist.
@AntiCitizenX Spare me from silly comparisions, and spare yourself from the embarrassment. Klingons and tribbles? That's a secondary concept, an effect within the Existence, a result of a writer's imagination, not a logically necessary cause of anything. If you think that's the same as deducting a logical necessity of a Creator, I pity you. In fact, stick to movies and comic books, man. Ridiculous.
"Stuff exists" is not a compelling proof of anything beyond "stuff exists." At some point, you have to make assumptions, and those assumptions are not necessarily perfect. So you might be wrong. Without a physical demonstration of your conclusions, there is no functional difference between a God that created everything and a God that exists entirely in your own imagination. No demonstration, no God. Period.
@AntiCitizenX I might be wrong only if it turns out that logic, deduction and common sense are worthless. Demonstration isn't equal to physical evidence, unless you specify that. And again, if you ask for a physical demonstration of a non-physical concept and skip logic and common sense, you're escaping the obvious conclusions. Wishful thinking much? Aww.
You are making a logical inferences without bothering to validate yourself through empirical testing. "Look around you" is not a proof of the existence of God. It only demonstrates the universe. "Blah blah logical babble blah blah" is not proof either. If you have no experiment, then you have no way to differentiate between a God that genuinely exists in reality and a God that exists only in your imagination. The two are therefore functionally equivalent.
@AntiCitizenX ...And since "bla bla bla" is all you hear, it renders you incapable of an intellectual conversation - you hit a dead-end called "physical evidence", while I expand beyond that. Oh, well. What do I expect from someone who thinks Faith = superstition? Lol.
Do you not understand the fundamental point? BLA BLA BLA is a reference to the fact that you zero empirical support for your conclusion. There does not exist any physical test that will differentiate between a natural universe and an engineered universe. The two concepts are therefore FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT. There is no difference between a God that cannot be physically manifest in any capacity and no God at all. Even if you are absolutely correct about him, he is irrelevant
Well no, if the tag argument is true, we cant have logical conclusions without god.
And empiricism has its own flaws. Besides no christian that i can think of is arguing for a physical god anyway. im not a theist but i really dont see why that comment got so many thumbs up
"Logic" is not the ultimate determinant of reality. REALITY is the determinant of reality. Logic is only as good as the assumptions upon which it is based and the discipline of the guy exercising the conclusions. Without a physical demonstration, there is no way to tell the difference between "correct" logic and a bunch of crap some idiot rattled off. The two concepts become functionally equivalent.
In many ways, yes, I am an empiricist. But I would be careful about trying myself down to a single label. I am also a pragmatist and an instrumentalist in may ways. "Empirical rationalist" is a nice description, but probably not perfect either.
@Ilikenuman Does anyone agree with you or are you alone in your thoughts? Would anyone sacrifice there life for the statement you made? Are there any historical eye witness to what you are saying? What's the motivation to believe in what you are saying? You see, these statements are made to sound ridiculous but it has nothing to do with the belief in God. Your analogy falls short.
@AntiCitizen What the hell does physical evidence of "God" mean? That you're going to behold some kind of transcendental object, something imponderable, inconceivable, and impossible, some metaphysical, metanoetic hyperdimensional entelechy, some kind of spiritual essence transduced from a higher dimension into three-dimensional space and time? I mean, wtf? I love the Hindu's notion of the divine which Watts so eloquently describes here:
@Hanahleia Perhaps manifestation of his doing as witnessed so many times throughout the stories of the bible. Those people in the stories definitely had reasons to believe God existed but today NOTHING like that happens at all. No seas part, nothing turns into something else and people aren't raised from the dead as exhibited in the bible. Nothing even close to magical occurs in modern times. Why not?
@Hanahleia Of course I'm referring to the Judeo Christian God that is necessarily involved in human affairs. If we're just talking about an indifferent entity or not even an entity then that's clearly different.
@RussianAssassin21 Yeah, but parting the seas, some UFO nut could attribute that not to God, but to advanced extraterrestrial technology. Why assume an example like that to be God? You're sayin' something magical would convince you there's a God? That's why I think the whole argument of God is merely an argument based on semantics. That's why I suggested that Alan Watts video. I can agree with the notion of the divine in Hinduism. You should take a listen, if you've got the leisure time.
@Hanahleia Well I'm just talking about the Christian God. Even if a sea parted at least something's happening and we could then discuss it and consider the possibilities, but nothing even close to that happens. What I'm saying is that it would take something to occur that would not otherwise occur according to naturalism; a suspension of some sort of natural law would be a start.
@Hanahleia Well if you're referring to a personal experience then that's different. Even if I were to experience something I would refer to as mystical I still have no reason to believe it has anything to do with what we refer to as the supernatural. When one investigates reported mystical experiences it becomes apparent that the experience and its interpretation is reliant upon the culture in which it occurred.
@Hanahleia lol I absolutely am, although I have never tried it. I really do want to try it but that's a separate subject haha. I'd still have to imagine that a lot of the imagery beyond shapes and colors and lights are dependent upon cultural factors. I understand it's supposed to be a way of losing all of that cultural baggage so I can't say much about it. From what I've heard it's pretty nuts but since it involves the brain I'd imagine there's some influence, plus it's a chemical reaction.
"What the hell does physical evidence of "God" mean?"
Look it up, dude. This is not complicated. I means that I need some sort of test that can differentiate between a God that genuinely exists in physical reality as opposed to some phantasm that you pull out of your own ass. Without evidence, then the two concepts are functionally equivalent.
@AntiCitizenX Well, I've come to the conclusion through theosophical means that the basis of all religion is based in mystical experience. Although it can be interpreted through one's culture, it's no reduction of the experience, per se. There's many paths to it, you can meditate, in some instances such as the case of Jill Bolte Taylor's "Stroke of Insight," her stroke caused this to happen, sometimes a near-death-experience can produce this, taking psychedelics such as smoking DMT, and so on.
@Hanahleia Obviously we can experience things in our mind and in certain less than ordinary or extraordinary circumstances we can experience things that are very unusual and meaningful but to suggest that it's anything more than the human brain reacting under particular conditions and that it involves anything supernatural is tough to address. Even if I were to experience something as incredible as one would under the effects of DMT or an oxygen-starved brain in a NDE, I can't claim it was more.
@RussianAssassin21 Well, the "can't claim it was more" is what a summation a reductionist is forced to take. If you've ever had one of these experiences, it becomes quite apparent that what's going on is something like a higher resonance of reality. That you're somehow able to glimpse directly or indirectly something like a higher dimension. That's where the very idea of the spirit or the divine derives. It's always come through the mystical experience. Christ experienced this, Buddha, etc.
@RussianAssassin21 Have you ever looked into the work of Graham Hancock, Terence McKenna, Alan Watts or Dr. Rick Strassman? You'll find that in some instances of an near-death-experience, DMT will flood the dying brain, since DMT is already a part of our neurochemistry. DMT is produced in the pineal gland throughout your life, and it is stored in the spinal-cerebral fluid. This has been scientifically proved, that psychedelic tryptamines, including DMT, 5-MeO-DMT, and other similar compounds
@RussianAssassin (continued, and I don't usually do this) are all found in the cerebral fluid that surrounds the brain and spinal cord, and that the pineal gland, which synthesizes melatonin, is perfectly capable of synthesizing DMT, a cousin of serotonin. When you die, and your brain is going through the shut-down processes of death, it absorbs the cerebral fluid for any oxygen and energy it can find. In doing so, it takes in large amounts of DMT, and you can have this experience.
@Hanahleia Yes I've read about all of this, I've even heard Joe Rogan talk about this (a lot). It's a natural chemical reaction in the brain and it occurs in other animals. I don't doubt it's an intense experience that's indescribable to someone who has gone through it, but how can anyone actually claim what they are experiencing reflects not just "hidden" aspects of this reality but other dimensions? They're interpreting things a certain way, that's all it appears to be.
@RussianAssassin21 That's, in fact, what it may be. The brain seems something like an organic antenna, and these hallucinations (don't ask me how) are somehow holographically deployed throughout space, and you tune them in. Even Michio Kaku is keen on saying that there's perhaps infinite parallel dimensions around us, it's just that they've decohered from our reality. Well, psychedelics seem to be radio tuners for our brains, if you think this is bullshit, then for God's sake, smoke DMT.
Your theosophical experience is readily demonstrable in laboratory conditions and produces inconsistent results among subjects. Aspects of the near-death experiences can even be reconstructed through drug-induced hallucinations or simple loss of consciousness via oxygen deprivation. The "God helmet" is another great example of laboratory reproduction. In short, your standard of evidence is demonstrably unreliable as an avenue for truth.
@AntiCitizen That's only because science doesn't deal with individual experience, and that's the very evidence that is behind all of these ancient religions. You want to have an opinion about this stuff, but you don't want to experience for yourself? DMT only last 10 minutes. Surely, you have 10 minutes to spare in an experience that'll shake the foundations of your ontological assumptions. Here's a start, if you're going to attempt this:
@AntiCitizenX Yes, that's the claim, but I'm not saying you're going to meet a man with a beard. That's not a Hindu's notion of God. It's something closer to the sort of mysticism and idea of God that Alan Watts spoke about, that's why I suggested that video that I linked you to. If you've got the leisure time, you should definitely take a listen, especially before you respond to this message.
I did listen. No, a drug-induced hallucination is NOT a viable means of learning any fundamental truths about the universe. All that crap of yours about "organic antennas" is new-age bullshit. It is a hallucination and nothing more. And Frankly, if that's your idea of a religious experience, then you're wasting your life and also my time.
@AntiCitizenX No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that's a possibility in the psychedelic experience, but that wasn't my point. My point is beyond all of that, you can glimpse something like a higher dimension, and that's the point. That is how religion was born in the human mind in the first place. To say that it's merely a hallucination is a reductionist way to shove this off. The fact of the matter is, you don't know what a hallucination is. You must admit, your response is close-minded.
"you can glimpse something like a higher dimension, and that's the point."
Han, I don't care how gee-whiz your psychedelic experience may be. It is a hallucination. You are chemically stimulating all sorts of perceptual centers within the brain through the use of artificial agents. That is all. There is no "truth" to derive from what is obviously a compromised perspective.
@AntiCitizenX Have you ever had a psychedelic experience? It is no reduction of the psychedelic experience to say that it is caused by drugs effecting the mind and that because they are material atomic systems we therefore know everything about them — every electron is the yawning mouth of a wormhole that leads to quadrillions of higher dimensional universes that are completely beyond rational apprehension. Search the work of Dr. Rick Strassman or Terence McKenna. Lots of Terence on YouTube.
" every electron is the yawning mouth of a wormhole that leads to quadrillions of higher dimensional universes"
No Han. They are not. You are making up nonsense in order to rationalize getting high. But hey, I could be wrong. So prove it:
Produce for me a demonstrable and practical piece of knowledge out of your psychedelic experience. Say, show me a simplified proof of Fermat's last theorem.
@AntiCitizenX We're not talking about symbols here. This is an experience, but if you want mathematical proof, just listen to Michio Kaku. He's well convinced that higher dimensions exist. All I'm essentially saying is that there is a phenomenon in which you could glimpse or somehow intuitive feel a higher dimension or some kind of indirect shadow of it through these experiences. That's all. This is what people have been calling God, but it's, in fact, a higher dimension that has no name.
@AntiCitizenX If you want psychedelic insights, Francis Crick claimed before his death that his insight to the structure of DNA was gained through an LSD experience, fractals in mathematics has been attributed to psychedelics, the Gaia hypothesis has also been attributed to psychedelics. Then, there's the deeper insights of the mystical experiences expounded by Hindus, the sort that Ramesh Balsekar is well versed in explicating. Have you ever had a psychedelic experience? I'm curious, have you?
@AntiCitizenX When science finally takes a look and begins unfettered researches on psychedelics, I think it will eventually come to be known that what the psychedelic experience is, is an experience of the higher geometry of the universe. All points become cotangent. I think Michael Hoffman's Ego Death website is the beginning of a truth that will change our entire view upon reality, or at least for those of us who aren't keen on mysticism. Btw, you can visit his website @ "EgoDeath(dot)com".
@Hanahleia As someone who has had several psychedelic experiences, I can assuredly say that they have nothing to do with any sort of higher plane of existence. Getting high unlocks a different way of thinking, but that doesn't make this new way of thinking a GOOD way of thinking. Ever hear of "Bullshit pothead logic"?
@BigLundi Well, then you'd know that Terence McKenna advocated HUGE amounts of psychedelics. May I ask, and I hope you can honestly answer me, the dose ranges of these psychedelic experiences you've had?
@Hanahleia I was unaware of any tangible scale of psychedelic-ness. I can explain the most intense one I've had, if you'd like that. also, Terence McKenna advocating psychedelics means absolutely nothing as to the validity of them being a part of any sort of realm of higher existence.
@BigLundi Sure. I'd love to hear your most profound account. Please, message me in private, textual space is too limited here. And, I agree, advocation alone wouldn't prove anything, but science forbids research on psychedelics. If you're familiar with Terence McKenna's Stoned Ape theory or his Novelty theory, they are implications of what I'm referring to.
@AntiCitizenX [I can come to experience "God" though a drug-induced hallucination?] I never saw God this way, only Donald Duck and some leprechauns. Maybe I need something stronger. I will try some mescaline.
I enjoy your videos and the arguments therein. Good work. Here are some points about this particular video:
1. Logic stems from the nature of God, not vice versa. Can God be A and not A? Yes, but what IS he? Just A. He is not bound by the law of non-contradiction, the law of non-contradiction is bound by him. Can he make square circles? Yes, but "does he?" is the real question.
2. God can make things with a different nature than his own, that is obvious. We are not all-knowing. On this we agre
The way logical absolutes are presented they are indeed statements (conceptual) but they are not "the 'essence' of what logic refers to" which was the confusion. Its easy to agree with absolutes because we all use logic to evaluate it, but if your gonna evaluate absolutes you have to step out of that system. Logical absolutes are dependent on logic or even descriptive of logic itself. And the whole argument falls apart from there.
2:14 " Matt Slick: "God can not, not be God. No more than God can make a square circle."
Listen Scott.. If God infact can not, not be God. Then the whole subject of the "Trinity" is null and void. In the Trinity God is 3 things, he is the father, son, and holy spirit.
Also Jesus couldnt have been God. Because again with Slick's logic. God can not, not be God.
Just thought you should have mentioned that.. -Bbread
In that case-- if God is three things, or, "the Trinity", then each component of the Trinity (father, son and holy spirit) is to be treated as a subset of God, and the combination of the three (the Trinity itself) is what we call "God".
To say that God is the father, the son, and the holy spirit is not to say that God is not God. The concept of the Trinity is simply the idea that God is divided into three "parts".
When MS said in the debate god couldn't do things out of his nature I wanted to jump through the screen. I've heard other Christians claim this. Every conception of god I've heard (especially when I was growing up Catholic) is that he spans all time, space, and reality. But MS and others tell us he can't do something not in his nature. Why *not*? He's supposed to be "god". If god is all-powerful, he cannot exist in reality. If he can only do things in his nature, he cannot be all-powerful.
it seems so obvious to me how weak the theists position is. they literally have to make arguments left and right using every tactic in the book to try and prove god...in the end it comes down to them failing everytime! i just dont get why they are blind to the illogical claims they make. its like they really dont want to accept being wrong. its cognative dissonance or something.
Until recently I was a theist, and I can tell you it's exactly that. Remember that these people have built their whole life and everything they know around the idea of a god. All of their hopes and fears are built on top of it.
How would you feel when the one person you love most disappeared? Now imagine that that person had never existed and they were all a figment of your imagination. It's that horrible and unthinkable in the eyes of a theist that what they believe is wrong.
Also since it's clear that Slick believes that god is subject to logical absolutes as you point out, it's obvious that Slick can't define his god as being able to make a squared circle etc because that would mean that the logical absolutes aren't absolute. For them to be absolute in Slicks mind they also need to apply to god. Otherwise his entire argument fails because there would be no such thing as logical absolutes to begin with.
I think exploring why being illogical would be against god's narure as slick puts it would not be a good road to take. Since Slick is the theist who is claiming that his god exists it's also he that defines what he means by god. If you start coming at him with a god that could make a squared circle he could simply call it a strawman and say that "That's not the god i believe in".
Within "naturalism", there's nothing that refers to the concept of "infinity" or "eternal", thus one cannot base logic completely on "naturalism", or that which we detect with our senses. In addition, we don't ultimately know what "nature" is comprised of, thus have no bases to really distinguish it from the word "supernatural". God could be more natural than the "natural", thus most "Natural".
solaphyde 2 months ago
Yes, God is "bound" by that which logical absolutes refer, because they refer to God. He has eternal relationship within himself, thus can account for all absolute abstractions which things refer to. This is moreover why you're borrowing, not us. Thus God is bound by himself, yet in that case he's not really bound, but is just being himself. You wouldn't say you're bound by yourself, but that you just are the way you are, and are not someone else, or not a tree.
solaphyde 2 months ago
@solaphyde [You wouldn't say you're bound by yourself] Yes I would. I wish I could fly, I wish I could read minds, I wish I could breath underwater. I can´t. To be myself is to be restricted to my nature. I can´t be other being except me, and so does God. For a omnipotent fellow, that´s a shame.
lfzadra 1 month ago
@lfzadra Your exception is that you "wish" you could do something. God does not wish he could sin, etc. So that's a bad example. Again, God is omnipotent in accordance to his pleasure and will. So it's the opposite of a shame. It's wonderful.
solaphyde 1 month ago
@solaphyde [Your exception is that you "wish"] God wish to save all souls. He´s not gonna make it, at least not if the method he is using to save souls is to demand belief without evidence. And since this method arises from his "perfect" nature, god himself is bounded by his own holy stupidity, irrational behavior, arbitrary demands and commandments. For a being that does not exist, he is executing his imaginary plan pretty well.
lfzadra 1 month ago
@lfzadra As a Calvinist, I disagree that he ultimately wants to save all souls.I'm well prepared to look at any text of Scripture to back that point.Also, you're not critiquing Christianity by saying he demands belief without evidence.The Biblical context for faith is to accept that Jesus is whom he claimed to be.Even an atheist who sees God after death rejects Christ's claims.Faith is a change of heart that God can grant to anyone at anytime.So he executes his plan perfectly. Nice try
solaphyde 1 month ago
@solaphyde [wants to save all souls] Take no offense, please, but it seems to me that your version of the christian god is more psychopathic than the others.
[to accept that Jesus is whom he claimed to be] Based in no evidence whatsoever. Ancient texts containing reports of miracles are not evidence, something a omniscient being should know. If his plan is perfect, it should be impossible to me do deny his existence, in the same way I can´t deny yours.
lfzadra 1 month ago
@solaphyde [Even an atheist who sees God after death rejects Christ's claims] You are hilarious. Not only you claim to know that there is a creator of the universe and you already know who he is, but you have telepathic powers that endure after the death of others. Why somebody faced with the undeniable truth of the choice between heaven and hell will choose to burn forever? It´s embarrassing to see how christians have to rape their minds in order to protect their dogmas. You are no exception.
lfzadra 1 month ago
@lfzadra I'm happy to debate the existence of God, but one thing at a time. You're missing my point. Again, you're not critiquing Christianity. Remember? It teaches that faith in God is in the context of accepting Christ as Lord, NOT having empirical acknowledgment. This is the second time I've had to say it. A lot of people on youtube want to be spoon fed. You're better than that.
solaphyde 1 month ago
@solaphyde [Again, you're not critiquing Christianity. Remember?] Our little chat started with the idea that God is bounded by his nature. Since your version of the christian god does not have at least the desire to save everybody, his nature is imperfect, and he is bounded by this imperfection. This alone demonstrates that your version of the christian god, that is, in principle, perfect, is incoherent, and a prisoner of his own immutable nature, like everybody else.
lfzadra 1 month ago
Comment removed
solaphyde 4 weeks ago
@lfzadra Again, you're not critiquing Christianity when you say he's imperfect if he doesn't want to save anybody. The real problem for the Christian shouldn't be why doesn't he then save everyone. Christians believe we're evil and don't deserve it, and that God is perfect and holy. The real problem is why he wants to save anyone at all when we utterly don't deserve it.
Nice try. You're the one who's only critiquing your misconceptions.
solaphyde 4 weeks ago
@solaphyde [Christians believe we're evil and don't deserve it] In other words, you have a religion who preaches low self esteem, or maybe the idea that we inherit the sin of others, in the case of the immoral original sin doctrine. Even if none of us deserve it, to save anyone would be immoral too. But this has nothing to do with God´s necessary desires. If he is omnibenevolent, he will wish at least. Again, please, don´t take offense, this is just how I see christianity.
Happy new year!
lfzadra 4 weeks ago
@lfzadra I'm only going to respond to your critiques of Biblical Christianity. All other false views of gods I have issues with as well. God saving us isn't immoral, but is just because our deserved punishment is carried out vicariously in Christ. Nice try. Just is always upheld 100% in the gospel. Some get wrath, some love, the only difference is grace. God IS still all loving even when punishing sinners. He's all loving to himself by upholding justice. Happy new year.
solaphyde 3 weeks ago
@solaphyde how about god creating many of us unwilling to believe something with insufficient evedence, then being unwilling to provide sufficient evidence to justify that belief he supposedly wants, and then punishing those creations for not believing....in effect, punishing us for the way he created us.
Its like creating a chess board with unstable pieces, then punishing the pieces when they fall over.
Is this just or loving in any way?
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
@stiimuli I'll keep saying it on youtube until atheists get it. Sorry, but you're not critiquing Christianity with your misconceptions. Biblical faith is in the context of accepting whom Jesus claimed to be, NOT having empirical acknowledgement. The Biblical anthropology is that people reject Christ's claim because we are all sinful at heart. Being lawless at heart is the reality of this world. God is loving to himself by upholding justice to lawless sinners.
solaphyde 2 weeks ago
@solaphyde So basically, we must adhere to a concept which is contradicted by all reliable information. God wants us to believe blindly without justification upon penalty of infinite suffering. This demonstrates that the biblical concept of a deity is not only unworthy of belief but unworthy of worship even if it was demonstrated existant.
We are not lawless at heart. We have developed intricate systems of behavior over thousands of generations of living in cooperative societies.
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
@solaphyde and the Islamic version of god and worship adheres to the exact same logical inconsistancies yet you've decided that religion is not worthy of observance.
You've come to two different conclusions in the face of two similar mandates based on either personal preferance or the social paradigm you were born into.
stiimuli 2 weeks ago
You say God should be able to create something that can contradict if he can create something that can lie. He does create people who contradict, and when they do they're lying. On the flip side, if God could create people who could truly contradict, then he wouldn't be creating people who were lying, since if contradictions were truly allowed, there'd be no such thing as lying. Sorry, but your argument does't work.
solaphyde 2 months ago
in the beginning of the video, tbs, i thought you were grabbing bullshit out from behind my ear
ijanx 5 months ago
"atheists are borrowing from a fiesta worldview"..loll..
Tanner8720 6 months ago
@TON80DB lol! My favorite part was: "can god make eggnog?"
TheoreticalBullshit 6 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheoreticalBullshit "can god make eggnog?" Somewhere there is a deaf atheist trying to argue against the existence of God by using The Problem of Eggnog, lol.
theDracoIX 6 months ago
haha! He just used the term "logical absolutes" to back up his arguments. This guy is hilarious.
joxua1five 7 months ago
Comment removed
joxua1five 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think your objection fails, the theistic position is that God cannot contradict his essence, (and God is not subjected to his essence, God is his essence, thus God cannot contradict God):
if God would lie it would contradict his essence, if God would do something evil it would contradict his essence, however if God would create something contradictory it would contradict his essence. However to create an other being that contradict God is not impossible. What then of you objection?
andrejuthe 10 months ago
I think your objection fails, the theistic position is that God cannot contradict his essence, (and God is not subjected to his essence, God is his essence, thus God cannot contradict God):
if God would lie it would contradict his essence, if God would do something evil it would contradict his essence, however if God would create something contradictory it would contradict his essence. However to create an other being that contradict God is not impossible. What then of you objection?
andrejuthe 10 months ago
@andrejuthe The point is that God can't lie but he can create something that can lie (humans). However, God can neither be inconsistent with logic nor can he create something that can be logically inconsistent in terms of logical absolutes. The difference between these two is the key. God can't lie because it's not in HIS nature while he can't create something that is logically inconsistent because it goes contrary to the nature of existence.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@andrejuthe The point is that logic, or rather what it refers to (the logical absolutes), is not contingent upon God because it does not require a mind to exist for the absolutes to exist; the absolutes are basically the ways of nature or existence.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 But in that case one could argue that logical absolutes are an expression of Gods nature since God is a necessary existence and his nature is the basis for everything else. The basis of the law of non-contradiction would then be God's nature; the metaphysical principle that being is not non-being. God i is being in itself and God is perfect there is no contradiction in him and everything he creates is consistent with that.
andrejuthe 10 months ago
@andrejuthe No we don't know that God is a necessary existence because that's what the discussion is about. The ontological argument completely begs the question. Someone could try to make your argument but it's a complete blind assertion. If there was no God then these laws of logic would still be true; God does not keep things from not being what they are etc. Obviously you could make the argument you make in the last sentence but there's no basis for it, anyone could make that up.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21
No, what I discussed was one of his objections against TAG, the very definition of God is that he is a necessary being so that is not begging any questions; you are confusing logical necessity with ontological necessity. I am not trying to defining God into existence. The ontological argument is irrelevant here. You on the other hand begs the question by stating: ”If there was no God then these laws of logic would still be true ”because that is what TAG is all about.
andrejuthe 10 months ago
@andrejuthe Ok but I can make up an entity who is also defined the same way and that gets us nowhere, it's a bald assertion. There has to be some basis for that particular definition of God being accurate or else anyone could make up anything and it's the same thing. Why is he necessary? That's what needs to be explained before you can continue. TAG claims that the laws of logic, which represent how nature is, couldn't exist without God so this needs to be demonstrated; so far it has not been.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 No you are wrong; in order to discuss weather x exist or not one first have to define x. There is nothing wrong in defining God, how else could be know what we were talking about? The argument for x:s existence is unrelated to how x is defined (the ontological argument may be an exception). Furthermore, we do not need to explain why God is necessarily in order for TAG to work. All one have to show is that the logical absolutes must assume a necessary being in order to exist.
andrejuthe 10 months ago
@andrejuthe ok but these logical absolutes (which are the laws that refer to the way nature operates, unless you define it differently) don't need a necessary being, that's the point. What needs to be demonstrated is why a particular being must exist in order for nature to operate the way it does. This has not been done.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 I agree that Matt's version did not do the job, however there can be many formulation of TAG. I personally believe that both the moral and cosmological argument in their proper versions do the job,
andrejuthe 10 months ago
@andrejuthe Oh well I'd like you to also propose your versions of each of those as well! :)
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 We can do the cosmo/moral stuff over message, don't need to hijack the comments on this video more than we have.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@andrejuthe Naturalism is the default claim because it's the most we know, we KNOW nature operates this way because that's what we're talking about. For someone to say it takes this extra thing, that by definition we know less about, for nature to behave how it does requires extra reasoning to demonstrate how it is so.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 No it is not the default claim, what we know is the facts about nature, to take the extra step to the philosophical position of naturalism (“that empirical nature is the only thing that exist”) one one has to provide extra reasoning to demonstrate how this is so, as much as supernaturalism (“empirical nature is not the only thing that exist”)
andrejuthe 10 months ago
@andrejuthe No because what we are observing is nature so that's all we can know exists, anything extra requires extra reasoning of some sort. I'm referring to a more passive naturalism that doesn't assert that our natural world is all there is but kind of a weak naturalism where that's all we know and anything else has to be demonstrated somehow.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 What do you then mean with "where that's all we know" what is all we know?
andrejuthe 10 months ago
@andrejuthe The way nature behaves, which we use the laws of logic to represent; something can't exist and not exist, something can't be something that it's not, etc. This is how things are, it's the way of nature as far as we know. For someone to claim that some entity must exist for this to remain true requires extra reasoning.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21
Yes I have not said against you on that one. One should justify every claim one does with some argument.
andrejuthe 10 months ago
@andrejuthe We know how nature operates according to the laws of logic because they are in the same existence as we are. God is not in the same existence as nature is so to say that there is any connection requires a demonstration of some sort of reasoning at the very least. The fact is that there's no reason to believe that the laws of logic could be any different even without the existence of a God; that's what remains to be demonstrated. To be honest, God seems very unnecessary in this case.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 You are discussing an irrelevant question here, I am not saying that TAG in the version by Matt is tenable (personally I do not believe so) but one of the author's objection were faulty and that is what I pointed out. In order to show that God is the ontological ground for logic one have to give an argument, I agree with you on that. However if being is the ground for the laws of logic, there has to be a necessary being that exists since logic apply to all possible worlds.
andrejuthe 10 months ago
@andrejuthe Ok, so for the laws of logic to be then there has to be necessary being. True I guess, but that doesn't mean that there has to be a necessary entity as in a god.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@andrejuthe The naturalist claim is that there is only nature and this is how it operates. If someone comes along and says that a God is necessary for nature to behave the way it does then that has to be demonstrated in some way because he or she is making the extra claim. It would have to be shown one way or another how a god would be necessary for nature.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
I think when people face a debate face-to-face they tends to have emotional at hand thus making them less smart at the time.
Th0usandMaster 1 year ago
No matter how much we try to quantify and theorize a way to describe an infinite God with words that we can articulate, we end up arguing in circles. God himself said it best when he said "I am what I am."
He just is and all we can do is observe and live in it whether one believes it or not. There is two things no one can deny. Time and space are infinites. If God is exist as an omnipresent being and has always been then He has to be the reason for the infinite existence of time and space.
iceylittle 1 year ago
Comment removed
iceylittle 1 year ago
The root word nature does not belong to a world view it's just a word we use to describe the way things are observed to be. The term nature is not the ruling limitation over anything that exist; God is. To say that God can change His nature is to say that God has a multiple personality disorder. God Is one to keep His promise; that is his nature. One may say that time and space has to exist for God to exist and I would say time and space exist because God exist; all are infinites.
iceylittle 1 year ago
Logic is not a tangible substance that must be inferred on something that exist, it is our way of rationalizing what does exist. We use Logic to describe God because we can't quite quantify God in a limited form. In geometry we learn about infinity and that is God's existence in a nut shell. We can describe space and time as infinites and God is known as an infinite being. To argue logic on semantics is illogical at best. A square circle is an oxymoron. Why even ask if God could create it?
iceylittle 1 year ago
Fantastic video. I loved your rebuttal from around the 4 minute mark to the 6 and a half minute mark. I agree if Dillahunty would have pursued that line of reasoning his rebuttal to TAG would have been that much more effective.
dcx1287 1 year ago
Funny intro.
capoman1 1 year ago
So, based on the Euclid vs Lobachevski simple example we can see that no such thing as logical absolute exist becase it's all relative and dependant on the certain set of parameters that will define if something is logical or not, and that doesn't exist then no god exist either, at lwast based on that premise.
NitroDamuX 1 year ago
TBS, honestly, just drop this acting thing in the begining of your videos. Seriously, even worse than Tom Cruise ....
NitroDamuX 1 year ago
What is interesting is that God cannot create square circle and yet a human can. Of course we are not talking specifically about circle, but about contradictory proven absolutes that coexist perfectly - Geometry of Euclid > true > parallel lines don't ever cross and in Lobachevski geometry they do and that is also true. Same with physics of Newton vs. physics of relativity of Einstein – both true and contradictory to each other at the same time. So God can't and human can.
NitroDamuX 1 year ago
This was bloody awesome!
lgalicki 1 year ago
TAG destroyed. This should be the first place people are referred to when advancing that (non) argument. Excellent!
singring76 1 year ago
God lies in the bible. He told Abraham he was gonna kill his kid. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice the kid. God didn't go through with it. That is a LIE.
maikeru01 1 year ago
If god has a nature, that means it cant be supernatural. There are things that are natural to it so it is not above itself.
DebateFaith 1 year ago
I'm wondering how would you respond to Slick if he said that God can actually make A not A.
GravitonEmissions 1 year ago
the "borrowing from our worldview" thing the apologists try to pull makes me want to murder.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
How do I give this series a thousand Likes? One just don't seem enough... If Slick is in it to win, he better pick another game.
ArcaneLogic 1 year ago
Is not a thing's nature what that thing is bound to act upon? Is that not the definition of a nature? You've failed there.
For example. I am a human. It is in my nature to act human, because I have a human nature. If I was acting inconsistent to my human nature I wouldn't be human.
djchozen91 1 year ago
@djchozen91 What does it mean to "act human"? That doesn't really mean anything to me as humans all over the world behave in a large variety of very differfent manners.
If you pick something more specific... say it is in your nature to be honest. That does not necessarily mean you are incapable of dishonesty, just that you are unlikely to exhibit it.
Arkalius80 1 year ago
Lol
"A great way to stay in shape"
Gotta love family guy.
Sykotix1 1 year ago
I get tired of logical contradictions because I haven't seen anyone address them realistically. Logic is bound by the laws of our universe as surely as science. Can god make a square circle, not as long as a square and circle are defined differently. God could make an existence that had no distance. Then a square and a circle would be the same but it would lose meaning. Logic can not be applied to anything outside of our universe because it is impossible to comprehend.
Uhlbelk 1 year ago
the universe exists in such a way that truth becomes evident. like A is always A. up cannot be down and right cannot be wrong. "logic" to my understanding, is simply the attributes of the universe so to speak. weather or not the universe creates the effect of logical absolutes or logical absolutes transend the universe and are larger truths at a whole.
keggerous 1 year ago
I think the ultimate problem with TAG, and I wish you would address this, is the total lack of physical evidence for God. At the end of the day, we can bash heads on logic all we want. But the ultimate determinant of what is true is the ability to predict and explain events. So the ultimate problem for TAG is: "Where is your God?"
If TAG is correct, it should also be demonstrable in some way. Otherwise, it is just a logical conclusion sitting in its own little vacuum.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The problem with that statement anticitizen even if i don't want to say it is your kind of poo pooing alot of physics by asking for evidence like that. Its the same as for atoms we can't see them but by necessity they must exist otherwise the observations and maths do not make sense and so Tag can claim the same
excandersham 2 years ago
@excandersham
Except that atoms are demonstrable on many levels. Atomic theory predicts and explains events in ways that no other theory does. TAG makes no predictions and explains nothing. It is an empty conclusion.
All conclusions the the realm of physical science are, at least in principle, redeemable on demand. TAG is not. So again, the question for TAG is, "if you're wrong, how can we tell?"
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago 2
Excander, we CAN and DO see atoms. All the time. They aren't theoretical. Here are some atoms:
watch?v=EogdalfXF4c&feature=related
watch?v=O_PjMeukmzg
So... if TAG can claim the same... where are the photos of god?
Exmech2 2 years ago 2
And when scientists finally took direct pictures of them, they were behaving exactly as atomic theory predicted.
charkopolis 2 years ago
Amen! That shit gives me a woody!
Exmech2 2 years ago
@AntiCitizenX Rhe ultimate problem with [any] ''TAG'' is logic don't work where god is gonna be.The quantum realm.
lipoicacid 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Lmfao. How can you ask for a physical evidence of a non-physical concept? The only evidence in questions of God and Faith are logic-based, deductive. Demostrable by logic and deduction, not physical evidence.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
So are you telling me that God is a "non physical concept?" Because if so, you are basically telling me that God does not exist in external reality and is nothing more than a conceptual human construct. In other words, my point exactly.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Being the cause of Existence itself (time, space and matter), how do you expect God to be subject to the limitations of the creation? In other words, the Cause of time, space and matter cannot by defintion be subject to time, space and matter. It's sheer logic.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
If you are so cock-sure that this God thing of yours created everything, then where is he? Show him to me. Explain to me an experimental test that will differentiate between a purely natural universe and one that your magic-man built. What demonstration do you have to show me that God is more than just a construct of your imagination? Conclusions, deductions, and logic are all useless without some empirical basis to ground them in.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX You didn't read anything I've said. It is grounded in the same empirical basis anything else is grounded in: Existence itself, its laws and its logic. Once again: you do not need physical evidence for something by definition non-physical. You can't show me love, for example, or a formula for it. "Magic man" is YOUR concept, not mine. You are the one who simplifies it to feel comfortable (I highly doubt you're 30), while I reason out an absolute logical necessity of a Creator.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
And what if you are wrong? How would you know it? You cannot logically deduce reality. You can only make inference through empirical observation. So unless you have an experimental test that would potentially validate or disprove your God-thingy, then all of your "logic" is moot. You are so cock-sure that this God of yours is real, so why is it so difficult to demonstrate?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
Comment removed
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
"Existence itself, its laws and its logic"
Existence itself is proof of nothing more than existence itself. Logic is nothing more than a human construct. "Laws" are nothing more than patterns inferred through empirical observation. So once again, you are completely cock-sure of the existence of a conscious deity you cannot even test for in principle to validate or refute your deductions. Your magic-man is functionally equivalent to an imagined construct.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Say "cock-sure" again, and I'll be 100% cock-sure you're an agenda troll.
Now. Every scientific achievement, every job, every system relies on the principle of causality. Every action has a reaction, and every effect has its cause. It IS "nothing more than human construct", that's why we have intellect. Existence as an effect logically requires a Cause. It IS a conclusion through deductive thinking and observation, while you keep asking for physical evidence.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
" every system relies on the principle of causality"
And how do you know this? You only deduced it through empirical observation and logical inference. How do you know that causality must apply to everything at all scales?
You also seem to be confusing "cause" with "deliberate, conscious engineer." Even if the universe itself has a "cause" is no excuse to postulate an anthropomorphic magic-man.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Keep saying "Magic man", I know that makes you feel better, although the concept is vastly more complex. Existnce = time, space, matter, therefore Cause of Existence = timeless, spaceless, non-physical. Something that is timeless, spaceless and non-physical can't be abstract, since abstraction can't create. Therefeore, personal Creator is logically deducted.
First, you ask for empirical observation, then empirical observation means nothing to you. "Bla bla bla" is all you hear.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Comment removed
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
Pardon me, I misread your statement. Let's try that again.
(1) Existence could be non-causal. Therefore God is not necessary. QED.
(2) Something that is timeless, spaceless, and non-physical is not necessarily a thinking, personal entity. Therefore, God is not necessary. QED.
(3) Personal Creators are better than a singular creator. Many Gods therefore created everything. QED
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
(1) If Existence is non-causal, it is eternal. And since time, space and matter are dimensions that constitute Existence, they would be eternal as well. Which goes against any modern scientific claim about Universe. The Big Bang is inception of Existence as we know it. Causeless? Logical impossibility.
(2) Yes it is, necessarily. I've explained: abstract objects (like numbers) by definition can't create anything. Without personal will a creating Deity is logically impossible.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
Your logic is not the ultimate determination of reality. Reality determines reality. Your logical conclusions are only as good as the assumptions on which you base them. Experimental demonstration is the ultimate test as to the validity of your assumptions. If you have no experimental test, then your conclusions are functionally worthless. This is the concept you need to understand, because it explains why no one is compelled by your argument.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
"Which goes against any modern scientific claim about Universe."
Since when was science perfect and all-knowing? Science has nearly nothing concrete to say about the ultimate origins of everything. Besides, if you are going to admit science as a useful tool of figuring things out, then you must accept the premise that experimental demonstration is the ultimate arbiter of reality. So WHERE IS YOUR DEMONSTRATION? Do not just deduce God, but DEMONSTRATE him.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Demonstrate a non-physical concept with physical evidence? lol. Only by its effect - Existence. Read below.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
"Demonstrate a non-physical concept with physical evidence? lol. Only by its effect - Existence. Read below."
Then you fail.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX "Then you fail"
Because you couldn't hack what I've just told you? Sure.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
Okay, fine. Answer me this.
Are you 100% confident in your ability to form assumptions about reality? Are you 100% confident in your ability to form conclusions based on those assumptions? Is there any remote possibility that a fallible human being such as yourself could form logical deductions about reality that appear solid to you, but actually contain errors? Yes or no?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX I'm 100% confident in my ability to reason things out, yes. In that, I'm confident. The only place for error is if logic and common sense THEMSELVES turn out to be worthless, which I highly doubt, because it's what society has relied on until today. Of course, there's a "remote possibility" that deductive logic turns out to be false, but ONLY if someone finds a substitute for logic itself. Doubt that'll happen.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
" I'm 100% confident in my ability to reason things out, yes."
Virtually everything you think you know to be true inevitably contains some degree of error. The only way to fix this is by seeking out errors and correcting them. Since you can't even admit the mere possibility of error in your reasoning, you have a philosophy of wrongness that will stay wrong forever and never even know it. So until you drop your arrogant attitude of "I'm right no matter what," we're done here.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
(3) No. Since God is omnipotent by definition - there is absolutely nothing "better" is "many gods". In fact, that'd be another logical impossibility :)
QED
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
You cannot go around defining subjective constructs into existence. Just because you say one omnipotent God is "better" than many does not automatically mean reality must conform to your wishes. Unless, of course, you have an experimental test to verify that only one God exists as opposed to two.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX @AntiCitizenX You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. You don't listen. You invent. You even understand what you've just said?
"Just because you say one omnipotent God is....doesn't mean reality must conform"
That's WHINING now, pure whining. It's not "just because I say" or "wish", I GROUND it in sheer LOGIC. Find me a LOGICAL flaw in my reasoning, because proof and evidence is Existence itself.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
Your logical flaw is the assumption that reality gives a damn about your logic. Case in point:
All Tribbles hate Klingons.
Worf is a Klingon
Tribbles therefore hate Worf.
This is a perfectly sound logical statement that has exactly ZERO BASIS IN REALITY. Unless I can physically produce a tribble or a Klingon, neither of these things exist.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Spare me from silly comparisions, and spare yourself from the embarrassment. Klingons and tribbles? That's a secondary concept, an effect within the Existence, a result of a writer's imagination, not a logically necessary cause of anything. If you think that's the same as deducting a logical necessity of a Creator, I pity you. In fact, stick to movies and comic books, man. Ridiculous.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
"because proof and evidence is Existence itself."
"Stuff exists" is not a compelling proof of anything beyond "stuff exists." At some point, you have to make assumptions, and those assumptions are not necessarily perfect. So you might be wrong. Without a physical demonstration of your conclusions, there is no functional difference between a God that created everything and a God that exists entirely in your own imagination. No demonstration, no God. Period.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX I might be wrong only if it turns out that logic, deduction and common sense are worthless. Demonstration isn't equal to physical evidence, unless you specify that. And again, if you ask for a physical demonstration of a non-physical concept and skip logic and common sense, you're escaping the obvious conclusions. Wishful thinking much? Aww.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
Causality is an assumption that we make based on induction. But you cannot use induction to prove induction.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
You are making a logical inferences without bothering to validate yourself through empirical testing. "Look around you" is not a proof of the existence of God. It only demonstrates the universe. "Blah blah logical babble blah blah" is not proof either. If you have no experiment, then you have no way to differentiate between a God that genuinely exists in reality and a God that exists only in your imagination. The two are therefore functionally equivalent.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX ...And since "bla bla bla" is all you hear, it renders you incapable of an intellectual conversation - you hit a dead-end called "physical evidence", while I expand beyond that. Oh, well. What do I expect from someone who thinks Faith = superstition? Lol.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
Do you not understand the fundamental point? BLA BLA BLA is a reference to the fact that you zero empirical support for your conclusion. There does not exist any physical test that will differentiate between a natural universe and an engineered universe. The two concepts are therefore FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT. There is no difference between a God that cannot be physically manifest in any capacity and no God at all. Even if you are absolutely correct about him, he is irrelevant
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
Well no, if the tag argument is true, we cant have logical conclusions without god.
And empiricism has its own flaws. Besides no christian that i can think of is arguing for a physical god anyway. im not a theist but i really dont see why that comment got so many thumbs up
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman
"Logic" is not the ultimate determinant of reality. REALITY is the determinant of reality. Logic is only as good as the assumptions upon which it is based and the discipline of the guy exercising the conclusions. Without a physical demonstration, there is no way to tell the difference between "correct" logic and a bunch of crap some idiot rattled off. The two concepts become functionally equivalent.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
Invisible Dragons eat fairies in their sleep.
Socrates is a fairy.
Therefore invisible Dragons would try to eat Socrates.
This statement makes perfect logical sense but there is no physical demonstration of it.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman
"This statement makes perfect logical sense but there is no physical demonstration of it."
And that's exactly why TAG is useless. It's a bunch of fairies and dragons with no physical demonstration to back it up.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX
im guessing youre an empiricist then right? or some kind of positivist?
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman
In many ways, yes, I am an empiricist. But I would be careful about trying myself down to a single label. I am also a pragmatist and an instrumentalist in may ways. "Empirical rationalist" is a nice description, but probably not perfect either.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman Does anyone agree with you or are you alone in your thoughts? Would anyone sacrifice there life for the statement you made? Are there any historical eye witness to what you are saying? What's the motivation to believe in what you are saying? You see, these statements are made to sound ridiculous but it has nothing to do with the belief in God. Your analogy falls short.
iceylittle 1 year ago
@AntiCitizen What the hell does physical evidence of "God" mean? That you're going to behold some kind of transcendental object, something imponderable, inconceivable, and impossible, some metaphysical, metanoetic hyperdimensional entelechy, some kind of spiritual essence transduced from a higher dimension into three-dimensional space and time? I mean, wtf? I love the Hindu's notion of the divine which Watts so eloquently describes here:
watch?v=zV74_-qF6OI&playnext=1&list=PLCFD5781BAFF69F50
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia Perhaps manifestation of his doing as witnessed so many times throughout the stories of the bible. Those people in the stories definitely had reasons to believe God existed but today NOTHING like that happens at all. No seas part, nothing turns into something else and people aren't raised from the dead as exhibited in the bible. Nothing even close to magical occurs in modern times. Why not?
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@Hanahleia Of course I'm referring to the Judeo Christian God that is necessarily involved in human affairs. If we're just talking about an indifferent entity or not even an entity then that's clearly different.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 Yeah, but parting the seas, some UFO nut could attribute that not to God, but to advanced extraterrestrial technology. Why assume an example like that to be God? You're sayin' something magical would convince you there's a God? That's why I think the whole argument of God is merely an argument based on semantics. That's why I suggested that Alan Watts video. I can agree with the notion of the divine in Hinduism. You should take a listen, if you've got the leisure time.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia Well I'm just talking about the Christian God. Even if a sea parted at least something's happening and we could then discuss it and consider the possibilities, but nothing even close to that happens. What I'm saying is that it would take something to occur that would not otherwise occur according to naturalism; a suspension of some sort of natural law would be a start.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 What about a mystical experience?
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia Well if you're referring to a personal experience then that's different. Even if I were to experience something I would refer to as mystical I still have no reason to believe it has anything to do with what we refer to as the supernatural. When one investigates reported mystical experiences it becomes apparent that the experience and its interpretation is reliant upon the culture in which it occurred.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 Are you familiar with DMT, by any chance, or the work of Dr. Rick Strassman?
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia lol I absolutely am, although I have never tried it. I really do want to try it but that's a separate subject haha. I'd still have to imagine that a lot of the imagery beyond shapes and colors and lights are dependent upon cultural factors. I understand it's supposed to be a way of losing all of that cultural baggage so I can't say much about it. From what I've heard it's pretty nuts but since it involves the brain I'd imagine there's some influence, plus it's a chemical reaction.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@Hanahleia
"What the hell does physical evidence of "God" mean?"
Look it up, dude. This is not complicated. I means that I need some sort of test that can differentiate between a God that genuinely exists in physical reality as opposed to some phantasm that you pull out of your own ass. Without evidence, then the two concepts are functionally equivalent.
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Well, I've come to the conclusion through theosophical means that the basis of all religion is based in mystical experience. Although it can be interpreted through one's culture, it's no reduction of the experience, per se. There's many paths to it, you can meditate, in some instances such as the case of Jill Bolte Taylor's "Stroke of Insight," her stroke caused this to happen, sometimes a near-death-experience can produce this, taking psychedelics such as smoking DMT, and so on.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia Obviously we can experience things in our mind and in certain less than ordinary or extraordinary circumstances we can experience things that are very unusual and meaningful but to suggest that it's anything more than the human brain reacting under particular conditions and that it involves anything supernatural is tough to address. Even if I were to experience something as incredible as one would under the effects of DMT or an oxygen-starved brain in a NDE, I can't claim it was more.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 Well, the "can't claim it was more" is what a summation a reductionist is forced to take. If you've ever had one of these experiences, it becomes quite apparent that what's going on is something like a higher resonance of reality. That you're somehow able to glimpse directly or indirectly something like a higher dimension. That's where the very idea of the spirit or the divine derives. It's always come through the mystical experience. Christ experienced this, Buddha, etc.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 Have you ever looked into the work of Graham Hancock, Terence McKenna, Alan Watts or Dr. Rick Strassman? You'll find that in some instances of an near-death-experience, DMT will flood the dying brain, since DMT is already a part of our neurochemistry. DMT is produced in the pineal gland throughout your life, and it is stored in the spinal-cerebral fluid. This has been scientifically proved, that psychedelic tryptamines, including DMT, 5-MeO-DMT, and other similar compounds
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin (continued, and I don't usually do this) are all found in the cerebral fluid that surrounds the brain and spinal cord, and that the pineal gland, which synthesizes melatonin, is perfectly capable of synthesizing DMT, a cousin of serotonin. When you die, and your brain is going through the shut-down processes of death, it absorbs the cerebral fluid for any oxygen and energy it can find. In doing so, it takes in large amounts of DMT, and you can have this experience.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia Yes I've read about all of this, I've even heard Joe Rogan talk about this (a lot). It's a natural chemical reaction in the brain and it occurs in other animals. I don't doubt it's an intense experience that's indescribable to someone who has gone through it, but how can anyone actually claim what they are experiencing reflects not just "hidden" aspects of this reality but other dimensions? They're interpreting things a certain way, that's all it appears to be.
RussianAssassin21 10 months ago
@RussianAssassin21 That's, in fact, what it may be. The brain seems something like an organic antenna, and these hallucinations (don't ask me how) are somehow holographically deployed throughout space, and you tune them in. Even Michio Kaku is keen on saying that there's perhaps infinite parallel dimensions around us, it's just that they've decohered from our reality. Well, psychedelics seem to be radio tuners for our brains, if you think this is bullshit, then for God's sake, smoke DMT.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia
Your theosophical experience is readily demonstrable in laboratory conditions and produces inconsistent results among subjects. Aspects of the near-death experiences can even be reconstructed through drug-induced hallucinations or simple loss of consciousness via oxygen deprivation. The "God helmet" is another great example of laboratory reproduction. In short, your standard of evidence is demonstrably unreliable as an avenue for truth.
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago
@AntiCitizen That's only because science doesn't deal with individual experience, and that's the very evidence that is behind all of these ancient religions. You want to have an opinion about this stuff, but you don't want to experience for yourself? DMT only last 10 minutes. Surely, you have 10 minutes to spare in an experience that'll shake the foundations of your ontological assumptions. Here's a start, if you're going to attempt this:
watch?v=Nrj1X6TzEXo&playnext=1&list=PL4D35BC49277B6F49
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia
Are you seriously trying to suggest that I can come to experience "God" though a drug-induced hallucination?
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago 3
@AntiCitizenX Yes, that's the claim, but I'm not saying you're going to meet a man with a beard. That's not a Hindu's notion of God. It's something closer to the sort of mysticism and idea of God that Alan Watts spoke about, that's why I suggested that video that I linked you to. If you've got the leisure time, you should definitely take a listen, especially before you respond to this message.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia
I did listen. No, a drug-induced hallucination is NOT a viable means of learning any fundamental truths about the universe. All that crap of yours about "organic antennas" is new-age bullshit. It is a hallucination and nothing more. And Frankly, if that's your idea of a religious experience, then you're wasting your life and also my time.
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago
@AntiCitizenX No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that's a possibility in the psychedelic experience, but that wasn't my point. My point is beyond all of that, you can glimpse something like a higher dimension, and that's the point. That is how religion was born in the human mind in the first place. To say that it's merely a hallucination is a reductionist way to shove this off. The fact of the matter is, you don't know what a hallucination is. You must admit, your response is close-minded.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hanahleia
"you can glimpse something like a higher dimension, and that's the point."
Han, I don't care how gee-whiz your psychedelic experience may be. It is a hallucination. You are chemically stimulating all sorts of perceptual centers within the brain through the use of artificial agents. That is all. There is no "truth" to derive from what is obviously a compromised perspective.
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Have you ever had a psychedelic experience? It is no reduction of the psychedelic experience to say that it is caused by drugs effecting the mind and that because they are material atomic systems we therefore know everything about them — every electron is the yawning mouth of a wormhole that leads to quadrillions of higher dimensional universes that are completely beyond rational apprehension. Search the work of Dr. Rick Strassman or Terence McKenna. Lots of Terence on YouTube.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia
" every electron is the yawning mouth of a wormhole that leads to quadrillions of higher dimensional universes"
No Han. They are not. You are making up nonsense in order to rationalize getting high. But hey, I could be wrong. So prove it:
Produce for me a demonstrable and practical piece of knowledge out of your psychedelic experience. Say, show me a simplified proof of Fermat's last theorem.
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago
@AntiCitizenX We're not talking about symbols here. This is an experience, but if you want mathematical proof, just listen to Michio Kaku. He's well convinced that higher dimensions exist. All I'm essentially saying is that there is a phenomenon in which you could glimpse or somehow intuitive feel a higher dimension or some kind of indirect shadow of it through these experiences. That's all. This is what people have been calling God, but it's, in fact, a higher dimension that has no name.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@AntiCitizenX If you want psychedelic insights, Francis Crick claimed before his death that his insight to the structure of DNA was gained through an LSD experience, fractals in mathematics has been attributed to psychedelics, the Gaia hypothesis has also been attributed to psychedelics. Then, there's the deeper insights of the mystical experiences expounded by Hindus, the sort that Ramesh Balsekar is well versed in explicating. Have you ever had a psychedelic experience? I'm curious, have you?
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@AntiCitizenX When science finally takes a look and begins unfettered researches on psychedelics, I think it will eventually come to be known that what the psychedelic experience is, is an experience of the higher geometry of the universe. All points become cotangent. I think Michael Hoffman's Ego Death website is the beginning of a truth that will change our entire view upon reality, or at least for those of us who aren't keen on mysticism. Btw, you can visit his website @ "EgoDeath(dot)com".
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia As someone who has had several psychedelic experiences, I can assuredly say that they have nothing to do with any sort of higher plane of existence. Getting high unlocks a different way of thinking, but that doesn't make this new way of thinking a GOOD way of thinking. Ever hear of "Bullshit pothead logic"?
BigLundi 10 months ago
@BigLundi I have, but I'll have to in riposte ask, have you ever heard of Terence McKenna?
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia Yes. I have.
BigLundi 10 months ago
@BigLundi Well, then you'd know that Terence McKenna advocated HUGE amounts of psychedelics. May I ask, and I hope you can honestly answer me, the dose ranges of these psychedelic experiences you've had?
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@Hanahleia I was unaware of any tangible scale of psychedelic-ness. I can explain the most intense one I've had, if you'd like that. also, Terence McKenna advocating psychedelics means absolutely nothing as to the validity of them being a part of any sort of realm of higher existence.
BigLundi 10 months ago
Comment removed
Hanahleia 10 months ago
@BigLundi Sure. I'd love to hear your most profound account. Please, message me in private, textual space is too limited here. And, I agree, advocation alone wouldn't prove anything, but science forbids research on psychedelics. If you're familiar with Terence McKenna's Stoned Ape theory or his Novelty theory, they are implications of what I'm referring to.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AntiCitizenX [I can come to experience "God" though a drug-induced hallucination?] I never saw God this way, only Donald Duck and some leprechauns. Maybe I need something stronger. I will try some mescaline.
lfzadra 4 weeks ago
Ahhhh...Family Guy reference!
HeraclitusRocks 2 years ago
To be fair, Dillahunty did touch on this. He at one point said that Slick was simply naming the logical absolutes "God"
They moved on for one reason or another.
bonanzaguy04 2 years ago
I enjoy your videos and the arguments therein. Good work. Here are some points about this particular video:
1. Logic stems from the nature of God, not vice versa. Can God be A and not A? Yes, but what IS he? Just A. He is not bound by the law of non-contradiction, the law of non-contradiction is bound by him. Can he make square circles? Yes, but "does he?" is the real question.
2. God can make things with a different nature than his own, that is obvious. We are not all-knowing. On this we agre
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
The way logical absolutes are presented they are indeed statements (conceptual) but they are not "the 'essence' of what logic refers to" which was the confusion. Its easy to agree with absolutes because we all use logic to evaluate it, but if your gonna evaluate absolutes you have to step out of that system. Logical absolutes are dependent on logic or even descriptive of logic itself. And the whole argument falls apart from there.
askirojadu 2 years ago
2:14 " Matt Slick: "God can not, not be God. No more than God can make a square circle."
Listen Scott.. If God infact can not, not be God. Then the whole subject of the "Trinity" is null and void. In the Trinity God is 3 things, he is the father, son, and holy spirit.
Also Jesus couldnt have been God. Because again with Slick's logic. God can not, not be God.
Just thought you should have mentioned that.. -Bbread
bananabread119 2 years ago
In that case-- if God is three things, or, "the Trinity", then each component of the Trinity (father, son and holy spirit) is to be treated as a subset of God, and the combination of the three (the Trinity itself) is what we call "God".
To say that God is the father, the son, and the holy spirit is not to say that God is not God. The concept of the Trinity is simply the idea that God is divided into three "parts".
Punkaela 2 years ago
Isn't this 'God cannot make A not A,' the subject of Aquinas' criticism of Abelard?
(boy, I thank the gods I only have to deal with Plotinus and Proclus!--and now that I think of it, is that boy a euphemism for Christ!?)
HConstantine 2 years ago
When MS said in the debate god couldn't do things out of his nature I wanted to jump through the screen. I've heard other Christians claim this. Every conception of god I've heard (especially when I was growing up Catholic) is that he spans all time, space, and reality. But MS and others tell us he can't do something not in his nature. Why *not*? He's supposed to be "god". If god is all-powerful, he cannot exist in reality. If he can only do things in his nature, he cannot be all-powerful.
SurelyYewJest 2 years ago
it seems so obvious to me how weak the theists position is. they literally have to make arguments left and right using every tactic in the book to try and prove god...in the end it comes down to them failing everytime! i just dont get why they are blind to the illogical claims they make. its like they really dont want to accept being wrong. its cognative dissonance or something.
keggerous 2 years ago 2
@keggerous
Until recently I was a theist, and I can tell you it's exactly that. Remember that these people have built their whole life and everything they know around the idea of a god. All of their hopes and fears are built on top of it.
How would you feel when the one person you love most disappeared? Now imagine that that person had never existed and they were all a figment of your imagination. It's that horrible and unthinkable in the eyes of a theist that what they believe is wrong.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
Also since it's clear that Slick believes that god is subject to logical absolutes as you point out, it's obvious that Slick can't define his god as being able to make a squared circle etc because that would mean that the logical absolutes aren't absolute. For them to be absolute in Slicks mind they also need to apply to god. Otherwise his entire argument fails because there would be no such thing as logical absolutes to begin with.
ingsve 2 years ago
I think exploring why being illogical would be against god's narure as slick puts it would not be a good road to take. Since Slick is the theist who is claiming that his god exists it's also he that defines what he means by god. If you start coming at him with a god that could make a squared circle he could simply call it a strawman and say that "That's not the god i believe in".
ingsve 2 years ago