Added: 3 years ago
From: tooltime9901
Views: 6,575
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (346)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • YOU CAN FALSIFY EVOLUTION SO IT IS LOGICAL... no shitting you, when I heard that I let out a laugh just like tool time. Fucking moron theist!!!

  • Mr Kueker is a young man who is completely brainwashed. He professes to be intelligent with his rather flamboyant and aggressive temperament, but he lives in ignorance of even the most basic tenets of naturalism and general philosophical reasoning. His adherence to a god is, in my opinion, one that is driven by an emotional attachment to perhaps a father figure. It's very sad that someone like him can spend so much of his waking hours, in this short existence of ours, pondering salvation.

  • Battle of the highland hair. There can be only one!

  • FACT: The first group of "oph" listed in Leviticus 11:13-19-- are birds.

    FACT: The very last "oph" listed in Leviticus 11:--19 is a member of the CLASS: MAMMALIA: "the bat"

    FACT: Birds are NOT MEMBERS of the CLASS: MAMMALIA.

    CONCLUSION: "the bat" is not a bird.

    INQUIRY: If Leviticus is UNreliable as a taxonomic source, then from the text of Leviticus 11:13-19, and the Scientific Classification System:

    LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that "the bat" is a bird.

  • fantastic video.

    always like watching this one

  • 6:36 I laughed my ass off:DDD

  • evolution is fake cuz logic iz stupyd!

  • @0racleTV Do you think that maybe the reason media outlets spend so much time discussing religion is because so many people believe in it. If nobody believed that Christianity was real, "like harry potter", then you would be closer to having a point but since so many people do believe in Christianity you lose.

  • this guy is such a tool. he doesnt have a single thought of his own. "HIS" supposed argument is not his its matt silks. how can these people call the bible the inerrant word of god when it is CLEARLY false in many ways. your so called god if he exists would not endorse this book and would think anyone who believed garbage that has been prooven false to be a moron. plain and simple how about you guys justify this problem before you try to explain existence please for the love of god.

  • @SpliffMcTwist this comment is toward zkueker of course not tool time.

  • Contradictions in the bible that made me realize its bullshit: God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. God is a merciful God. God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory. He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, 'Destroy him!' Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism".

  • Should go outside more often...

  • Yes logic continues to be "waiting in the wings" as it were but the same logic for the concept of objective morality exists. A being must be present to actualize the concept/an intelligence must actively manifest an awarness of such. In the case of God being eternal...those concepts are eternal then as well for His mind would hvae actualized them always. The concepts to come into manifestation unless applied. I might have "logic" but if I never do/think about anything it lays dormant.

  • Atheism can never be wrong, atheism is a personal view of a "disbelief" or a belief in "not enough evidence". Does that make it right or wrong?,it doesn't matter, they could be right, they could be wrong about whether a god is out there or not,that doesn't invallidate the viewpoint. They could come to that viewpoint through logical outworkings. Holding that over the heads of somebody's worldview based on a faith-based system/works of good is just as terrible as "taking the moral highground".

  • Somethings nature is what it is. A banana is a fruit if we say fruit is A and tree is B then Banana is A. If your asking for the qualifier "what is God" read the Bible.

  • Comment removed

  • If a good person does something wrong after God "lays a stumbling block before him," then God will kill him. "He shall die in his sin" and whatever good he has done will be forgotten. Ezekiel3:20

  • Zkueker88 looks like your evil twin!

  • What "Laws of Logic" is Zkueker88 even talking about? Is it an empty statement? Aristotelian Logic? Things like Law of Identity (A = A), Non-contradiction (A =/= B) and Excluded Middle ( /A\ /B\ )? If it is the latter then they are far from "absolute". Most of ancient philosophy was based on the "law of opposites" (yin and yang) which in modern philosophy manifests itself in Hegel's dialectical idealism.

    I hate it when people say things like "laws of logic" without qualifying it!!!

  • I would like to personally take credit for the fact that things are what they are. I did that. Did what, exactly? I made it so that things are what they are, as opposed to being what they are not. It was a very difficult task for me to do this .. thing. You're welcome. ;p

  • Claiming that evolution is false, because it's non-deductive is possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard a Creationist say, and that's saying alot.

  • Comment removed

  • @manwaring evolution as in Darwinism has shown no bridging species to this date. Yes evolution does occur in small "nuances" of a species but the species remains what it is. There are no fossil records of fish turning into lizards to mammals then to humans etc. (simplified). Its important to define what kind of "evolution" one is speaking about. I myself (a Christian) definately believe in evolution....small changes in a species (usually by neccesity), but not complete change of species type.

  • traditional Aristotelian logic has been largely superseded by Boolean logic nowadays

    fuzzy logic and ternary logic e.g., have also come along, so our idea of what is "perfect and immutable" seems to have changed over time

    so was Aristotelian logic perfect? or Boolean logic? neither? or is it a work in progress?

  • Zkueker88's argument sounds like a shitty rehash of Platonism

  • It's actually a childish rehash of Bishop Berkley's idealism, and he muddles it up horribly and looks like an idiot.

  • ah nice

    anyway, I disagree with what he says about logic

    our understanding of logic has changed over time as I pointed out, so how can anyone say it's immutable and godlike?

  • I think the objectivity of logic and mathematics is an interesting philosophical debate, as long as there aren't any idiotic creationists trying to imply that the objectivity of certain rules indicates a being of utmost perfection you must worship.

    It's funny how they infer so much about logic, mathematics and the beauty of God's creation while knowing so little about it.

  • Doesn't Zkueker know that long hair on men is a sin according to his religion?

  • By the way do you believe in God yes or no?

  • This guy looks like Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds. This guy just has straight hair.

  • Don't give Zkueker88 the credit for these ideas. They are STOLEN from Matt Slick and CARM, like most of Zach's arguments.

    When he gives his real opinion, we hear an aimless, incomprehensible rant that doesn't say much of anything at all.

  • 9 15...a lil seizure? lol. good video tho it was funny and informing. DOUBLE THREAT!!!

  • its a good thing!!

  • 6:45 he made a complete ass of himself then!

  • 9:15....LOL. I feel you bro...I don't know how you start addressing the stupidity, I really don't... but thank you for doing it. I am tired of hearing it.

  • Allow me to paraphrase that for you:

    >If there is no Peter Pan and Captain Hook, but a bunch of people believe in them, elect individuals based on their belief in Peter Pan and pass laws that stop the technological research, once again, based on their favourite book of all times, why are you even making a video, that is not logical at all.

    Also, please read the Wikipedia article about logic. You don't quite get it.

  • Once again, please read the Wikipedia article about logic. You do not understand the concept. This is not a way of saying that you're stupid. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

    As for your statement about the superiority of monotheism and atheists being liars, great. Your reason for not lying is, in my eyes, absolutely despicable, but if that's your "high" moral standard, who am I to argue. I've merely responded to your last question and pointed at the mistake therein.

  • Once again nothing what part you don't understand. Again in your religion no one is accountable therefore lying becomes easy. In a nutshell I am not reading the lies of men who change the definition so it fits their worldview.

    All you guys got is a bunch of dishonest men and women that don't care about you. You hear their perversions and you swallowed it period.

    Who created logic while u will say man I will say The God and Master of the Universe. Can you create anything out of nothing?

  • I give up. Not only did you disregard my advice about reading up on what logic is (rather than babbling the usual crap about atheists being uncaring, lying and, now, perverted individuals and thus making yourself look like an ignorant fool you are), but chose to sway away from the subject entirely. How did morality suddenly come into play with logic?

    Really, don't blame me, I tried, but if you wholeheartedly reject even attempting to learn what a concept means, there's little that can help you.

  • You are a dumb fuck. One of the dumbest fucks I've ever had the misfortune of reading a comment from, in fact. Congratulations!

  • And you are a God denialist, run away from what is logical is cool. Insulting me is not going to make go away junior, but clearly show why God denialists are just so utterly hateful. Thank you so much for making the case. Evolutionists, and atheists wound their cause more than advance it boy you are a serious non thinker aren't you.

  • You didn't seem to think twice before you went on the attack. I thought you were supposed to turn the other cheek?

  • If you don't believe in God what are you doing reciting partly biblical verses. You people don't know what your talking about. Attack ha that is funny, you folks sure are funny. I supposed for you and your buddies is better for anyone of us to just shut up. The day that happens is the day I am dead. I have as much a right to say anything as you. You don't have to reply if u don't want and you do if u want. atheist religious people will have each others back same as the one true religion.

  • Oh, it's better if you do reply, because you haven't got any kind of logical or rational leg to stand on, instead relying on the supposed "truths" of your preferred religious fantasy to combat those who "hate" you.

    For the record, I don't hate you, I doubt anyone else does either. There's a tinge of pity, some disdain, some amusement, but hate? Nah.

    Also, asserting that your religion is 'logical' is hysterically funny. You should do standup.

  • You don't hate me then why did you call me "dumb fuck. One of the dumbest fucks I've ever had the misfortune of reading a comment from"

    That is Hate bud, here is the def;: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy.

    You may believe different, but you can't hide from it.

    Now clearly u still a non thinker for I ask a simple question, Do you believe in God yes or no?

  • This is the kind of false dichotomy that is to be expected from people who share your beliefs, I suppose. If I say bad things about you, it can't be because they're true, I just blindly hate you, right?

    Also, your definition doesn't fit. There's definitely nothing to fear about you, being angry at you is a waste of my time and energy, you haven't injured me, and I don't even actively dislike you. As I said -- pity, amusment.

    Good night, sir. :)

  • Is not me you fear, we know who you truly fear. Since you can't lashed out at Him, you and your ilk of haters lashed out at the messenger instead of the message.

    Is nothing new from the God Denialists, everything you throw at me I've dealt with in the past and I don't buy it.

    Since you are brain dead and can't answer a simple question I assume that's a no. If is no you don't believe in God and the Bible, then don't tell others is a sin to have long hair, you won't do that for other religions.

  • 6:29-6:36 = infinite win

  • Lol, 9:15 was great. Sometimes it's hard to comprehend the "logic" that some theists use.

  • thats the wonder of GOD he came as a man lived as a man

    the second created Adam a new species not related to the old

    no death penalty on him yet was killed

    now he is owed compensation because his blood line was killed with him

    so he can adopt us into his family acording to the law

    he bankrupted the universe on the cross

    The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

  • wtf does hath mean?

  • the fact is the USA kill babies by the thousands every day abortion

    GOD is judging it now

    800,000 jobs a month going

    thousands of stores shutting down

    military police no trial arrests

    drought no food

    when you are starving and broke

    Think of the fundie if you can find one

    you may be gay but never happy!

    hath means has

  • shut the fuck up...prove to me that GOD is judging it now...u cant...dats wat u think is happening cus u cant take reality....shit happens..idk if u know that but thats how the world works...GOD doesnt control anything thats just how life is...how are u gonna tell sumone that lost their job and their business that it was god cus sum tiny speck of cells was removed from a woman...they would probably bitch slap u right then and there...u see how retarded ur excuses are???

  • Hoi, look mum! The lunatic squadron from the Westboro Baptist Church is here!

  • Nice Reply, Dont explain the question just insult. Funny you ask about Fantasy Land, because that is just what I was saying america has become.GO GREEN!!!... CHANGE... You are sheeple, and you love it. I love watching you. Its like watching real life lemmings. any ways take it easy my friend. GODS NOT REAL..... right... LOL

  • Not that your persecution complex is reasonable (ie, those companies you mention don't actually spend "Billions of dollars" trying to disprove Christianity, but it were true and everyone was out to disprove Christianity it wouldn't actually mean that Christianity is actually true.

    If you think it's true, then come up with some evidence to that end and make a video. Good luck though, people have been trying for about 2000 years and haven't managed to pull it off yet.

  • Jesus, yielded up the ghost behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying Truly this was the Son of God.

  • exactly what fantasy land are you living in?

  • orical the one world gov is doing this

    they run the banks and hate christians as we see through it

    send me a cherrio when the usd is buried

  • if that twere even true its because the fate of batman doesnt decide yours as where religion plays on ultimate fear of eternal pain and suffering soooo..... duh. and yet still they cant proove him anymore than batman, interesting right?

  • @0racleTV you need to be tranquilized. i am saying this in the most serious way possible.

  • @0racleTV

    the reason people dont spend time trying to disprove harry potter is because people admit that harry potter is fake, and people dint try to user their belief in harry potter to force people into doing things they wouldnt have done. unlike religion

  • @0racleTV damn you're fuckin stupid as hell. If what you're sayin is right, and that something is real just because a bunch of ppl try to disprove it, then that would make WWE, video games, comics, and other stuff like that. And when in the hell has Disney ever tried to disprove God? Fuckin dumbass.

  • Romans 1:19-20 are followed by a warning and speaks to those who, despite having seen clearly seen these things, still deny them and worship instead the created thing instead of He who created them, and it tells of the end of this foolishness also for they join all those, 'Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.' Romans 1:25, and God will 'give them up.' They are 'without excuse.'

  • One thing I've noticed about Atheists on YouTube is that almost ALL of their videos are arguing on religion. (this dude, AmazingAtheist, TheoreticalBullshit,)

    Kinda weird... post some other kinds of videos, yeah?

    And don't reply to this calling me anything Christian because I happen to be Agnostic.

    Yuuup.

  • Silly Agnostic

  • Atheism simply means that you don't belive in god. You can be a strong atheist who says that God definately does not exist or you can be an agnostic atheist who says that they don't know whether god exists but they still don't believe in God. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief only knowledge. Basically everyone is agnostic .

  • Agnostic means you're not sure / you don't care.

    I happen to be both.

  • I wouldn't call you a Christian or an Agnostic, but rather a daft close minded tool. How many of their videos have you actually watched, and how many of them have you truly understood?

  • Dude.. what?

    That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment.

    My comment meant that I was suggesting they upload videos that have nothing to do with religion, or lack thereof, or theories.

    I mean.. make like, comedy or a drama or a film or a animation.

    Seriously though.

    Atheists on YouTube have WAY too many videos based on religion or lack thereof.

    THAT'S what my comment was about.

  • Because you know, an Atheist such as Richard Coughlan doesn't upload any comedian videos. Have you also considered that perhaps atheists like uploading videos about what they think and also as a way to pull a lot of peoples heads out of their ass and get out of the bronze age mentality?

  • Mmkay well I don't know who Richard Coughlan is, so, I wasn't really talking about him.

    Just 80% of Atheists on youtube.

    And yeah... it's a good idea to "pull a lot of peoples heads out of their ass and get out of the bronze age mentality", but what about the already atheist viewers, who want something else, like comedy?

    I mean if you look at this guy or amazingatheist or theoreticalbullshit's channel, pratically ALL of their subscribers/commenters are atheists agreeing with him.

  • If they want something else, like comedy, then they will type in "Comedy" in the search bar. It's a feature that many websites offer. You should give it a try.

  • Dude seriously wtf is up with you man.

    All I was saying in my comment was that they should "broaden their horizons" with their videos, so their viewers don't get bored, persay.

    How many times do I have to rephrase it?

    Do you start fights with people for no reason like this all the time?

    Chill. The. Fuck. Out.

    My comment didn't mean I didn't LIKE their videos, and it didn't mean I didn't understand them.

    Variety is the spice of life.

  • There is a TON of variety in a lot of their videos. I think you're just to fucking thick to see any of it. Hence my comments towards your ignoramus ass.

  • Mmmkay so, other than "blueberry pie" and the ones asking for money, tell me some of AmazingAtheist's videos that DO NOT bring up religion in the video, at all.

  • My understanding of the term "falsifiability" is this: if you posit an experiment to test a hypothesis, and you can show that result "a" would show the hypothesis to be valid but result "b" would show it to be invalid - you have a valid experiment. The possibility of result "b" means that the hypothesis is falsifiable.

    So zkeuker88 is saying that because we can think up "b" type results for experiments testing evolution, then evolution is false.

  • I'm studying formal logic at the minute, its a pain in the arse.

  • It is indeed a pain in the ass to completely understand logic and all its fallacies. But once you learn it completely you can shoot down so much.

  • i think youre the most intelligent person ive seen to say "epic fail" lol

  • i'm so sorry to be shallow but why do you have to be so good looking? :)

  • Just a thought - suppose God were nothing, then he wouldn't need a reason to exist. Not saying that is the case mind you, but nothing sounds quite like God. Would an infinite number of positive numbers and an infinite number of negative numbers be zero? I don't know, but it seems reasonable. Does everything have an opposite? Does it all add up to nothing? Maybe my theory is a bit pat, but I've given up trying to be brainy. GOD IS REAL AND HE DOESN'T EXIST. There - you can all be friends now!

  • Zkueker88 seems to actually believe what he is saying. Weird.

  • Another thing is the claim that logic exist without any minds, who the hell can even make such a claim?

    Who would be there to prove it?

    This puts us right back at we can't prove nor disprove God.

    TAG is an epic failure, it does not even have reason and logic on its side.

  • The funny thing is the very word logical absolute.

    That is just something taken out of the ass of Matt Slick, it doesn't exist.

    An absolute is just that an absolute, it has NOTHING to do with logic.

    Logic is just a concept the human mind made up to talk about probabilities.

    Observing 10 people walking off a cliff and they die, logically if you then walk off the same cliff you would also die.

    This is not an absolute since there is a chance I could survive.

    Logic is just a mind concept.

  • Hahaha, you are awesome. I bet you listen to metal don't you? I'm subscribing. I so feel your anger at the end. Am I the only one who thinks zkueker88 looks like Justin Timberlake with long hair?

  • Adults with imaginary friends are stupid.

  • @KeppoMies Or lonely... Or both....

  • @KeppoMies i'm imiginary friends with the easter bunny. idon't think i'm stupid LOL

  • People who say newbs are newbs.

  • I guess in a sense you are right, all newborns or "newbs" are Atheist. Its with indoctrination that people find out about the concept of a God. There are many things in your life that you'll learn will later be found to be erroneous information. God being the most prominent.

  • just because he has long hair has no bearing on this allegation you have made.

  • try to look like him? tooltime has been on youtuber longer than zkueker, and he had long hair right from the start

  • @0salmarnir tooltime has been on youtube longer than zkueker and has had long hair the whole time.

    retard

  • fucking stupid. learn how to speak english before making theological argument moron.

  • he speaks fine you idiot.

  • holy hell... dude i can help you out just stop making love to your computer and go out to a club and if you try hard enfo you may be able to get a somewhat... not so ugly chick haha heard those cartoon poon nerds say epic fail AND WTH I HEAR YOU TALKING AND YOUR JUST THROWING AROUND WORDS WTF ARE YOU SAYING? YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HAHA ALL YOU PEOPLE TRY ACTING LIKE YOUR THE SHIT BY SAY LOGIC IS NOT LOGIC AND MAKES ME THINK THAT LOGIC IS LOGIC HAHA HOW THE FUCK do you live with your self?

  • You just need an education.

    If you between 6 and 10 then it's understandable, just a bit childish. If you're a teenager or and adult then it's quite a serious issue.

  • oh really? so you like hearing other peoples opions even when they make no sence. calling me a an uneducated adult your wrong what im saying is Ernest Hemingway can tell you will as little words as possible and make sence. these people just us words to try to seem like they know what there talking about. i really hate when people try to use age to put others down.

  • I can understand him perfectly, I'm pretty sure a lot of people can understand he just as much as me.

    I didn't think your comment was very serious, it looked like a result of somebody who was being immature, and I know Youtube ages are usually put in at random.

    I'll try to make sense of everyone's opinion, if that's what you mean. He is understandable, I wouldn't lie about it - I quite like the way he sums issues up in few words, because I can't myself.

  • nor can i but i can't see how you make sence of what he's saying i hear just words and its not because im uneducated. thats all im going to say about this i can't really think of a way to prove my point so it don't matter anymore to me.

  • I can make more of an effort to understand you.

    What do you mean by hearing just words, would you understand them if they were spoken slower (possibly in another sentence) or do you just not understand what they mean?

  • what is wrong with his English?

  • @nodogyougay48

    wow he understands philosophy, what a nerd.

  • there was one argument against relative logic (logic is dependent upon our minds), and that is that if we posit that truth is relative and not absolute, then all one would need to do is assert that God exists, if truth is not objective and mind-dependent.

  • their argument states that logic needs a mind, so that mind must be god.

  • A fool says in his heart there is no God. Just because you profess yourself to be wise doesn't make it so. There is no way for you to be wise b/c you are cut off from the true source of knowledge which is God.Your convoluted argument means nothing.

  • The fool has said that there is a god. Just cause you profess yourself to be wise doesn't make it so. There is no way for you to be wise, cause you don't believe in the celestial teapot. Your convoluted argument means nothing

  • he basically explained that you cant account for gods attributes IN the video your posting on. If god is the source of knowledge... where does that knowledge come from?

  • @mikeashleigh777

    actually tooltime9901 demonstrated in this exact video why the source of knowledge is not god.

  • I know this kid and you are right, some of the shit that comes out of his mouth is such bullshit. The sad thing is, I do not believe he even knows...

  • Some people are just to idiotic to see that they are wrong, and need it pointed out for them. Kinda like what I am doing with you.

  • the bible says worship this when its written by man... man says god wrote it... man says its gods words... religious fools cant trick me! i know better than a "spirit" possessing a guy to write a freaking book! if thats how it even went ... dont know, dont care

  • god exists in ppl's imagination only

  • that zkueker guy looks and talks just like someone else on youtube... hmmm who could that be? wenom wang wex? yenem yam yex? ahh yeah venom fang x (PCS).

  • I bet they're brothers, there's no other explanation!

  • Did you see the time gap between the two videos? Theoreticalbullshit posted his video in June and Zkueker88 took until December to respond.

  • Yes, and he come with this truck of bullshit.

    "God exists because there no other option"

    AMEN

  • you know how they say "God can see everyone at the same time" well my mom told me that(i was 11 at the time)and i used to be scared to masterbate because he would be watching me. and i dont know why im typing this.

  • If I could subscribe twice, I would.

  • HELLO?

  • So, you need proof that the laws of logic would still exist if no one were around to conceive them? The alternative is far more absurd, wouldn't you say?

  • The laws of logic are a human construct. They don't, for instance, apply in quantum physics. This was what Schrödinger was pointing out with his famous "cat in the box" example.

    And on the other hand, if there is no need for a mind to prop up logic, then there is no need for a god to be that mind, and the argument defeats itself from the other side.

    Did you and I watch the same video?

  • So you are going to argue that there is no objective reality? That the laws of logic are merely thought up like the tooth fairy rather than observations of consistency in nature? All I was suggesting is that they are more than subjective human constructs.

    Just because no one hears a tree falling in the woods is no reason to assume it never made a sound.

  • No, I'm not going to argue that, because it doesn't make a difference. The original argument fails either way.

    The point I'm trying to make is that, like science, logic is a construct of the human mind. Yes, it's been constructed because it works in the medium sized universe that we inhabit. But that doesn't mean we can apply it to everything else, and as an example of that I point to quantum physics.

    There's no objective or subjective. There's just reality.

  • The way you said illogical argument made me ROFL and that alone made me subscribe.

  • 6:38 made me laugh hard

  • What is your opinion of Ghosts?

  • "Logic is the reflection of a mind... and that mind is Borg"

    Good for you Cookoo'er o.o

  • /evolution is falsifiable therefore it is illogical/

    Phail! LOL! "The claim that my flashlight requires batteries to run is falsifiable. Therefore it is illogical!"

  • I have one that is solar powered. I got it for free when I bought one of my college text books used.

  • LOL a flashlight for use in the SUN?

  • shit, i am an idiot. the solar panel only charges a battery, so i guess it needs a battery after all.

  • hehe, my claim remains unfalsified.

  • Why is everyone so angry and frustrated?

  • People tend to get frustrated when people make comments regarding subjects they know nothing about.

    tooltime9901 is the only person here who has studied philosophy, that i know of.

    You and zkueker haven't, so tooltime should know better than both of you, or do you find this illogical hmm?

  • 3:18

    It's not that difficult. If the law of identity, non-contradiction, & excluded middle still exist even if ALL human minds cease to exist, then there is some eternal, absolute, mind behind those laws. Where there is a concept, there is a mind; that is logical. Or do you suppose some concepts do not have a mind behind them? A planet would still be a planet & not a star. Water would still make something wet once it lands on something. It does not matter if a human mind is there to observe it.

  • "then there is some eternal, absolute, mind behind those laws"

    a conclusion pulled out of your ass

    "Where there is a concept, there is a mind; that is logical"

    where do you keep all these huge assumptions?

    "Or do you suppose some concepts do not have a mind behind them? A planet would still be a planet & not a star. Water would still make something wet once it lands on something"

    seriously, you are a goldmine.

    be honest now, have you taken any classes in philosophy?

  • //"Where there is a concept, there is a mind; that is logical"

    where do you keep all these huge assumptions?//

    Simply give me an example in which there is a concept but no mind which thought of it.

    //Be honest now, have you taken any classes in philosophy?//

    I have never taken any philosophy, ever. Go ahead, poke fun now ;-)

    I don't need to take a philos class to know the fact that every concept has a mind behind it. I must assume you're kidding about that particular comment though.

  • It was meant to be in conjuncture with your other statements.

    My problem wasn't with that exact statement it was what you were inferring was a concept.

    What i gathered you were saying was: "The laws of logic are absolute, logic is a concept, therfore an eternal mind must percieve them"

    If i mistook you then i apologise, if i got it right then you are indeed making assumptions.

    "Go ahead, poke fun now ;-)"

    Thats what my last comment was for :P

  • I am trying to show that the laws of logic exist whether or not we do. The concept of the law of identity exists whether or not any one or anything is there to observe it. So, since there is a concept that is in absolute existence, there must be a mind that created that concept. In other words, there is no point in 'time' where the 3 simple laws of logic did not exist, they have forever existed, even before we observed them and tagged them with those names.

    haha, sorry, I missed the last comment

  • Just because they exist without us, does not mean there is an intelligence behind them still. The possibilities are endless, but i would bout for some kind of at least fairly naturalistic explanation.

    The dichotomy you've created between God or not God shows a lack of imagination really

    "even before we observed them and tagged them with those names."

    That is what makes things a concept, you could say that god labeled them this way too, but you'd have to show me the giant god labels

  • [ Just because they exist without us, does not mean there is an intelligence behind them still. The possibilities are endless ]

    Really, can you list a few of the possibilities? Can you give an example of a concept that exists which no one, or mind, thought of or created?

    [ The dichotomy you've created between God or not God shows a lack of imagination really ]

    Either God exists, or, God does not exist.

    "A or "A not" includes everything.

  • 1. Why should i need to? All your arguing for here is a "God of the gaps" argument

    2. Like i said before, i didn't say concepts without minds can exist, my problem was with what you were inferring was a concept.

    3. Im Ignostic when it comes to a god, as it has no firm ontology.

    So i couldn't really count a god as a viable "A" in the first place

    4. Either a god exists or not is true, but that you are arguing for a specific deity was my point, hence the God rather than god

  • 1. You're simply avoiding the question; logical fallacy.

    2. Logically demonstrate how the laws of logic are not a concept.

    3. So your presuppositions are preventing you from being logical and placing "God" in the placeholder "A". Interesting.

    4. Ah, okay. That is understandable.

  • 1. Avoiding the question? Why should i have to respond to a "God of the gaps" argument.

    Just because i may not know now, does not validate your position

    2. What we call logic is a philosophical concept, the laws that are proven mathematically can be called anything but conceptual

    3. What? You do know what Ignosticism is right? Like i said, deities have no precise ontology, which is required before asserting its existence

    4. S'alright, i don't make myself very clear most of the time anyway

  • 1. Yes, avoiding the question. You are, however, absolutely right that my position is not validated simply because you don't know.

    2. Exactly, the laws are proven mathematically, but they have always existed before we had proven them. Again, how do you account for them?

    3. I'm not an expert, I did a quick define: on it.

  • 4. Word. I also am not the best at forming my question/statement via text. I wish we could all sit in a room, eat pizza, and discuss this verbally; Maybe even over a game of Halo3. Unfortunately, that is not realistic.

  • As usual, you hit the nail on the head, tooltime9901.

  • Valid arguement: zkueker88 = zDICKHEAD

  • i agree zkueker88 equals epic fail

  • Oh my. The reasoning really is painful in his video, bro. I almost want to say this is all a well-contrived parody. Then I remember Poe's law and I cry myself to sleep. :(

  • fuck off tooltime9901, U ARE FULL OF BULLSHIT

  • nigga you just dont know.

  • point out the bullshit then... can't can you? y'know why? because you're an idiot that doesn't know any better

  • I think the next step in thie atheist/theist thing is to just simply laugh and mock at theists in general.This debate shit isnt doing anything productive for us atheists,its just wasting most of our times trying to educate those who wish death and suffering for the rest of the world.

  • Srsly. Logic only works when both sides agree to abide by it.

  • I still don't understand why theists "argue" when they continually beg the question. That's not argument at all—it's just windbaggery.

    TO EVERYONE: TAKE A SYMBOLIC LOGIC CLASS

  • The thing with ZK is that he isn't a jerk, so I have respect for that.

  • I raged at Zkueker88's video. He does NOT have logic, haha.

  • it what ways does he not have logic. Indeed he is just a man, his logic could be improper. Is it too much to give detail or lesson of how he does not have logic? Is it just too tiring, because I can understand that. I think Z is logical (for as much as I can tell at the moment) but perhaps what you find as illogical is just that he believes in something that is difficult for you to understand, instead of him holding the same views as you.

  • the reason for ultimately referring to God and His attributes is because there must have been an uncaused cause first. One can only reason so far back or get at the root of something so far. It is equally illogical for atheists to posit their reasons for things (though maybe you dont) as because God just doesnt exist. One cant prove atheism as much as God's existence cant be proved. Neither parties have all knowledge, we share the same evidence. our motives and interpretations are different.

  • "is because there must have been an uncaused cause first"

    No there doesn't. The cosmological argument is that the concept of causality arrived at via a posteriori. In other words, just because causality is observed in the known world doesn't mean it can be extrapolated to the universe itself.

    Especially because to have causality, you need time, which didn't exist before the universe.