auzi ma, nu incerca sa areti ca esti destept, ca nu esti. si nu incerca sa-i copiezi stilul lui tf, ca nu poti. du-te inapoi la carte si mai citeste inainte sa te faci de minune pe youtube. ziua buna.
you're talking about bullshit new order. First of all, assholes like you should explain what is the old order because for me looks like fantesy of war is getting associated with gettig a woody reading the bible. As I said before you should just go fuck yourself.
You could not be any more wrong. Carl Sagan is asking from people like you "If you want to say god always existed, why not saving an step by saying the universe always existed?"
Explanation of the explanation? What?! We want explanation for the existence of that explanation. Moreover, how do you even know if there is a god? Maybe the universe was made by a giant rhinoceros or a chimp or a tea pot? There is as much evidence and reason to believe those as there is for a god!
@Andrameda666 We want an explanation for the cause of the Universe. You skipping past that to 'The Next Question' doesn't do anything to 'cancel out' where we were. To dumb this down for you. Det.Grissom can conclude a 'Person' or 'ID' is the best explanation for the round hole in the cadavers forehead. Just because you pop in 'asking out loud' OH YA.. well who was the person hmm?? and where did that person come from hmmmm? Doesn't 'cancel out' Det.Grissoms probably conclusion.
@TheRightOffensive You want an explanation for the cause of the Universe, but you're not courage enough to ask the next question. The next question has to do everything to debunk that logical fallacy called Kalam.
Det.Grissom can make that conclusion based on human experience. I can tell you I know that there is painter somewhere, when I look at a painting, because I can see people when they paint. Can you see god when he/she/ creates Universe? You made a false analogy here.
@Andrameda666 Nope, I made a correct analogy in regards to the position you took and further more I am courageous enough to speculate on the 'who' but that doesn't change the fact we can get as far as a 'who'. Yes, you can suppose a 'who' because you know that 'whos' create complex information systems. You already know that from observation of Painters and Shooters etc.
@TheRightOffensive Nope, you made a wrong analogy because you can see people make complex systems like cars, airplanes, etc. But you can never see a god or any person create a Universe, and you should be honest to ask what is the explanation for the existence of the Universe because when you say "who", you've prejudiced yourself for one possible answer. It's called confirmation bias.
@Andrameda666 No, you just changed the subject for which the analogy was made and you know that. You are now modifying, changing, worming out of this. You started by suggesting there is a problem with identifying a probably cause because that cause wasn't yet named or its cause identified. I showed you why that 'line of reasoning' is pure BS and you know it. As for the question at hand (not the 'next questions') a 'Who' is the 'bias' by way of data and observation. Suck on it.
@TheRightOffensive Now I see that I've made you angry. You don't even have one shred of evidence that there is god, except for your Kalam logical fallacy. Everything that everything that everything, but god. I tried to be honest with you, but it seems like you suck on it.
@Andrameda666 You haven't made me angry and I have shown where you made a mistake in reasoning and logic. Now, you want to move on (fair enough) and find ways you can use the words 'fallacy' and 'shred' in a YT debate but the problem here is that you don't even know 'how' and 'why' you are trying to use 'Kalam' in this. What you did do was tell me the examples of complex working information systems you know about are caused by 'IDs' or 'Whos'. You admit that.
you criticize Thunderf00t for judging Craig's character instead of his argument but then compare Tunderf00t to spok. This character assassination is highly hypocritical.
if credability was based off the amount of debates you have had relative to your actual interlectual level then yes WLC might be classes high (lots of debate no brians) but thunders the other way round (lots of brains, they misfire sometimes but hes human what do u expect and only a couple of debates) But that said the argument he was forwarding still stands. If you claim something is x, without evidence then add a y, without evidence, how can u justify that x+y= z? You cant, its called logic...
@Spinobreaker Please see my argument about the dinosaurs, it is based 100% on thunderfags logic. Many of my premises are false, the conclusion is that dinosaurs are extinct so therefore according to thunderqueer, the conclusion must be false also. So in other words, dinosaurs are "probably" alive. I want to thank you and thunderf00t so much for this great news. Ever since I was a small child I always believed that dinosaurs were still secretly alive.
@ITTutorCanada - they are still alive, theyre call BIRDS!!!!!
Now this still doesn't prove the premise wrong, using wrong information, like... there is only one planet thats ever supported life, and life is good, therefor the univcerse is built for life...
Thats the same sort of thing, mathmatically 99.9999999999% of the universe cannot sustain life as we know it... thus the premise is false...
@Spinobreaker No, your arguments are terribad. Also, can I see some proof that birds are dinosaurs please? Are you saying there was no such thing as birds before dinosaurs? By proof I mean I'd like some empirical evidence please. In other words, please send over your hypothesis complete with a series of tests that I can perform that will show that your hypothesis, versus others, is the most favorable based on your predicted results of said tests. Thanks, I eagerly await your reply.
@ITTutorCanada - Its all in the bones... And feathers...
THere is two groups of animals, one old, one new, to have both feathers and wish bones. Dinosaurs (specifically therapods) and Birds. They also both have hollow bones, and an identicle (more or less) skeletal structure. You say theres no evidence that birds are dinosaurs, but it is now accepted after HUNDREDS of fossil finds, including a bazare 4 winged bird-like therapod what could glide, and 'fuzzy raptors'
@Spinobreaker - Another good example is in the structure of the pelvis region, same in both dinosaurs and birds. And in the VERY rare "mumified" fossils of dinosaurs, it can be seen that internal organs match birds very closely.
And the icing on the cake is that bird didn't take over till most of the dinosaurs were wiped out. Before then they thrived in China (most of the bird like ones) with some of the larger ones spreading around the world.
@Spinobreaker - the best part is that feathers were not originally for flight. THey were originally used by the therapods for temperature control, then for increased agility, then as always the smaller ones in trees (like sugar gliders today) used them for gliding to catch insects and move around. Then predators evolved ot hunt them, then it became a race to see who could glide further (in order to kill or get away) then evolution gifted its final gift, proper flight...
@Spinobreaker So, first of all they're not bones, they're fossils of what was a beast which had bones but they are not bones. They're fossils. Lets get that elementary fact established here. So with that established, you're proposing that I look at basically the equivalent of a plaster cast of two beings in order to establish a genetic relation? Cool story bro. When you get some DNA from a dinosaur and you're able to compare it to a bird and get an ancestral match, let me know.
@ITTutorCanada - So instead of reading the argument u pin down one minor fact discrepency. Fossils were bones, millions of years ago... so originally before they were fossils they were bones... so what? You seriously have no concept of deep time do u? DNA isn't viable for testing in fossils (we can only go back about 30-40k years atm and thats not from fossils its from teeth), we dont live in the jurassic park universe where we can pull it out of mossies...
@Spinobreaker - and one last thing, well stay on the topic of just birds...
Chickens have been found to grow teeth, yes its rare but it happens. And want to know the best bit, they look exactly like therapod teeth...
And if you dont believe me (And u obviously think that theyre extinct) then go, look at the evidence, look at the most currnet research and discoveries, and even check out channels like Dinosaur George (its his day job to explain this simple stuff im explaining to you)
@Spinobreaker - Oh and lastly i suggest u watch the most recent Dprjones videos, it explains how people can delude themselves to the point of refusing to see the evidence that counters there arguments...
@Spinobreaker Actually we can't even go back 30-40K years, DNA degenerates much quicker than 40 THOUSAND years my friend. Eve if they recovered such a sample it would be so mutated that whatever testing results you get would not even be comparable to the original specimen. Anyway no fossils are not bones by any means. They are natures "plaster casts" of what used to be there. Comparing plaster casts of dinosaurs to birds for proof of genetic evolution is not any form science, it's delusion.
@ITTutorCanada - they are a close enough representation to the original, and stop avoiding all the other points made and instead focusing on one MINOR factual discrepancy...
Fossils are so close to the original bones that they even have the nodules on them that feathers attach to... yes fossil are not bones by any means, but they are close enough...
As for youre genetic point, we have studied 30k yo neanderthal DNA. And mapped it successfully, so the technology is there...
@ITTutorCanada - but the point remains, that we study evolution in the deep past by comparing fossils to each other. Are you saying that because we cant get DNA out of a fossil we cant say that T-Rex and Tarbosaurus are not closely related. Or that the Raptor family group are all unrelated. Or even that T-rex and The Raptors had a common ancestor...
If you are saying that u are one of two thing, either a a troll, or b you have set an impossible goal....
@Spinobreaker - in order to study deep time we need to use cirumstantail evidnece, and comparative anatomy. We look at when things lived and when things dies and how things changed between those two points.
@Spinobreaker Not at all. I can look at all the dogs on earth and say that they are closely related by their characteristics. That's called taxonomy, not evolution. Looking at a dog and a whale and saying "hmmmm yep they're related" isn't taxonomy or evolution, it's just plain madness. So what if some of them developed feathers. I developed thick hair on my ass and around my genitals around the age of 13. So do dogs. Are we related to dogs?
@ITTutorCanada - We share a distant common ancestor, yes... All animals with hair (of the same structure as mamals) have a common ancestor at some point, way back, at some point...
So what, we share ancestors with dimetradons as well. Actually the basic mamalian jaw/muscle structure was developed in animals similar to dimetradon...
Feathers are on no other creatures outside of birds and dinosaurs...
@Spinobreaker Alright thanks for clearing that up. I'll have to end our discussion because I have to go search for the dinosaurs that thunderf00t told me are still alive and remove my toilet and install a fire hydrant.
@ITTutorCanada - thus proving ud rather ignore the truth than change ur perception of reality...
I give u links (well directions anyway) to the articles, put post after post with information up, and u just say, with no counter arguement beyond "fossils are not bones" that your right and im wrong, how, very, very amusing and dim your bulb must be...
@Spinobreaker I've seen the data you're talking about and it's hardly capable of convincing me that every species on earth evolved from a single celled organism. I'm sorry but it's just not there. The pre-cambrian to cambrian fossil records show a sudden emergence of a very diverse range of life, some of it which is still alive today. Before that nothing but microscopic sponges. Darwin himself lamented in his latter years about the fact that the fossil record was contracting his beloved theory.
@Spinobreaker Also I've seen other data, like LAB TESTS published in the journal of molecular biology that show that the odds of a single, basic protein mutating in a positive way are roughly 1 in 10 to the 125th power. Proteins in labs show a nearly 100% mutation resistance. So if we can demonstrate in a lab that basic proteins stand against astronomical odds of successful, beneficial mutation... well sir I'll just say your kind and your dark ages mentality are slowly passing away thankfully.
@ITTutorCanada - back up, dark ages mentality, u do know that the christains were the dark age right?
Evolution is very recent and has NOTHING to do with the dark ages...
Have u ever heard of the double duplication of DNA that lead to the evolution of the vertibrates? I cant think of the specific worm things name, but i remember that if its DNA hadn't doubled twice there wouldn't be enough space for the DNA needed to create vertibrates...
@ITTutorCanada - How about being able to see red (its either red or green i cant remember which way round it is), it was a duplication of green (see previous note) and sits right next to it in our DNA. Where as blue sits off to the side away from both green and red. Red is one alteration away from green and is the obvious result of a gene duplication and mutations...
Then we have the bacteria that learnt how to eat nylon, the bacteria had to gain info to do that...
@ITTutorCanada - And then the flag ship for the creationist noobs the bacterial fligelum... a more advanced version of the needle that is used to puncture the cell walls of other... well cells...
So its not irreucably complex either...
Not saying ur one of them, but theres some points that show beneficial mutation, if u would actually look into it ud find more examples... and that stinking worm things name... its on the tip of my brain i just cant think of it...
@Spinobreaker Good job completely ignoring the facts I stated. You're talking theory, I gave you facts which can be reproduced in a lab and the results were published in THE ONLY AND ONLY international, peer reviewed journal of molecular biology. Douglas Axe - Random Protein Synthesis and Mutation Resistance. Go look that article up and have a read. The facts are all there, AND anyone can sit down and reproduce them in a lab. All you can do is spout theories. Cool story, lets talk facts.
@Spinobreaker - And better yet... i jsut remembered a recent study, looking at the fossilised dinosaur feathers actually share a specific type of pygment cell. The cell gives the feather its color...
And it is IDENTICLE to the color cells found in modern birds...
Coincidence...?
Google "dinosaur color found" without the "
First link goes to national geographics and read that before talking to me again...
You are wrong, face it, the evidence adds up, refuse it as your own ignorance
You're telling me you'd STILL give any credibility whatsoever to the conclusion ("Matrix is real") when faced with the obvious fact that the first premise is wrong?
The burden of proof is NOT on me to disprove the Matrix, nor do I need to be a Matrix agnostic to take a rational stance. I can rationally call BS on it.
@DogmasDemise You're presenting A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. OF COURSE THERE IS GOING TO BE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DELIBERATELY SET IT UP TO FAIL. Your example has absolutely nothing in common with the KCA except that you're attempting to make a deductive argument. It's like saying WELL CRAIG HAS A CAR AND I HAVE A CAR AND MY CAR IS SHIT SO CRAIGS CAR MUST BE SHIT. Like cmon dude I think you're smarter than that seriously man just stop please.
@ITTutorCanada It's EXACTLY like the KCA because one of the two premises is not correct (or at least not proven to be correct). What's worse is that even if I grant you both premises (Whatever begins to exist has a cause & Universe had a beginning) all it proves is that the Universe had a cause. To say it's a magic man is just guesswork at best. And besides, how do you reconcile Big Bang with magical 6-day creationism? (if you specifically want to prove the Bible God.)
@DogmasDemise The fact that you're reading the Bible in such a literal shows more ignorance on your behalf. I take it you've never read any remotely sophisticated piece of literature if you believe that there is just one style of writing (being plain facts like a textbook). The bible is not a textbook my friend, it is a very complex piece of ancient literature. Also I'm not even responding to your KCA comments because they're so grossly erroneous it's not even worth discussing with you.
@ITTutorCanada Really now? It sounds like you're making stuff up, how the hell do you interpret as metaphorical chapters that are CLEARLY written as a factual description? If the 6-day creationist account is unreliable, everything falls apart. No Adam from dirt, no Eve from rib, no talking snake, no original sin, no need for a savior.
@DogmasDemise Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the earth was created in 6 human days. God exists outside of time, therefore it is impossible to gauge his sense of time. One interesting experiment is that if you place a geological timeline, followed by the timeline of evolution next to the Biblical timeline, stretched out without using literal 6-day creation, the dates match up perfectly.
Perhaps instead of bringing anger to the debate you could be open to discussion rather than arguing.
@markofashes "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Yup here's your original state of the Universe, an empty void with one planet filled with water and apparently no dry land, no continents. There's no mention of singularity nor rapid expansion. Big Bang and creationism don't go well together.
@ITTutorCanada The reason you won't address is that because you're wrong and you know it. How do you get from "singularity expanded" to "nothing created something"???
@DogmasDemise A singularity did not always exist. The idea that it did is not scientific at all. Therefore, "something" (the singularity) had to have come from "nothing". A reasonable explanation is that an infinite being outside the bounds of time (for he created them), and thus not influenced by such restrictions is the only one who could create the first existence of a universe: the singularity.
@markofashes "A singularity did not always exist." And I never claimed that, I simply said it's NOT KNOWN what was "before" or what caused the original state of singularity, it's just speculation at the moment. Yeah I guess there COULD be a god, OR there could be yet another impersonal natural mechanism we haven't discovered. Given the supernatural's poor track record of explaining reality, I don't see why I should take it any supernatural hypothesis seriously.
@DogmasDemise First of all I don't think you even understand the concept of a singularity but that's fine. You convinced me bro. Instead of in the beginning, there was God, in the beginning, there was no time and space, but rather the all-mighty infinitely compressed speck of matter which is eternal yet it's expanding into nothing and with dark energy the current theory is that even every atom will eventually cease to exist. But no you're right, the universe is infinite bro. Cool story.
@ITTutorCanada If you can tell me how a being "outside of time" can even exist to begin with I'd love to hear it. Sounds like one big contradiction to me. Existence, cause-effect these things require TIME. For example if God "lived" in a timeless state it would be impossible to even utter the words "Let there be".
Also, there's no consensus among scientists about exactly what will happen to the Universe billions of years from now. It's mostly speculations and "ifs" right now.
3) A cataclysmic event directly or indirectly was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs.
4) The cataclysmic event was when the flying spaghetti monster got drunk and crashed into the earth, drowning many creatures in meatball sauce and cheese.
Conclusion: Dinosaurs are extinct.
Since most of the premises are false, the conclusion "probably is too."
@ITTutorCanada And we can always rephrase it as "If your premises are wrong, then your INFERENCE is unreliable." Happy now?
If you make a statement (i.e. a god exists.) and all you have to support it is an argument built on false or unproven premises, then I can safely dismiss your statement until proven otherwise.
@EnlightenedReader The Big Bang doesn't say there was nothing and then there was something. It says it was all compacted into a singular point. We don't really KNOW what was before that. For all you know there could be an infinite Big Bang - Big Crunch cycle with a few mechanisms we've yet to uncover (much like time dilation wasn't even intuitively plausible centuries ago). By Occam's Razor, this is a bit more plausible than the magic man theory.
@DogmasDemise Sorry but that has been thoroughly disproven. There is no infinite cycle of the universe oscillating, especially since the discovery of dark matter and dark energy, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate and thus it's simply impossible by the same laws that govern this universe for it to oscillate forever. No one has held the theory you're talking about for quite a long time because the empirical evidence disproves it thoroughly.
@ITTutorCanada I didn't even say that I "hold" this idea to be true, even if you completely discard the Big Crunch there are several more hypotheses.
And just because it's expanding at an increasing rate NOW doesn't mean it will do so indefinitely. It's just like the spam can argument, yeah under Newtonian physics an object pushed forward moves FASTER. But these kind of extrapolations at a grander or universal scale can FAIL. You could be missing the larger picture.
@DogmasDemise LOL when you referenced thunderfags "spam can" argument you just totally lost any amount of credibility and therefore I'm not going to waste 1 more second of my life attempting to reason with a person who is so desperate to keep their false opinion that they are willing to grasp at even the most intellectually disgusting concepts. Good day sir.
@ITTutorCanada The problem is you don't understand the spam can argument at all. That Thunder"fag" you speak of is in fact a REAL scientist btw, what about you? If you had been living 100 years ago you would probably be saying there's no 300.000km/s speed limit and things ALWAYS go faster if pushed forward or that there's no such thing as time dilation.
To assume a supernatural explanation for the Universe when maybe it one day science will better explain it, it's just stupid.
@ITTutorCanada Ah yeah, I almost forgot, if you truly accept the Big Bang theory then please don't say the Christian God did it. It's laughable, Genesis and Big Bang simply don't match one bit.
@ITTutorCanada Besides do you really want your "best" hypothesis for the origin of the Universe as we know it to be this childish "magic man did it". Hasn't the past taught you supernatural explanations are the weakest, most unreliable of all explanations? They even said the same bullshit about evil thoughts, "oh evil thoughts = Satan influencing you", nonsense that's how your brain works.
@VyckRo What really seems strange to me is that if you want to use the Big Bang to prove God (even though it doesn't really say there was moment when there was nothing, but rather everything was condensed into a single point which expanded) then that God cannot be the Christian God. The details of the Genesis account don't match those of the Big Bang.
Besides how can a timeless being even exist by definition? Existence implies continuity, you still need some kind of time.
@VyckRo Also he doesn't say if the premises are wrong then the deduction is wrong, he says it's PROBABLY wrong, or to put it in other words: If the premises are wrong, then the conclusion is unreliable. (And what do we do with unreliable conclusions? Well in theory I guess they could still be correct, but in PRACTICE we assume they're false until proven otherwise.)
@VyckRo Now personally I don't think Thunderf00t got the premises wrong. I think he is in fact saying that he doesn't agree with the premise that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". (Not MY opinion though, I honestly can't imagine something coming into existence out of absolutely nothing, but that's the impression I got from watching his video.)
However I don't agree with the premise that the "Universe had a beginning". We don't really know that at all.
@VyckRo I remember this argument. Yeah, you don't need to give an explanation of the explanation (such as where the first cell came from if evolution is true) however there are 3 problems here: 1. The god hypothesis is a very special type of explanation, because it's presented as an explanation TO END ALL EXPLANATIONS. So if it still leaves room for vital unanswered questions it will fail. 2. There is already a track record that the god hypothesis is not a good explanation for the unknown.
@drcraigvideo *sigh* it wasnt an objection to the KCA, genius. Quite the assertion you've made there DCV. Care to make a vid why, or do you need to for 2 cite to reply? He merely pointed out that a deductive argument, when broke down can point out the flaws. Unless you're one of those morons who thinks he actually thinks a can of spam can be pushed beyond the speed of light. I give you DCV, your kind of loyalty to craig is unparalleled.
Proper methodology would regard WLC's conclusion as a hypothesis. It has no special status as being of particular value until we have tested it. But of course, when WLC's hypothesis is also unfalsifiable this option is not available to us. In that case, it is common to dismiss it as meaningless drivel. Even if the conclusion was true, we have no way of knowing and it's not even clear why we should care about the argument due to its lack of impact on reality.
TF has another point in his video as well, which is this: Because we can never be 100% certain about any statement about external reality, philosophy is almost useless for making statements about its nature.
We can't simply trust the conclusions of deductive arguments, because the premises can be faulty, we need to actually go out and check if they are true. This is what differentiates science from philosophy, and this is what WLC does not even attempt to do.
@Gnomefro Bleh. Edit bug: "because the premises can be faulty, we need to actually go out and check if they are true. "
should of course say that we should check if the predicted conclusion holds out in nature, which in turn gives us reason to think that the premises did in fact hold, or alternatively one could view the entire system as simply being a useful model capable of prediction to a certain degree of accuracy, which perhaps is a more sober way of looking at it.
No, since simply thinking could just get you nowhere, while science we actually test our hypothesis over and over again. Science isn't perfect, but it is steps ahead of philosophy in terms of understanding nature and the universe.
@VyckRo ROFL Well you're a "Professor of History" so if the resurrection is an indisputable fact, then surely there's a way you can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. Right?
"Because we can never be 100% certain about any statement about external reality, philosophy is almost useless for making statements about its nature."
This makes it impossible to learn or know anything. Science is a branch of epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy. How can you know our senses relay truth? How do you know the world isn't an illusion or that we all live in a dream? How do you know you even exist? How do we justify science as a valid way to learn?
"Because we can never be 100% certain about any statement about external reality"
Then we cannot be 100% sure of that statement about the external reality. No statement can be made to be 100% certian. We believe in things that can be held to a reasonable degree; what can be justified.
"Because we can never be 100% certain about any statement about external reality"
Then we cannot be 100% sure of that statement about the external reality. No statement can be made to be 100% certian. We believe in things that can be held to a reasonable degree; what can be justified.
@Gnomefro If science presupposes philosophical truths, and philosophy is useless, then what becomes of science? You don't need 100% certainty to come to knowledge.
@Gnomefro Science is guilty of assuming that very same thing. Many Scientists can agree that there is a possibility that a God exists. However; to further the cause of science, scientists have had to run away from God with their own metaphysics, which is of course, unscientific. An example is the hypothesis that an infinite number of universes exists, which cannot be tested. Occam's razor would show that God is a better idea than metaphysical science invented specifically to explain away God.
Even though you repeat TF's statement over and over, you apparently fail to see this rather simple point. Even TF is not denying that the original answer *could* be correct. It's just incredibly unlikely. Precisely because the failure of the argument means that you have no good grounds for thinking it is true anymore, which was how you picked it out from an infinity of others in the first place.
What Thunderfoot was saying was that if the premises are wrong, then the conclusions is *probably* wrong too. This is a true statement, because we have no a priori way of restricting the set of possible states of nature, which means that this set is essentially equivalent to the logically possible. Out of this infinite set, the argument in question had extracted one item. The chances of this being the correct, given no other information, is 1/infinity. Which equals "Probably wrong".
C) Therefore, America was discovered before AD 1500.
Notice how both premises are wrong, but the conclusion is right. If the premises are right and the conclusion logically follows, then the conclusion is right. If the premises are wrong, we can make no inference in regards to the veracity of the conclusion.
Imho, no culture existed 5000 years before Christ. In actual fact, before the original attempt at a NWO, when man tried to ascend into heaven via the tower built at Babel, all men spoke one tongue. That was approximately 2500 years before Christ.
Genesis 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
auzi ma, nu incerca sa areti ca esti destept, ca nu esti. si nu incerca sa-i copiezi stilul lui tf, ca nu poti. du-te inapoi la carte si mai citeste inainte sa te faci de minune pe youtube. ziua buna.
branahawk 2 weeks ago
Ah VyckRo, the always reliable trollish parasite of Thunderf00t.
RandomSnot 1 month ago
Yet another WLC fan-boy frustrated into the need to create content featuring Craig and Thunderf00t. Excellent.
"The specimen is about to boast of his strength, the weaponry of his vessel, and so on."
HellRehab 1 month ago
you're talking about bullshit new order. First of all, assholes like you should explain what is the old order because for me looks like fantesy of war is getting associated with gettig a woody reading the bible. As I said before you should just go fuck yourself.
thelegionary1000 1 month ago
you are full of shit.go fuck yourself asshole
thelegionary1000 1 month ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@thelegionary1000
This is apparently a rationalist comment, unfortunately I am not that rationalist, to understand the subtlety of this comment.
We must expect to be hated by the world.
VyckRo 1 month ago
Now its obvious. You are a plain idiot, Vyck.
Wrath0fKhan 1 month ago
Young Earth Creationism Is the truth! Evolution is a Lie!
k12rising 1 month ago
I think that your video was great:)
doobersmanster 1 month ago
You could not be any more wrong. Carl Sagan is asking from people like you "If you want to say god always existed, why not saving an step by saying the universe always existed?"
Explanation of the explanation? What?! We want explanation for the existence of that explanation. Moreover, how do you even know if there is a god? Maybe the universe was made by a giant rhinoceros or a chimp or a tea pot? There is as much evidence and reason to believe those as there is for a god!
Andrameda666 1 month ago
@Andrameda666 We want an explanation for the cause of the Universe. You skipping past that to 'The Next Question' doesn't do anything to 'cancel out' where we were. To dumb this down for you. Det.Grissom can conclude a 'Person' or 'ID' is the best explanation for the round hole in the cadavers forehead. Just because you pop in 'asking out loud' OH YA.. well who was the person hmm?? and where did that person come from hmmmm? Doesn't 'cancel out' Det.Grissoms probably conclusion.
TheRightOffensive 1 month ago
@TheRightOffensive You want an explanation for the cause of the Universe, but you're not courage enough to ask the next question. The next question has to do everything to debunk that logical fallacy called Kalam.
Det.Grissom can make that conclusion based on human experience. I can tell you I know that there is painter somewhere, when I look at a painting, because I can see people when they paint. Can you see god when he/she/ creates Universe? You made a false analogy here.
Andrameda666 1 month ago
@Andrameda666 Nope, I made a correct analogy in regards to the position you took and further more I am courageous enough to speculate on the 'who' but that doesn't change the fact we can get as far as a 'who'. Yes, you can suppose a 'who' because you know that 'whos' create complex information systems. You already know that from observation of Painters and Shooters etc.
TheRightOffensive 1 month ago
@TheRightOffensive Nope, you made a wrong analogy because you can see people make complex systems like cars, airplanes, etc. But you can never see a god or any person create a Universe, and you should be honest to ask what is the explanation for the existence of the Universe because when you say "who", you've prejudiced yourself for one possible answer. It's called confirmation bias.
Andrameda666 1 month ago
@Andrameda666 No, you just changed the subject for which the analogy was made and you know that. You are now modifying, changing, worming out of this. You started by suggesting there is a problem with identifying a probably cause because that cause wasn't yet named or its cause identified. I showed you why that 'line of reasoning' is pure BS and you know it. As for the question at hand (not the 'next questions') a 'Who' is the 'bias' by way of data and observation. Suck on it.
TheRightOffensive 1 month ago
@TheRightOffensive Now I see that I've made you angry. You don't even have one shred of evidence that there is god, except for your Kalam logical fallacy. Everything that everything that everything, but god. I tried to be honest with you, but it seems like you suck on it.
Andrameda666 1 month ago
@Andrameda666 You haven't made me angry and I have shown where you made a mistake in reasoning and logic. Now, you want to move on (fair enough) and find ways you can use the words 'fallacy' and 'shred' in a YT debate but the problem here is that you don't even know 'how' and 'why' you are trying to use 'Kalam' in this. What you did do was tell me the examples of complex working information systems you know about are caused by 'IDs' or 'Whos'. You admit that.
TheRightOffensive 1 month ago
If neither is true, than the conclusion may or may not be true.
Premise 1- Not everything that exists has to have a cause
Premise 2- The universe may or may not came to existance
Premist 3- The universe might have had a cause.
Mectrixctic 1 month ago
@Mectrixctic
Premise 1 is False
Premis 2 is invalid ( we have a universe that had a cause )
---
Conclusion you do not have a valid logical argument
VyckRo 1 month ago
@VyckRo
1. prove it
2. prove it
Your argument is invalid.
Mectrixctic 1 month ago 2
@Mectrixctic you don't have a clue...
doobersmanster 1 month ago
you criticize Thunderf00t for judging Craig's character instead of his argument but then compare Tunderf00t to spok. This character assassination is highly hypocritical.
drsmithification 1 month ago
Actually,Thunderfthud00t's war is on God.
mrtadreamer 1 month ago
if credability was based off the amount of debates you have had relative to your actual interlectual level then yes WLC might be classes high (lots of debate no brians) but thunders the other way round (lots of brains, they misfire sometimes but hes human what do u expect and only a couple of debates) But that said the argument he was forwarding still stands. If you claim something is x, without evidence then add a y, without evidence, how can u justify that x+y= z? You cant, its called logic...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker Please see my argument about the dinosaurs, it is based 100% on thunderfags logic. Many of my premises are false, the conclusion is that dinosaurs are extinct so therefore according to thunderqueer, the conclusion must be false also. So in other words, dinosaurs are "probably" alive. I want to thank you and thunderf00t so much for this great news. Ever since I was a small child I always believed that dinosaurs were still secretly alive.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada - they are still alive, theyre call BIRDS!!!!!
Now this still doesn't prove the premise wrong, using wrong information, like... there is only one planet thats ever supported life, and life is good, therefor the univcerse is built for life...
Thats the same sort of thing, mathmatically 99.9999999999% of the universe cannot sustain life as we know it... thus the premise is false...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker No, your arguments are terribad. Also, can I see some proof that birds are dinosaurs please? Are you saying there was no such thing as birds before dinosaurs? By proof I mean I'd like some empirical evidence please. In other words, please send over your hypothesis complete with a series of tests that I can perform that will show that your hypothesis, versus others, is the most favorable based on your predicted results of said tests. Thanks, I eagerly await your reply.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada - Its all in the bones... And feathers...
THere is two groups of animals, one old, one new, to have both feathers and wish bones. Dinosaurs (specifically therapods) and Birds. They also both have hollow bones, and an identicle (more or less) skeletal structure. You say theres no evidence that birds are dinosaurs, but it is now accepted after HUNDREDS of fossil finds, including a bazare 4 winged bird-like therapod what could glide, and 'fuzzy raptors'
i can go on...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker - Another good example is in the structure of the pelvis region, same in both dinosaurs and birds. And in the VERY rare "mumified" fossils of dinosaurs, it can be seen that internal organs match birds very closely.
And the icing on the cake is that bird didn't take over till most of the dinosaurs were wiped out. Before then they thrived in China (most of the bird like ones) with some of the larger ones spreading around the world.
But u want to know the best part?
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker - the best part is that feathers were not originally for flight. THey were originally used by the therapods for temperature control, then for increased agility, then as always the smaller ones in trees (like sugar gliders today) used them for gliding to catch insects and move around. Then predators evolved ot hunt them, then it became a race to see who could glide further (in order to kill or get away) then evolution gifted its final gift, proper flight...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker So, first of all they're not bones, they're fossils of what was a beast which had bones but they are not bones. They're fossils. Lets get that elementary fact established here. So with that established, you're proposing that I look at basically the equivalent of a plaster cast of two beings in order to establish a genetic relation? Cool story bro. When you get some DNA from a dinosaur and you're able to compare it to a bird and get an ancestral match, let me know.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada - So instead of reading the argument u pin down one minor fact discrepency. Fossils were bones, millions of years ago... so originally before they were fossils they were bones... so what? You seriously have no concept of deep time do u? DNA isn't viable for testing in fossils (we can only go back about 30-40k years atm and thats not from fossils its from teeth), we dont live in the jurassic park universe where we can pull it out of mossies...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker - and one last thing, well stay on the topic of just birds...
Chickens have been found to grow teeth, yes its rare but it happens. And want to know the best bit, they look exactly like therapod teeth...
And if you dont believe me (And u obviously think that theyre extinct) then go, look at the evidence, look at the most currnet research and discoveries, and even check out channels like Dinosaur George (its his day job to explain this simple stuff im explaining to you)
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker - Oh and lastly i suggest u watch the most recent Dprjones videos, it explains how people can delude themselves to the point of refusing to see the evidence that counters there arguments...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker Actually we can't even go back 30-40K years, DNA degenerates much quicker than 40 THOUSAND years my friend. Eve if they recovered such a sample it would be so mutated that whatever testing results you get would not even be comparable to the original specimen. Anyway no fossils are not bones by any means. They are natures "plaster casts" of what used to be there. Comparing plaster casts of dinosaurs to birds for proof of genetic evolution is not any form science, it's delusion.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada - they are a close enough representation to the original, and stop avoiding all the other points made and instead focusing on one MINOR factual discrepancy...
Fossils are so close to the original bones that they even have the nodules on them that feathers attach to... yes fossil are not bones by any means, but they are close enough...
As for youre genetic point, we have studied 30k yo neanderthal DNA. And mapped it successfully, so the technology is there...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada - but the point remains, that we study evolution in the deep past by comparing fossils to each other. Are you saying that because we cant get DNA out of a fossil we cant say that T-Rex and Tarbosaurus are not closely related. Or that the Raptor family group are all unrelated. Or even that T-rex and The Raptors had a common ancestor...
If you are saying that u are one of two thing, either a a troll, or b you have set an impossible goal....
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker - in order to study deep time we need to use cirumstantail evidnece, and comparative anatomy. We look at when things lived and when things dies and how things changed between those two points.
Its called EVOLUTION
shit changes over time...
Is that so hard to comprehend?
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker Not at all. I can look at all the dogs on earth and say that they are closely related by their characteristics. That's called taxonomy, not evolution. Looking at a dog and a whale and saying "hmmmm yep they're related" isn't taxonomy or evolution, it's just plain madness. So what if some of them developed feathers. I developed thick hair on my ass and around my genitals around the age of 13. So do dogs. Are we related to dogs?
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada - We share a distant common ancestor, yes... All animals with hair (of the same structure as mamals) have a common ancestor at some point, way back, at some point...
So what, we share ancestors with dimetradons as well. Actually the basic mamalian jaw/muscle structure was developed in animals similar to dimetradon...
Feathers are on no other creatures outside of birds and dinosaurs...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker Alright thanks for clearing that up. I'll have to end our discussion because I have to go search for the dinosaurs that thunderf00t told me are still alive and remove my toilet and install a fire hydrant.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada - thus proving ud rather ignore the truth than change ur perception of reality...
I give u links (well directions anyway) to the articles, put post after post with information up, and u just say, with no counter arguement beyond "fossils are not bones" that your right and im wrong, how, very, very amusing and dim your bulb must be...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker I've seen the data you're talking about and it's hardly capable of convincing me that every species on earth evolved from a single celled organism. I'm sorry but it's just not there. The pre-cambrian to cambrian fossil records show a sudden emergence of a very diverse range of life, some of it which is still alive today. Before that nothing but microscopic sponges. Darwin himself lamented in his latter years about the fact that the fossil record was contracting his beloved theory.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker Also I've seen other data, like LAB TESTS published in the journal of molecular biology that show that the odds of a single, basic protein mutating in a positive way are roughly 1 in 10 to the 125th power. Proteins in labs show a nearly 100% mutation resistance. So if we can demonstrate in a lab that basic proteins stand against astronomical odds of successful, beneficial mutation... well sir I'll just say your kind and your dark ages mentality are slowly passing away thankfully.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada - back up, dark ages mentality, u do know that the christains were the dark age right?
Evolution is very recent and has NOTHING to do with the dark ages...
Have u ever heard of the double duplication of DNA that lead to the evolution of the vertibrates? I cant think of the specific worm things name, but i remember that if its DNA hadn't doubled twice there wouldn't be enough space for the DNA needed to create vertibrates...
Im looking up its name now so i can tell u
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada - How about being able to see red (its either red or green i cant remember which way round it is), it was a duplication of green (see previous note) and sits right next to it in our DNA. Where as blue sits off to the side away from both green and red. Red is one alteration away from green and is the obvious result of a gene duplication and mutations...
Then we have the bacteria that learnt how to eat nylon, the bacteria had to gain info to do that...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada - And then the flag ship for the creationist noobs the bacterial fligelum... a more advanced version of the needle that is used to puncture the cell walls of other... well cells...
So its not irreucably complex either...
Not saying ur one of them, but theres some points that show beneficial mutation, if u would actually look into it ud find more examples... and that stinking worm things name... its on the tip of my brain i just cant think of it...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker Good job completely ignoring the facts I stated. You're talking theory, I gave you facts which can be reproduced in a lab and the results were published in THE ONLY AND ONLY international, peer reviewed journal of molecular biology. Douglas Axe - Random Protein Synthesis and Mutation Resistance. Go look that article up and have a read. The facts are all there, AND anyone can sit down and reproduce them in a lab. All you can do is spout theories. Cool story, lets talk facts.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@Spinobreaker - And better yet... i jsut remembered a recent study, looking at the fossilised dinosaur feathers actually share a specific type of pygment cell. The cell gives the feather its color...
And it is IDENTICLE to the color cells found in modern birds...
Coincidence...?
Google "dinosaur color found" without the "
First link goes to national geographics and read that before talking to me again...
You are wrong, face it, the evidence adds up, refuse it as your own ignorance
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada Okay you fool, let's try an example:
1. Homeless guy Bob never lies.
2. Homeless guy Bob says the Matrix is real.
3. Therefore the Matrix is real.
You're telling me you'd STILL give any credibility whatsoever to the conclusion ("Matrix is real") when faced with the obvious fact that the first premise is wrong?
The burden of proof is NOT on me to disprove the Matrix, nor do I need to be a Matrix agnostic to take a rational stance. I can rationally call BS on it.
DogmasDemise 1 month ago
@DogmasDemise You're presenting A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. OF COURSE THERE IS GOING TO BE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DELIBERATELY SET IT UP TO FAIL. Your example has absolutely nothing in common with the KCA except that you're attempting to make a deductive argument. It's like saying WELL CRAIG HAS A CAR AND I HAVE A CAR AND MY CAR IS SHIT SO CRAIGS CAR MUST BE SHIT. Like cmon dude I think you're smarter than that seriously man just stop please.
ITTutorCanada 1 month ago
@ITTutorCanada It's EXACTLY like the KCA because one of the two premises is not correct (or at least not proven to be correct). What's worse is that even if I grant you both premises (Whatever begins to exist has a cause & Universe had a beginning) all it proves is that the Universe had a cause. To say it's a magic man is just guesswork at best. And besides, how do you reconcile Big Bang with magical 6-day creationism? (if you specifically want to prove the Bible God.)
DogmasDemise 1 month ago
@DogmasDemise The fact that you're reading the Bible in such a literal shows more ignorance on your behalf. I take it you've never read any remotely sophisticated piece of literature if you believe that there is just one style of writing (being plain facts like a textbook). The bible is not a textbook my friend, it is a very complex piece of ancient literature. Also I'm not even responding to your KCA comments because they're so grossly erroneous it's not even worth discussing with you.
ITTutorCanada 1 month ago
@ITTutorCanada Really now? It sounds like you're making stuff up, how the hell do you interpret as metaphorical chapters that are CLEARLY written as a factual description? If the 6-day creationist account is unreliable, everything falls apart. No Adam from dirt, no Eve from rib, no talking snake, no original sin, no need for a savior.
DogmasDemise 1 month ago
@DogmasDemise Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the earth was created in 6 human days. God exists outside of time, therefore it is impossible to gauge his sense of time. One interesting experiment is that if you place a geological timeline, followed by the timeline of evolution next to the Biblical timeline, stretched out without using literal 6-day creation, the dates match up perfectly.
Perhaps instead of bringing anger to the debate you could be open to discussion rather than arguing.
markofashes 1 month ago
@markofashes "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Yup here's your original state of the Universe, an empty void with one planet filled with water and apparently no dry land, no continents. There's no mention of singularity nor rapid expansion. Big Bang and creationism don't go well together.
DogmasDemise 1 month ago
@ITTutorCanada The reason you won't address is that because you're wrong and you know it. How do you get from "singularity expanded" to "nothing created something"???
DogmasDemise 1 month ago
@DogmasDemise A singularity did not always exist. The idea that it did is not scientific at all. Therefore, "something" (the singularity) had to have come from "nothing". A reasonable explanation is that an infinite being outside the bounds of time (for he created them), and thus not influenced by such restrictions is the only one who could create the first existence of a universe: the singularity.
markofashes 1 month ago
@markofashes "A singularity did not always exist." And I never claimed that, I simply said it's NOT KNOWN what was "before" or what caused the original state of singularity, it's just speculation at the moment. Yeah I guess there COULD be a god, OR there could be yet another impersonal natural mechanism we haven't discovered. Given the supernatural's poor track record of explaining reality, I don't see why I should take it any supernatural hypothesis seriously.
DogmasDemise 1 month ago
@DogmasDemise First of all I don't think you even understand the concept of a singularity but that's fine. You convinced me bro. Instead of in the beginning, there was God, in the beginning, there was no time and space, but rather the all-mighty infinitely compressed speck of matter which is eternal yet it's expanding into nothing and with dark energy the current theory is that even every atom will eventually cease to exist. But no you're right, the universe is infinite bro. Cool story.
ITTutorCanada 1 month ago
@ITTutorCanada If you can tell me how a being "outside of time" can even exist to begin with I'd love to hear it. Sounds like one big contradiction to me. Existence, cause-effect these things require TIME. For example if God "lived" in a timeless state it would be impossible to even utter the words "Let there be".
Also, there's no consensus among scientists about exactly what will happen to the Universe billions of years from now. It's mostly speculations and "ifs" right now.
DogmasDemise 1 month ago
You have an awesome voice!!!
Mastermagnetico 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Allow me to use thunderf00ts logic:
1) Dinosaurs were alive.
2) They wore purple jackets.
3) A cataclysmic event directly or indirectly was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs.
4) The cataclysmic event was when the flying spaghetti monster got drunk and crashed into the earth, drowning many creatures in meatball sauce and cheese.
Conclusion: Dinosaurs are extinct.
Since most of the premises are false, the conclusion "probably is too."
Therefore, dinosaurs are alive.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada And we can always rephrase it as "If your premises are wrong, then your INFERENCE is unreliable." Happy now?
If you make a statement (i.e. a god exists.) and all you have to support it is an argument built on false or unproven premises, then I can safely dismiss your statement until proven otherwise.
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
Comment removed
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@EnlightenedReader The Big Bang doesn't say there was nothing and then there was something. It says it was all compacted into a singular point. We don't really KNOW what was before that. For all you know there could be an infinite Big Bang - Big Crunch cycle with a few mechanisms we've yet to uncover (much like time dilation wasn't even intuitively plausible centuries ago). By Occam's Razor, this is a bit more plausible than the magic man theory.
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
@DogmasDemise Sorry but that has been thoroughly disproven. There is no infinite cycle of the universe oscillating, especially since the discovery of dark matter and dark energy, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate and thus it's simply impossible by the same laws that govern this universe for it to oscillate forever. No one has held the theory you're talking about for quite a long time because the empirical evidence disproves it thoroughly.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada I didn't even say that I "hold" this idea to be true, even if you completely discard the Big Crunch there are several more hypotheses.
And just because it's expanding at an increasing rate NOW doesn't mean it will do so indefinitely. It's just like the spam can argument, yeah under Newtonian physics an object pushed forward moves FASTER. But these kind of extrapolations at a grander or universal scale can FAIL. You could be missing the larger picture.
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
@DogmasDemise LOL when you referenced thunderfags "spam can" argument you just totally lost any amount of credibility and therefore I'm not going to waste 1 more second of my life attempting to reason with a person who is so desperate to keep their false opinion that they are willing to grasp at even the most intellectually disgusting concepts. Good day sir.
ITTutorCanada 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada Sure dude, magic did it.
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada The problem is you don't understand the spam can argument at all. That Thunder"fag" you speak of is in fact a REAL scientist btw, what about you? If you had been living 100 years ago you would probably be saying there's no 300.000km/s speed limit and things ALWAYS go faster if pushed forward or that there's no such thing as time dilation.
To assume a supernatural explanation for the Universe when maybe it one day science will better explain it, it's just stupid.
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada Ah yeah, I almost forgot, if you truly accept the Big Bang theory then please don't say the Christian God did it. It's laughable, Genesis and Big Bang simply don't match one bit.
So which God is the "real" God? LOL
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada - doesn't sounds like justifying ur crazy any way u can at all...
Spinobreaker 2 months ago
@ITTutorCanada Besides do you really want your "best" hypothesis for the origin of the Universe as we know it to be this childish "magic man did it". Hasn't the past taught you supernatural explanations are the weakest, most unreliable of all explanations? They even said the same bullshit about evil thoughts, "oh evil thoughts = Satan influencing you", nonsense that's how your brain works.
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
@VyckRo What really seems strange to me is that if you want to use the Big Bang to prove God (even though it doesn't really say there was moment when there was nothing, but rather everything was condensed into a single point which expanded) then that God cannot be the Christian God. The details of the Genesis account don't match those of the Big Bang.
Besides how can a timeless being even exist by definition? Existence implies continuity, you still need some kind of time.
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
@VyckRo Also he doesn't say if the premises are wrong then the deduction is wrong, he says it's PROBABLY wrong, or to put it in other words: If the premises are wrong, then the conclusion is unreliable. (And what do we do with unreliable conclusions? Well in theory I guess they could still be correct, but in PRACTICE we assume they're false until proven otherwise.)
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
@VyckRo Now personally I don't think Thunderf00t got the premises wrong. I think he is in fact saying that he doesn't agree with the premise that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". (Not MY opinion though, I honestly can't imagine something coming into existence out of absolutely nothing, but that's the impression I got from watching his video.)
However I don't agree with the premise that the "Universe had a beginning". We don't really know that at all.
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
@VyckRo 3. The god hypothesis isn't actually supported by evidence and if it is, the evidence is obscured from most people anyway.
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
@VyckRo I remember this argument. Yeah, you don't need to give an explanation of the explanation (such as where the first cell came from if evolution is true) however there are 3 problems here: 1. The god hypothesis is a very special type of explanation, because it's presented as an explanation TO END ALL EXPLANATIONS. So if it still leaves room for vital unanswered questions it will fail. 2. There is already a track record that the god hypothesis is not a good explanation for the unknown.
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
I think thunderf00t made the worst objection against KCA in the history of youtube.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago 27
@drcraigvideos Yes, but the worst video of 2011 was Christians say the Dumbest Things. Ever since he made that video I ignore him.
cguevara12 2 months ago
@drcraigvideo *sigh* it wasnt an objection to the KCA, genius. Quite the assertion you've made there DCV. Care to make a vid why, or do you need to for 2 cite to reply? He merely pointed out that a deductive argument, when broke down can point out the flaws. Unless you're one of those morons who thinks he actually thinks a can of spam can be pushed beyond the speed of light. I give you DCV, your kind of loyalty to craig is unparalleled.
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
Proper methodology would regard WLC's conclusion as a hypothesis. It has no special status as being of particular value until we have tested it. But of course, when WLC's hypothesis is also unfalsifiable this option is not available to us. In that case, it is common to dismiss it as meaningless drivel. Even if the conclusion was true, we have no way of knowing and it's not even clear why we should care about the argument due to its lack of impact on reality.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
TF has another point in his video as well, which is this: Because we can never be 100% certain about any statement about external reality, philosophy is almost useless for making statements about its nature.
We can't simply trust the conclusions of deductive arguments, because the premises can be faulty, we need to actually go out and check if they are true. This is what differentiates science from philosophy, and this is what WLC does not even attempt to do.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro Bleh. Edit bug: "because the premises can be faulty, we need to actually go out and check if they are true. "
should of course say that we should check if the predicted conclusion holds out in nature, which in turn gives us reason to think that the premises did in fact hold, or alternatively one could view the entire system as simply being a useful model capable of prediction to a certain degree of accuracy, which perhaps is a more sober way of looking at it.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro
The same can be said about science! Think
VyckRo 2 months ago 12
@VyckRo
@VyckRo
No, since simply thinking could just get you nowhere, while science we actually test our hypothesis over and over again. Science isn't perfect, but it is steps ahead of philosophy in terms of understanding nature and the universe.
Mectrixctic 1 month ago
@Mectrixctic
"we actually test our hypothesis"
let me guess, you are an angry kid, who believes that if you said that you are an atheist that would mean that you are a "scientist" correct?
And we all other scientists, we have to go home.
VyckRo 1 month ago
@VyckRo
Wow, way to strawman, asshole.
You lose a like :).
Mectrixctic 1 month ago
@VyckRo ROFL Well you're a "Professor of History" so if the resurrection is an indisputable fact, then surely there's a way you can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. Right?
DogmasDemise 1 month ago
@Gnomefro
"Because we can never be 100% certain about any statement about external reality, philosophy is almost useless for making statements about its nature."
This makes it impossible to learn or know anything. Science is a branch of epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy. How can you know our senses relay truth? How do you know the world isn't an illusion or that we all live in a dream? How do you know you even exist? How do we justify science as a valid way to learn?
Think about it
Kiithknight 2 months ago
@Gnomefro how can you be sure the statement you just made is not useless
tonyteb 2 months ago
wha de fuc D:
LaResistanceChannel 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gnomefro
"Because we can never be 100% certain about any statement about external reality"
Then we cannot be 100% sure of that statement about the external reality. No statement can be made to be 100% certian. We believe in things that can be held to a reasonable degree; what can be justified.
TheBeardedMan01 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gnomefro
"Because we can never be 100% certain about any statement about external reality"
Then we cannot be 100% sure of that statement about the external reality. No statement can be made to be 100% certian. We believe in things that can be held to a reasonable degree; what can be justified.
TheBeardedMan01 2 months ago
@Gnomefro If science presupposes philosophical truths, and philosophy is useless, then what becomes of science? You don't need 100% certainty to come to knowledge.
Rogue0572 2 months ago
@Gnomefro Science is guilty of assuming that very same thing. Many Scientists can agree that there is a possibility that a God exists. However; to further the cause of science, scientists have had to run away from God with their own metaphysics, which is of course, unscientific. An example is the hypothesis that an infinite number of universes exists, which cannot be tested. Occam's razor would show that God is a better idea than metaphysical science invented specifically to explain away God.
markofashes 1 month ago
Even though you repeat TF's statement over and over, you apparently fail to see this rather simple point. Even TF is not denying that the original answer *could* be correct. It's just incredibly unlikely. Precisely because the failure of the argument means that you have no good grounds for thinking it is true anymore, which was how you picked it out from an infinity of others in the first place.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
What Thunderfoot was saying was that if the premises are wrong, then the conclusions is *probably* wrong too. This is a true statement, because we have no a priori way of restricting the set of possible states of nature, which means that this set is essentially equivalent to the logically possible. Out of this infinite set, the argument in question had extracted one item. The chances of this being the correct, given no other information, is 1/infinity. Which equals "Probably wrong".
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro
"What Thunderfoot was saying was that if the premises are wrong, then the conclusions is *probably* wrong too. "
If the premises are wrong then we have no grounds to consider the conclusion to be false or true.
VyckRo 2 months ago 3
@Gnomefro
1) Napolean discovered America.
2) Napolean died in AD 1500.
C) Therefore, America was discovered before AD 1500.
Notice how both premises are wrong, but the conclusion is right. If the premises are right and the conclusion logically follows, then the conclusion is right. If the premises are wrong, we can make no inference in regards to the veracity of the conclusion.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
Top video.
Imho, no culture existed 5000 years before Christ. In actual fact, before the original attempt at a NWO, when man tried to ascend into heaven via the tower built at Babel, all men spoke one tongue. That was approximately 2500 years before Christ.
Genesis 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
MandoMohan 2 months ago