The atheist in the red is very smart, I underestimated his ability to reason. I love it how he is at least open minded about the prospect of God. He needs a more to be challenged by a more sophisticated theory proving the existence of God.
Fear is inherent in most primates, unlike felines for example. We evolved to be fearful of the dark. It's what kept our defenseless asses alive. This is very much likely the emotion that drives an adherence to divine word. Fear of Hell drives a willing psychological enslavement to Gods word, and fear of death drives an unwavering belief in an eternal paradise. Fear drives it all. It makes people do and think irrational things. It causes us to avoid reality and persist in delusion. Case closed.
I was told by a Christian that everyone needs an authority figure in their life. (God) But, that's inaccurate. God is not a parental-like authority figure. He's a manipulative tyrant. He convinces Christians that he loves them, but, those who know better, realize he's dictatorial in nature.(assuming he exists) An authority enforces rules for good reasons. A tyrant enforces rules just because it's his will. God is a dictator. He rules by fear firstly, while blinding his people with false love.
I may be missing the point, but isn't this argument equivalent of saying "the golden ratio exists, we can see it in nature- e.g. spirals of shells etc. If no minds existed, would the golden ratio still exist?" to which the answer must surely be yes?
While Dillahunty could have been more precise, his example is on the right track: we in this actual world can apply the laws of logic in our reflection of a possible world without minds without its being necessary that if said possible world were the actual world, the laws of logic would exist. Even if the laws of logic are mental, it needs to be explained why the laws of logic must exist necessarily in order to be invariable when we used them.
hmmm i often like to think of any day say...oh 65 million years ago...or how about going back to 1 billion years ago.....i try to think about what the weather was like that day.....from what we do know about the age of the planet and the cosmos...that day was once thee day.....the sun appeared to raise and fall just as any other...their were no "thinking minds" around......logic does not depend on thinking minds....im sure there was some heavy winds going on somewhere....doesnt wind invoke logic
So... the caller's argument is basically - if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it still makes a noise because God is around to hear it? That's all I can pull from this... ha-ha. The argument sounds like a solipsist argument... this transcendental argument should be renamed to transcendental soliphsist argument.
@YaleBreaker: Yeah, I know. But there is no reason to suppose that logical absolutes hold in-the-world; for you cannot reason that since you have never encountered a state of affairs such that an object is both itself and not itself that the world is fundamentally such that an object cannot both be itself and not itself. Failure to conceive of such a thing (and I admit that I cannot conceive of it) does not mean it is not possible in the physical sense. I think there might be a gap between what
@YaleBreaker: is logically possible and what is physically possible. Or rather that the statement "x is logically possible iff x is physically possible" is not a necessary truth. But Matt seems to think it is. But either way, even if we admit to the phenomenal nature of logical absolutes, we still don't have to accept the transcendental argument being proposed here.
@tellnet Come'on man, like god is all around us, god is everything... look at the stars man... have you read the bible bro? my preacher said... i experienced this... i feel this way. like come on, respect my beliefs.
@tellnet Well the argument is simple really, the universe without a cause is impossible and is contingent upon an immaterial, omnipotent God with a will. Since nothing can only be the cause of nothing, it was not the cause of the universe. If the universe exists, then there was a final cause (God). Last time I checked, the universe exists >.>. Therefore, there was a final cause (God) for its existence.
@jimmyt3411 I suggest you check out modern physics and cosmology. The universe did not need a creator to come into existence. Also, just because something causes something else to happen does not mean that the initial cause "willed" it into existence. And following your logic, God is something and not nothing, therefore, God must also have a cause.
This guy uses in his own argument that logical absolutes exist even if the universe didn't exist. Go ahead, read his argument on his website. Why, then, is he arguing that these absolutes are dependent?
Atheism is very confusing and inconsistent...just listen how the host will accept absolutes but will never go to where they point ...if logic and absolutes exist /he agreed with that/ and they are independent of human mind ,space ,time ,matter,that proves right on the spot intelligent design and this is exactly what the atheist are running from....Very inconsistent position to be in...double standard... intelligence proves God absolutely !
@VESANG "if logic and absolutes exist /he agreed with that/ and they are independent of human mind ,space ,time ,matter,that proves right on the spot intelligent design" Actually, he only asserted that they exist independent of a mind. And even if they did exist independent of the universe, which makes no sense at all by the way, that would just mean there is a force that the universe must conform to.
@TheIncognitusMe I agree with you on the first part in a sense that i used the word God which many have problem with /incl. you/ .You called it force ...i am OK with that.Just don't stop in the middle of the intersection as all atheist do...if we as people create things and acknowledge that takes intelligence how much more intelligent is that universal FORCE/and you agree that exists/the very reason we are here in first place.It is intelligent design,there is no way around it
@VESANG I also never said "there is a force outside of the universe." I said, if we take what you said that something exists outside of the universe, it still doesn't mean it is your god, or mean that it has intelligence.
"Existing outside of the universe" also doesn't make sense, since existence, time, and space are an attribute of the universe.
@TheIncognitusMe I assumed you agree with the host...my bad...sorry ...so far your logic is that intelligent design does not take intelligence ...this is where it all brakes down for atheism...discussing how we call that universal FORCE ,God ,Power...is different subject.You are on the right track saying" there is a force that the universe must conform to" .I wish you all the best asking the next questions in your search for truth! Don't stop in the middle of the intersection
@VESANG "so far your logic is that intelligent design does not take intelligence" My god you're thick. The only thing I have said is that you are ASSERTING that the universe was intelligently designed without PROVING it. This is where it breaks down for theists. Bald assumptions with no evidence.
"Don't stop in the middle of the intersection." Yeah, you'd prefer I just make something up, assert it as a fact, and never provide evidence for it. Since that's exactly what you're doing.
@TheIncognitusMe You said "there is a force that the universe must conform to" and then "I also never said "there is a force outside of the universe."...i am not going to argue the argument outside or within the universe.That's beside the point...Do you agree that there is powerful force responsible for the existence of the universe ...absolutes and logic as well ?
@VESANG No, I said if there existed something that the universe conformed to, that's what it would be, and you can not call it God, or say it is intelligent, or say ANYTHING about it. Because it exists outside the universe.
"Do you agree that there is powerful force responsible for the existence of the universe" Define "powerful force." I don't see a single reason that there has to be something that existed outside of the universe that created it, if that's what you're asking.
@VESANG "absolutes and logic as well" Absolutes are something we understand about the universe. This doesn't say anything about absolutes being the creation of a powerful force. They are attributes of the universe, and it's really just that simple.
@TheIncognitusMe It looks like you are just tying to avoid discussing the essence,substituting God with Force and absolutes with attributes.I am OK with both but than you say "it should be outside the universe"...before that saying""Existing outside of the universe" also doesn't make sense, since existence, time, and space are an attribute of the universe. You have to think what you believe first or it would be hard to carry discussion. Do you believe in absolute correct logic
@VESANG "Just don't stop in the middle of the intersection as all atheist do...if we as people create things and acknowledge that takes intelligence" This is a non-sequitur. You are applying the fact that we have intelligence and we create things to the universe's current state. Existence does not IMPLY intelligent creation. Intelligent beings create things, yes, but that does not mean existence requires intelligent creation. It just doesn't. If you want to say that, prove it.
@DStyleBoxing It only makes sense if you read the "Trancendental Argument for the Existence of God" link in the description... And if 5% of people read that, you are correct!
The logical absolutes are the standard of truth. They are not true, they simply are. Part of the truth value of statements is evaluated by determining whether a statement conforms to these absolutes or not. So the logical absolutes are not dependent upon any mind, including that of an alleged God.
I may be off base here, but if these logical constants (cannot remember the exact term used) are transcendent, and transcendent here is used to mean incontinent on space and time, then how can you then say they are contingent on the mind?
Consciousness and thought aren't thought to be, in a philosophical sense measurable, existences, but are they still not measurable in in the electrical impulses and cranial blood flow in the brain? We can compute what is being thought of on these bases.
@LibertarianINT Heck, some people like me would even contend that the basic laws of logic are contingent on at least time, if not also space, and are thusly not even transcendent, plausibly even contingent on minds capable of perceiving the differentiation of identities and the exclusion of non-identities.
An apple existing in a timeless space would exist as all configurations simultaneously in one manifold. Likewise any entity existing with no spatial dimensions would be undeterminable too!?
@GronTheMighty I see what you're saying, but space and time aren't "things," they are the relation between things, like planets, stars, people, etc. That's why Einstein combined them into the term space-time in his theories. I think the logical absolutes are transcendent and they are inferred by us from the nature of reality itself. As for them being "undeterminable" you are mistaken, if by that you mean physically undetectable. They are physically demonstrable and thereby detectable.
@MagisterPridgen Perhaps my formulations were lacking the proper language, but i do agree with you except in that i don't think the logical absolutes are determinable by physical detection, but can only be presupposed as a framework for any approach to anything - by that i mean to say, if you want to detect the logical absolute that an apple is an apple, you have to presuppose that the apple is an actual apple before the conclusion of detecting it makes any sense.. Perhaps i'm grasping at air??
@GronTheMighty It's not a presupposition. The fact that apples are apples, and not non-apples, and so on with everything else that exists, is how we infer it is inherent in existence itself that things are what they are and are not what they are not. So the law of identity, or A is A, is a conceptualization of what we observe to be the case in every case. So on with the other logical absolutes.
@MagisterPridgen I think we agree, if i understand what you mean to a sufficient degree - there is not a false instance in which an apple could turn out to be a non-apple, because then it would instead be what it is instead of an apple, correct? :)
My contention in that regard, is that without any spatial dimensions, or without any time passing, no qualities can be discerned about any item that may exist in such seemingly impossible states. Is this a better formulation you think?
@GronTheMighty Sure, I understand what you're saying, but we never actually experience those conditions. As a thought experiment it's fine, but it's speculation, which is (I presume) why you call them "impossible states". Reasoning doesn't occur in a vacuum. Thanks for the discussion.
@DStyleBoxing "Good debate but I doubt, 95% ppl even know wtf theyre talking about." We should give people more credit than that. These ideas are relatively simple philosophical principles. If given time, most people should be able to understand them, its just that people are generally not well trained in thinking metaphorically. People depend too much upon language, and forget that words are mere abstractions; that they represent ideas. People aren't incapable, but they are lazy.
What slick is saying is that logical absolutes exist because God exists. because God is God and cannot not be God at the same time (that is his divine nature) that is something that spills over into creation. Therefore everything that God creates will bear similar characteristics, i.e a rock is a rock and not a leaf. The logical absolute flow from his very nature. We conceptualize them and articulate them. the argument isn't flawed at that point. 2:56
"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner
"Light in the absence of eyes illuminates nothing. Visible forms are not inherent in the world but are granted by the act of seeing. Though the world and events do exist independent of mind, they obtain no meaning in themselves, none that the mind is not guilty of imposing on them." -- Trevor Goodchild
Logic is based on minds that create equasions to work out logical conclusions to figure out whether something is or is not but without minds, things that exist, exist whether minds figure out the conclusion or not. God is all about peoples minds and if they (all religious people) disappeared, the myth wouldnt exist anymore and would therefore be dead.
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
If God made the A then God can make the A not an A. We tend to call this deletion.
There was () an A in the brackets but I deleted it. The issue is not about the A, as what is said is that God/intelligence created the environment for and A to be created and destroyed. It is the same principle that creates I and means I will also inevitably be deleted from the form.
@TCupUK Oh..I see what you mean, I kinda missed your point. Are you saying that even hypothetically, the "A" and its creation/deletion are still contingent upon and a subset of an "environment" governed by a higher step in a heirarchy? If so you then run into the problem of either infinite regress or the redundancy of additional levels or steps in the heirarchy.
@breaneainn Infinity is only something that can be conceived in the mind. If you come across infinity in mathematics it means that the maths are wrong. With that said, yes I am saying that there is governing laws/rules that must be adhered to in a hypothetical or literal situation. I would not use hierarchy, as it implies some things have more importance than others. And because everything is relative, missing a single factor could have reverberating effects on the whole. Uncertainty is a fact.
@TCupUK Cool, yeah heirarchy is a bad word to use. Contingent subset is more what I meant. I use Contingency as it implies to a (parent/child) relationship, not authoritarian but topological like folders in your pc, parent folder contains child folders...a heirarchical tree of structure not importance. It does get to the basic argument on a logical level though..where does the root folder lie?..to stretch the metaphor. Does it stop at the universe? or is there another set() called god?
@breaneainn I see no division between parent and child, to me they are replications of the same thing with a variance of difference, different flavours. Or another way to look at it is that the parent is contained within the child, the same as the child was/is in the parent. So to continue with your analogy. the root folder can be navigated to from any other folder contained within it. At whatever point you choose to start at is irrelevant as they all inevitably lead back to the root.
@breaneainn I would have said dynamic topology myself. Regardless of all the variance, there is clear commonality's. These commonality's can lead back to the root. Consider it like this, all living things contain water. Water is therefore the source of life, as it is fundamental to it being.
@TCupUK hmmm, I think you missed me there. You ARE looking for a source common denominator, which is very telling....and in the post below I suggest open-ended possibility. Beyond that no one can suggest anything without invoking supposition or special pleading for a concept that is either baseless or an essential component that is....contingent upon the aforementioned. Beware the logical fallacy.
To be polite, yet concise...you're pissing in your own pocket. Peace.
@breaneainn That's better, I thought it seemed unusual.
I am not looking for a common denominator at all, what I am seeking is a cosmological constant. The reason for this is because our mathematics are breaking down. Or to word it a way more suited to you, logic is breaking down and becoming illogical. This is not new and there is a pattern to it, we go through periods of confusion and periods of clarity. It is a bit like the dog chasing his own tail, he never seems to catch it, but still try,s
@TCupUK hmmm...again. Nothing wrong with not knowing..right? Or are you uncomfortable with that? I suspect the later. Do yourself a favour and take comfort in an uncertain future. Has it ever let us down? answer that my anxious fiend.....
@breaneainn You imply that there is a future to take control of!
Pulling the apes out of the forest to make man took millions of years, I suppose it is only inevitable that evidence of a prehistoric mentality will remain.
People do not like to pay attention to the things that contradict there understanding, you are clear evidence of this. Do not feel bad though, we had to have them to cause equilibrium. Just like we have crazy Christians.
@TCupUK No...I was agreeing with you. Uncertainty is predictably uncertain..paradox I know. Meant no offence, was drinking beer at same time and I get verbose. To mistake that for a neanderthal mentality is surely the pot calling the kettle black. Nice backhand insult btw.
@breaneainn Uncertainty = lack of understanding relating to the governing factors.It actually relates to relativity and not things being uncertain. Because things have a relative nature, overlooking them will have a relative effect on the results we compile. If we knew every governing factor then there would be no uncertainty, however knowing all of these factors may turn out to be impossible to do. Back to that old gnostic Vs agnostic debate. Pff
@TCupUK meh...forget that "get to know you" thread. We are on the same page, and it's a shock for me, after 7 years of trolls and...expert delusionists..unfair but true.
To answer your question: I am an armchair physicist and a Chef by Trade...and a cgi 3d artist....and a dba application developer....and.....pft.
@breaneainn You can claim to be what ever you like. I have no issues with that, and an arm chair physicist sounds interesting. I take it that involves a lot of guess work?
@TCupUK ...no, a lot of reading in a comfortable chair with no work at all! lol. More fun than claiming the devils advocates real estate as your own, regardless of the position of a healthy debate. (see what I did there?..backhand insult, in your face! yeah!)
@breaneainn Yes, I see, you made another assumption, and then tried wording that example to make it applicable to myself. However really all you have done is weakened your stance as an armchair physicist.
This is clearly you that is being spoken about, as you have not even bothered to ask what level of education I have regarding the topic.
Like I said before, I study it, not just watch a few twisted YT vids and think I know. Most of these YT vids bend reality so much that it will soon collapse.
@TCupUK I'm not in competition with you, if you study physics great. I consider it an interest only enough to value Richard Feynman over "Dr Quantum" and read my science trashmag Newscientist. If it will sooth your bruised ego I will ask more questions about legitimate conundrums in current theoretical physics, and leave my depricative sense of humour for other threads.
@breaneainn Your opening statement is interesting, do you subscribe to evolution?
Feynman was in a league that very few get to achieve, however he by his own omission was far from perfect, and made his far share of wrongs along the way. He is a man who I have great admiration for.
He also understood that all science fundamentally started with "Guesses" that we try to prove wrong. And how if we can not prove it wrong, we consider it to be right. Also what is right can later be proved wrong. +1 :)
@TCupUK I accept evolution by natural selection as it is a fact. Don't bother trying to introduce an agency of doubt to the subject by claiming that 100 years ago Darwin wasn't 100% perfect. He didn't know about transverse hybridisation by viral action. I like Feynman because he understood the limitations of human perception, and points out how easy it is to take simple things for granted and make colossal errors. Also what it means to really understand something.
@breaneainn Darwin did not know about DNA, RNA, or horizontal gene transfer for a start. 2 points and then I will leave it. What exactly is natural selection? And how old do you actually think evolution theory is?
@TCupUK O.K. I'll bite, what area are you studying? I assume you have to start with classic newtonian, then as much relativity as you can grasp...or do you start at the other end with thermodynamics...I really have no idea how it works.
@breaneainn Cont- A perfect example is that video you suggested about down the rabbit hole. After watching this any one would think that science has proven God beyond all doubt. This is so far from the truth that it is not even funny. This is a common problem that arises with fundamentalists, as they always twist it to suit there pre conceived belief's. This phenomena is not new in science, and has been around for as long as science has. Don't believe the hype springs to mind.
@TCupUK Total agreement there, "what the @#$% do we know" is the most devisive movie ever, new age miseducation dressed up as groundbreaking news on so-called metaphysics....whatever the hell that is. I hate it.
@breaneainn It was people projecting expectations.
As clear as I can say this is as so, We can not prove God, or disprove God if we can not agree on what God is.
Current understandings in physics allows intelligence to exist externally to matter. What that intelligence is, or could be is at best down to guess work. Proving that there is or is not intelligence is also still at the guess work stage. Or in other words, we have not proved anything to know for sure even if it is known to be possible
@TCupUKTrue, Religious often point to the complexity of the universe and assign an agency responsible for generating it...then vainly stick a face on it. The fact that the universe is "intelligable" is a cause for concern. Consider the fact that the ratio of chemical elements that comprise a human is close to the ratio of elements in the visible universe. Vicarious kinship, but it makes the emergence of consciousness or intelligence less special, perhaps even inevitable. just an idea.
@TCupUK Arrogance...Reality is obviously a spectator sport for you. You have nothing to contribute other than conjecture at best and contradiction otherwise.
@TCupUK lot of questions. What, are you a cop or something? I get the impression that you know more about theoretical physics and current issues that the argumentative trolls you are used to on youtube. Why you assume I operate from a faith based position is beyond me. I do not.
@breaneainn Because you make a claim that what can not be falsified or proven correct. It in my opinion takes a leap of faith to draw a conclusion on things that we cannot prove either way. Just deciding what God is or is not has created many wars and conflicts, and given rise to multiple religions. none of them have any proof for there claims, and yet all claim to be the correct way. It takes a leap of faith to say one is right over another, and it could be that none of them are right. Cont--
With all of this considered, it really is no wonder that people choose to believe in the non existence of God rather than picking a side of faith. For some this is not acceptable, simply choosing to not believe can easily turn into a fundamental push to promote there understanding on others. Then then become just as bad as any preacher in my opinion.
I am not a troll, I like to discuss things.
I understand the maths and prefer to use them to communicate, but it goes over most heads.
@TCupUK I disagree on the point of your assertion that a faith based position equates to a position that is based on a lack thereof..and on criteria noncontigent on the primary context. Burden of proof lies with the assertion. You can't "preach" a negative statement. Where's your =? Logical fallacy my learned friend. Left hand side must equal the right hand side..right? or have I rightly left something out?
@breaneainn We can say that the left must equal the right (balance), and this is a statement that holds true in many outlooks. However we can also say that the left is the right and the right is the left, or in other words they are a part of the same thing (balanced). Both statements can be true depending on our position of observation.
The hologram explains this well. When we look from one angle we see one image, and from another angle a new image appears. Both are there even if you can not see
@TCupUK ..I'm not keen on your analogy. Stereoscopic view is indeed balanced as the two sides relate to the one coin. In the same analogy, I say that one eye is a subset of a hologram, the other is a subset of nothing at all, so the arguement is not balanced. [(holo*eyeA)=(holo*(1*-1))*eyeB))] That's how your logic statement looks to me. I'm no mathematician, but have had plenty of syntax errors in my face courtesy of excel and access.
@TCupUK ugrfuygfnugfufgnugxhyfyufyufyfyhgfybvfydbv =(holo*(holo*(1*-1)).....x=(holo*(holo*-1))....x=(holo*(-holo))....x=0_____ (holo*eyeA)=(x*eyeB)....(holo*eyeA)=(0*eyeB)......(eyeB=0)_____ (holo*eyeA)=(holo*eyeA+0)______ (holo*eyeA)=(holo*eyeA)____ (holo*eyeA)=1_____ ((holo*(1*-1))*eyeB)))=0_____ 1 does not equal 0. There. pick holes please, I screwed that up for sure. hgfyjufyjufbyjufbyjufyjufyjfbjyyfjyfyjfjyfyfbyf
@breaneainn Fascinating. Try using C++. int =main() { A = 1; B = 1; C = A+B -1; cin = A + B; cout = << "C"; return 0;} Answer = 1 :) It is easy to get the result we want if we know the mathematics to reach it, and ignore all the mathematics that can be problematic to it. That takes us back to a cosmological constant, which is fundamentally needed to balance the books, if you will :0.Without it, it is just mathmagic and not mathematics.
@TCupUK Amusing. B=1. Cosmological constant? What the hell do you mean? there are 6 numbers that govern the fundamental constants..are you asking me why they are what they are?
@TCupUK Dude, I know c++ is a programming language..It actually makes more sense to me than java, java may as well be swahilli or klingon as far as I care. Your string there actually says what I was trying to say far simpler than my beer soaked quasi-VBA. I just don't think B=1. Wasn't comparing that to the language required to speak mathanese. I did miss your point, or was it mine? A unified field theory constant or pathway to...? Anyway, below is 6 constants for fun.
I like a bit of HTML injecting myself, as well as packets. But I also like some shell coding or as we say, smashing the stack. Popping and pushing just for my amusement.
I suppose the question of what colour you associate yourself with should be asked? I will PM you as it may be mutually entertaining.
@TCupUK hmmm. as far as I can tell, the field mask here allows a 25 text character buffer, with a global filter of common initiative scripts. You gotta be Linux if you "shell". Asking what colour I am and popping/pushing sounds like drugs to me...popping pushing I understand, my colour is anonymous.
@breaneainn To the observer it would appear that there view point is correct and unquestionable. But as I am sure you have already worked out, it is dependent on what observational point that they take to look at the hologram that is relative to what they observe. They see what they want to see in other words. Try to look at both perspectives at once and you will see those two images merge into a third. Faith is to say that what you observe is all there is and that there can not be other views.
@TCupUK I agree that there are two types of viewpoint, and that one claims unquestionability. What worries me is that you seem to buy in to the idea that the agency of doubt promoted by those you oppose, applies to you also. Seriously it does not. It is a logical debating tool to divide you from your own argument. You have facts and testable verification on your side...to say that nobody can know anything at all to the standard of certainty demanded by those without it also is sheer folly.
@breaneainn "Science is a way to teach how something gets to be known, what is not known, to what extent things are known (for nothing is known absolutely), how to handle doubt and uncertainty, what the rules of evidence are, how to think about things so that judgements can be made, how to distinguish truth from fraud, and from show."
Many people have been proclaimed as all knowing, to later be proved to be unknowing because of some other factor that they overlooked. Patterns repeat.
@breaneainn that can contradict your view. If the observer changes there observational point alone, then they will see the other image. But moving,s peoples faith is harder than moving a mountain.
It also relates back to the observer is creating there own reality.
@poco9964 "...but moving peoples faith is harder than moving a mountain..." Gotcha. Reminds me of the joke: Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?...A: One, but the lightbulb has to want to change :) .. Not taking the piss btw, just saying that the onus is on the individual to take responsibility for their own viewpoint...or belief in those cases, and not expect others to go along with their story just because they can't think for themselves. scary helping others...
The root is within the seed, and the seed is within the tree.
We know that the universe only accounts for 5% of all that there is. There is 95% that we have yet to understand in a way as to explore it. So even if the universe ends there, it is inevitably only a small part relative to the whole.
That is dangerous, to label it as God we will need to define what is or is not God.
A better way would be to ask. if creation is aware of what it is creating or is it just pure coincidence?
@TCupUK I like the way you think. Staunch atheist btw, if you weren't sure. Can see you subscribe to the idea of a seamless interconnectedness...without going "Geia" as some do. I like the idea of the universe being a "possibility machine" of sorts, given the initial conditions. Turns out it has to be big enough to contain all those possibilities, so it's a bloody large box. The seed being "aware" of the tree becomes inevitable in that case, as there is every chance available. why not?
@breaneainn I am pleased that you like my thoughts, especially as this is not the norm for me. I am not sure if Geia is a typo and you our referring to Gaia theory. If so, in short I struggle accepting theory's that can not be backed up with mathematics, or physical experiments. My passion is in theoretical physics, and this has a lot to say on potential, and the universe. These views may be different to yours of the universe and the reality of nature. DR Quantum is a good source on YT for info
@TCupUK Fuck sake, theoretical physics. You and I are both online, we both think the other has preconceptions about fucking god. We both have a passion for theoritical physics, or at least follow it as others follow sporting teams. You corrected my typo.
Hello brother!....sister? comrade, whatever.
Friend invite
P.s..."what the #@%$ do we know" is a slick and misleading vid. I read "newscientist" as a reliable geek trashmag.
@breaneainn You make a lot of affirmations with what appears to be a preconception that you know everything.
You can ask me about God and my views on it, it would be a lot easier I think than making all these assumptions.
I personal prefer to leave God out of conversations mainly because defining what it is, or is not is an argument that can not be one either way. This is because God takes on a personal connection, it slightly different for all. This concept can not be used in science.
@breaneainn Cont- We can not look for something if we do not know what it is we are looking for.
I do not follow it like a sporting team, I study it and have done for a long time now.
You realise that past, present and future are non existent according to special relativity right?
You also must know that matter is only 5% of the total energy in the universe, and that what we can not see or perceive is greater than that what we can.
With these basics how do you account for this illusion we live?
@TCupUK Far-out, you need to relax a little bit. I understand the idea of "block-time" which is a tool for looking at 4d concepts. eg: the earth in blocktime looks like a bluegreen spiral in space, much like the old phone cords squished flat...considering the drift of the solar system relative.... Other things are way uglier if you get your head around it. Your entire life is a creepy fleshy stringy thing...everywhere you have ever been as one solid mass. yuck.
@poco9964 I think if I tried to answer all those questions I would have a panic attack and my brain would explode. Some physicists think that spacetime is an emergent property of the relationship between gravity and the unseen dark energy and dark matter, but that just poses more questions than answers, because they don't know. The guys at CERN are looking for the Higgs Boson which is a theoretical particle that is supposed to give all other particles their mass. not yet found btw.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
actually they werent debating God and the proves of Him, but they were discussing logics and whats logic or real, and universe with no mind? What does that matters to prove God is real?
What will Christians argue about in heaven when they realize that they only got a one way ticket and now have to spend eternity with each other (deservedly)?
Can you hear the absurd arguments in favor of hell?
Who will lead the next war in heaven?
Why was there one in the first place?
How can evil manifest in heaven (LUCIFER)? Does it come from NOTHING? Or did it somehow snick in through a secret tunnel?
These numb-nuts should be thrown into a black hole and recycled into to something usefl
None of this had anything to do with the concept of God and even less with the Christian concept of God. These kind of arguments are completely pointless because they prove nothing about nothing.
Sorry to say, but this time it is Matt that's got it wrong. It has no sense to even say 'In a world without minds a rock is still a rock' - in fact one might only say 'In a world without minds.... ROCK!', see? Even just using logical forms assumes that some sense may be attributed to them. In other words, in a world without minds a rock is a rock no more than a rock &&^% a rock. Note: both speakers got it wrong by even moving the discussion of logic into metaphysics. Nice listening, though. ;)
@LothairOfLorraine The writing that they were referring to was included in the video description.
Dillahunty (the atheist, as you say) interrupted Slick (the believer) a lot because Slick either made certain logical mistakes in the course of their discussion, or they have different definitions on certain terms that need to be cleared up before the discussion can proceed productively.
I'm a huge fan of TAE but I feel the need to point out that Quantum Physics says that the observer is an important part of what exists and what doesn't. Schroedinger's cat is both dead and alive until someone opens the box, then its state gets nailed down. And it's not just that we don't KNOW whether it's dead or alive, it's BOTH until we observe it. So in a Universe with no observers, it might not be as clearcut as Matt says.
@warren52nz "So in a Universe with no observers, it might not be as clearcut as Matt says."
I get what you're saying, but also what Matt is. The means by which we describe the universe exist only because we create them. However, they reflect the actual state of the universe. In a universe without observers there would be no words to describe the things therein, but the things therein would still exist in whatever state they happened to be created in.
@RememberJudas314 Yeah, it's really a test of how well language accurately models reality. Same thing with mathematics. If you get the model right, the predictions will also be right.
But if you call a Platypus a bird you won't get far.
Or as Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) said "... the best way to not be unhappy is not to have a word for it".
"Lean not unto your own understanding" So let me get this straight. You've been given a brain that has the capacity for logic, but don't you dare use it!
um, religious views don't have to be proven, only scientific ones do... remember? anyone who falls for this simple debate trick needs to go back to school... atheists are the ones with the burden of proof, not us. so far? no proof.
Cliff Notes refutal of Matt Slick's argument; from 8:00 to 9:40, Slick blatantly admits he is conflating "statements" (which ARE a product of the mind) with actual "logical absolutes" which are the "transcendental" nature of the universe
Take note that immediately at 9:40 Slick COMPLETELY ignores this 100% refutation, makes NO attempt to correct, but instead CHANGES THE SUBJECT.
He lost, TAG is a joke to anyone who actually understands it but stands as 'proof' to mental lightweights who don't
Matt D is wrong at 8:45. If every mind disappeared tomorrow, then the day after tomorrow the statement "The Eiffel Tower exists" would still be either true or false. This would be unaffected by the fact that there would be no one around to make or conceive of the statement nor to investigate or apprehend its truth value.
Argument for god's existence: make your own! 1) Pick some property of reality or the universe, 2) claim that this property is contingent on god's existence, 3) insist that this property is contingent on god's existence, 4) state matter-of-factly that this property is contingent on god's existence, 5) brush away arguments like you would flies, 6) Jesus created the universe in a week and if you don't believe it, you will burn in hell forever.
THE KOMBUCHA! MUSHROOM PEOPLE! SITTING AROUND ALL DAY!
The atheist in the red is very smart, I underestimated his ability to reason. I love it how he is at least open minded about the prospect of God. He needs a more to be challenged by a more sophisticated theory proving the existence of God.
jimmyt3411 5 days ago
@jimmyt3411 and until someone presents such a theory proving the existence of god, there is no reaosn to believe a god exists.
MagnusNyborg 5 days ago
Fear is inherent in most primates, unlike felines for example. We evolved to be fearful of the dark. It's what kept our defenseless asses alive. This is very much likely the emotion that drives an adherence to divine word. Fear of Hell drives a willing psychological enslavement to Gods word, and fear of death drives an unwavering belief in an eternal paradise. Fear drives it all. It makes people do and think irrational things. It causes us to avoid reality and persist in delusion. Case closed.
itzahazylife 6 days ago
I was told by a Christian that everyone needs an authority figure in their life. (God) But, that's inaccurate. God is not a parental-like authority figure. He's a manipulative tyrant. He convinces Christians that he loves them, but, those who know better, realize he's dictatorial in nature.(assuming he exists) An authority enforces rules for good reasons. A tyrant enforces rules just because it's his will. God is a dictator. He rules by fear firstly, while blinding his people with false love.
itzahazylife 6 days ago
1:48, why is the caller going totally off track?
I may be missing the point, but isn't this argument equivalent of saying "the golden ratio exists, we can see it in nature- e.g. spirals of shells etc. If no minds existed, would the golden ratio still exist?" to which the answer must surely be yes?
LordYon13 3 weeks ago
While Dillahunty could have been more precise, his example is on the right track: we in this actual world can apply the laws of logic in our reflection of a possible world without minds without its being necessary that if said possible world were the actual world, the laws of logic would exist. Even if the laws of logic are mental, it needs to be explained why the laws of logic must exist necessarily in order to be invariable when we used them.
There are better theistic arguments than this.
rhedrich3 1 month ago
hmmm i often like to think of any day say...oh 65 million years ago...or how about going back to 1 billion years ago.....i try to think about what the weather was like that day.....from what we do know about the age of the planet and the cosmos...that day was once thee day.....the sun appeared to raise and fall just as any other...their were no "thinking minds" around......logic does not depend on thinking minds....im sure there was some heavy winds going on somewhere....doesnt wind invoke logic
TheeJediSmurf 1 month ago
So... the caller's argument is basically - if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it still makes a noise because God is around to hear it? That's all I can pull from this... ha-ha. The argument sounds like a solipsist argument... this transcendental argument should be renamed to transcendental soliphsist argument.
koolanator 1 month ago
I love how he starts getting bitter towards the end... such a poor loser!
gary031183 1 month ago 2
I'm no dummy,but these guys are on different level.
cantthinkofone77 1 month ago
@cantthinkofone77 lol i was starting to think the same thing.
tacticaloperator12 1 month ago
As a former philosophy student, and a student of formal logic, the Christian caller is the better philosopher here.
McTaggStar 1 month ago
@McTaggStar What Matt is saying is:
1. The Absolutes apply not only to thought, but to existence as a whole.
2. Therefore, the Absolutes do not require thought, only some form of existence or reality.
Matt Slick is conflating linguistic representations of reality with reality itself.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker: Yeah, I know. But there is no reason to suppose that logical absolutes hold in-the-world; for you cannot reason that since you have never encountered a state of affairs such that an object is both itself and not itself that the world is fundamentally such that an object cannot both be itself and not itself. Failure to conceive of such a thing (and I admit that I cannot conceive of it) does not mean it is not possible in the physical sense. I think there might be a gap between what
McTaggStar 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker: is logically possible and what is physically possible. Or rather that the statement "x is logically possible iff x is physically possible" is not a necessary truth. But Matt seems to think it is. But either way, even if we admit to the phenomenal nature of logical absolutes, we still don't have to accept the transcendental argument being proposed here.
McTaggStar 1 month ago
there are just things we cannot answer for now or never.
sanuksize45 1 month ago
Regardless of the semantics used to describe the existence of deities, they continue to remain notoriously non-existent.
tellnet 1 month ago 13
@tellnet Come'on man, like god is all around us, god is everything... look at the stars man... have you read the bible bro? my preacher said... i experienced this... i feel this way. like come on, respect my beliefs.
dopeasfuckk 2 weeks ago
@tellnet Boy, I would love to challenge you on that! But I do agree though, that the caller's argument was not perfect and I know why.
jimmyt3411 5 days ago
@jimmyt3411
Challenging me on the authenticity of imaginary entities whose main claim to fame is ad perpetuum in absentia would be foolhardy.
However, feel free to try.
tellnet 5 days ago
@tellnet Well the argument is simple really, the universe without a cause is impossible and is contingent upon an immaterial, omnipotent God with a will. Since nothing can only be the cause of nothing, it was not the cause of the universe. If the universe exists, then there was a final cause (God). Last time I checked, the universe exists >.>. Therefore, there was a final cause (God) for its existence.
jimmyt3411 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmyt3411
Ha ha ha ha
Simple for simpletons.
"contingent upon an immaterial, omnipotent God with a will"
Holy fuck - such horse shit.
Have you nothing but a void in your cranial appendage ?
tellnet 3 days ago
@jimmyt3411 I suggest you check out modern physics and cosmology. The universe did not need a creator to come into existence. Also, just because something causes something else to happen does not mean that the initial cause "willed" it into existence. And following your logic, God is something and not nothing, therefore, God must also have a cause.
AJthemagi 3 days ago
9:46 "When you say the only thing that exists is a rock...."
My jaw hit the floor. Where did he hear that?
Stupid christian who can use long words = still a stupid christian.
tintiringa 1 month ago
This guy uses in his own argument that logical absolutes exist even if the universe didn't exist. Go ahead, read his argument on his website. Why, then, is he arguing that these absolutes are dependent?
pythor2 1 month ago
Atheism is very confusing and inconsistent...just listen how the host will accept absolutes but will never go to where they point ...if logic and absolutes exist /he agreed with that/ and they are independent of human mind ,space ,time ,matter,that proves right on the spot intelligent design and this is exactly what the atheist are running from....Very inconsistent position to be in...double standard... intelligence proves God absolutely !
VESANG 2 months ago
@VESANG "if logic and absolutes exist /he agreed with that/ and they are independent of human mind ,space ,time ,matter,that proves right on the spot intelligent design" Actually, he only asserted that they exist independent of a mind. And even if they did exist independent of the universe, which makes no sense at all by the way, that would just mean there is a force that the universe must conform to.
Which doesn't indicate intelligence.
TheIncognitusMe 2 months ago
@TheIncognitusMe I agree with you on the first part in a sense that i used the word God which many have problem with /incl. you/ .You called it force ...i am OK with that.Just don't stop in the middle of the intersection as all atheist do...if we as people create things and acknowledge that takes intelligence how much more intelligent is that universal FORCE/and you agree that exists/the very reason we are here in first place.It is intelligent design,there is no way around it
VESANG 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheIncognitusMe 2 months ago
@VESANG I also never said "there is a force outside of the universe." I said, if we take what you said that something exists outside of the universe, it still doesn't mean it is your god, or mean that it has intelligence.
"Existing outside of the universe" also doesn't make sense, since existence, time, and space are an attribute of the universe.
TheIncognitusMe 2 months ago
@TheIncognitusMe I assumed you agree with the host...my bad...sorry ...so far your logic is that intelligent design does not take intelligence ...this is where it all brakes down for atheism...discussing how we call that universal FORCE ,God ,Power...is different subject.You are on the right track saying" there is a force that the universe must conform to" .I wish you all the best asking the next questions in your search for truth! Don't stop in the middle of the intersection
VESANG 2 months ago
@VESANG "so far your logic is that intelligent design does not take intelligence" My god you're thick. The only thing I have said is that you are ASSERTING that the universe was intelligently designed without PROVING it. This is where it breaks down for theists. Bald assumptions with no evidence.
"Don't stop in the middle of the intersection." Yeah, you'd prefer I just make something up, assert it as a fact, and never provide evidence for it. Since that's exactly what you're doing.
TheIncognitusMe 2 months ago
@TheIncognitusMe You said "there is a force that the universe must conform to" and then "I also never said "there is a force outside of the universe."...i am not going to argue the argument outside or within the universe.That's beside the point...Do you agree that there is powerful force responsible for the existence of the universe ...absolutes and logic as well ?
VESANG 2 months ago
@VESANG No, I said if there existed something that the universe conformed to, that's what it would be, and you can not call it God, or say it is intelligent, or say ANYTHING about it. Because it exists outside the universe.
"Do you agree that there is powerful force responsible for the existence of the universe" Define "powerful force." I don't see a single reason that there has to be something that existed outside of the universe that created it, if that's what you're asking.
TheIncognitusMe 2 months ago
@VESANG "absolutes and logic as well" Absolutes are something we understand about the universe. This doesn't say anything about absolutes being the creation of a powerful force. They are attributes of the universe, and it's really just that simple.
TheIncognitusMe 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheIncognitusMe It looks like you are just tying to avoid discussing the essence,substituting God with Force and absolutes with attributes.I am OK with both but than you say "it should be outside the universe"...before that saying""Existing outside of the universe" also doesn't make sense, since existence, time, and space are an attribute of the universe. You have to think what you believe first or it would be hard to carry discussion. Do you believe in absolute correct logic
VESANG 2 months ago
@VESANG I do agree with the host, by the way.
TheIncognitusMe 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VESANG "Just don't stop in the middle of the intersection as all atheist do...if we as people create things and acknowledge that takes intelligence" This is a non-sequitur. You are applying the fact that we have intelligence and we create things to the universe's current state. Existence does not IMPLY intelligent creation. Intelligent beings create things, yes, but that does not mean existence requires intelligent creation. It just doesn't. If you want to say that, prove it.
TheIncognitusMe 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DStyleBoxing It only makes sense if you read the "Trancendental Argument for the Existence of God" link in the description... And if 5% of people read that, you are correct!
mcdori02 2 months ago
Comment removed
mcdori02 2 months ago
The logical absolutes are the standard of truth. They are not true, they simply are. Part of the truth value of statements is evaluated by determining whether a statement conforms to these absolutes or not. So the logical absolutes are not dependent upon any mind, including that of an alleged God.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
this got a little to broad for me and a majority of the viewers I bet
MrBabylouise2 2 months ago
Matt Dillahunty = Awesome
ashleelmb 3 months ago 20
I may be off base here, but if these logical constants (cannot remember the exact term used) are transcendent, and transcendent here is used to mean incontinent on space and time, then how can you then say they are contingent on the mind?
Consciousness and thought aren't thought to be, in a philosophical sense measurable, existences, but are they still not measurable in in the electrical impulses and cranial blood flow in the brain? We can compute what is being thought of on these bases.
LibertarianINT 3 months ago
@LibertarianINT Heck, some people like me would even contend that the basic laws of logic are contingent on at least time, if not also space, and are thusly not even transcendent, plausibly even contingent on minds capable of perceiving the differentiation of identities and the exclusion of non-identities.
An apple existing in a timeless space would exist as all configurations simultaneously in one manifold. Likewise any entity existing with no spatial dimensions would be undeterminable too!?
GronTheMighty 2 months ago
@GronTheMighty I see what you're saying, but space and time aren't "things," they are the relation between things, like planets, stars, people, etc. That's why Einstein combined them into the term space-time in his theories. I think the logical absolutes are transcendent and they are inferred by us from the nature of reality itself. As for them being "undeterminable" you are mistaken, if by that you mean physically undetectable. They are physically demonstrable and thereby detectable.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen Perhaps my formulations were lacking the proper language, but i do agree with you except in that i don't think the logical absolutes are determinable by physical detection, but can only be presupposed as a framework for any approach to anything - by that i mean to say, if you want to detect the logical absolute that an apple is an apple, you have to presuppose that the apple is an actual apple before the conclusion of detecting it makes any sense.. Perhaps i'm grasping at air??
GronTheMighty 2 months ago
@GronTheMighty It's not a presupposition. The fact that apples are apples, and not non-apples, and so on with everything else that exists, is how we infer it is inherent in existence itself that things are what they are and are not what they are not. So the law of identity, or A is A, is a conceptualization of what we observe to be the case in every case. So on with the other logical absolutes.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@MagisterPridgen I think we agree, if i understand what you mean to a sufficient degree - there is not a false instance in which an apple could turn out to be a non-apple, because then it would instead be what it is instead of an apple, correct? :)
My contention in that regard, is that without any spatial dimensions, or without any time passing, no qualities can be discerned about any item that may exist in such seemingly impossible states. Is this a better formulation you think?
GronTheMighty 2 months ago
@GronTheMighty Sure, I understand what you're saying, but we never actually experience those conditions. As a thought experiment it's fine, but it's speculation, which is (I presume) why you call them "impossible states". Reasoning doesn't occur in a vacuum. Thanks for the discussion.
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@DStyleBoxing "Good debate but I doubt, 95% ppl even know wtf theyre talking about." We should give people more credit than that. These ideas are relatively simple philosophical principles. If given time, most people should be able to understand them, its just that people are generally not well trained in thinking metaphorically. People depend too much upon language, and forget that words are mere abstractions; that they represent ideas. People aren't incapable, but they are lazy.
matternicuss 3 months ago
What slick is saying is that logical absolutes exist because God exists. because God is God and cannot not be God at the same time (that is his divine nature) that is something that spills over into creation. Therefore everything that God creates will bear similar characteristics, i.e a rock is a rock and not a leaf. The logical absolute flow from his very nature. We conceptualize them and articulate them. the argument isn't flawed at that point. 2:56
Follower172 3 months ago
"I'm not trying to be whiny or complainy'.
LOL yeah you fucking are faithead!
civwarfan 3 months ago
"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner
toddriffic 3 months ago
sounds like hes using pretty words to mind fuck you.
silverkeen07 4 months ago
"Light in the absence of eyes illuminates nothing. Visible forms are not inherent in the world but are granted by the act of seeing. Though the world and events do exist independent of mind, they obtain no meaning in themselves, none that the mind is not guilty of imposing on them." -- Trevor Goodchild
ShadowOfMaedhros 4 months ago
I fucking hate philoposhy
omegaman20 4 months ago
@omegaman20 me too
ZuluFightrunner 4 months ago
Logic is based on minds that create equasions to work out logical conclusions to figure out whether something is or is not but without minds, things that exist, exist whether minds figure out the conclusion or not. God is all about peoples minds and if they (all religious people) disappeared, the myth wouldnt exist anymore and would therefore be dead.
ashleelmb 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
It's so simple yet the guy can't get it.
Why? >_<
MithranArkanere 5 months ago
If God made the A then God can make the A not an A. We tend to call this deletion.
There was () an A in the brackets but I deleted it. The issue is not about the A, as what is said is that God/intelligence created the environment for and A to be created and destroyed. It is the same principle that creates I and means I will also inevitably be deleted from the form.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK You can't prove there was an "A" there in the first place, or that it was deleted.....
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Who is trying to prove it?
I was suggesting a hypothetical situation, not a literal deposition.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK Oh..I see what you mean, I kinda missed your point. Are you saying that even hypothetically, the "A" and its creation/deletion are still contingent upon and a subset of an "environment" governed by a higher step in a heirarchy? If so you then run into the problem of either infinite regress or the redundancy of additional levels or steps in the heirarchy.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Infinity is only something that can be conceived in the mind. If you come across infinity in mathematics it means that the maths are wrong. With that said, yes I am saying that there is governing laws/rules that must be adhered to in a hypothetical or literal situation. I would not use hierarchy, as it implies some things have more importance than others. And because everything is relative, missing a single factor could have reverberating effects on the whole. Uncertainty is a fact.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK Cool, yeah heirarchy is a bad word to use. Contingent subset is more what I meant. I use Contingency as it implies to a (parent/child) relationship, not authoritarian but topological like folders in your pc, parent folder contains child folders...a heirarchical tree of structure not importance. It does get to the basic argument on a logical level though..where does the root folder lie?..to stretch the metaphor. Does it stop at the universe? or is there another set() called god?
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn I see no division between parent and child, to me they are replications of the same thing with a variance of difference, different flavours. Or another way to look at it is that the parent is contained within the child, the same as the child was/is in the parent. So to continue with your analogy. the root folder can be navigated to from any other folder contained within it. At whatever point you choose to start at is irrelevant as they all inevitably lead back to the root.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK AHHH! gotcha. Flat topology of equal units, the variance being the structures and relationships... I like it. More stable.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn I would have said dynamic topology myself. Regardless of all the variance, there is clear commonality's. These commonality's can lead back to the root. Consider it like this, all living things contain water. Water is therefore the source of life, as it is fundamental to it being.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK hmmm, I think you missed me there. You ARE looking for a source common denominator, which is very telling....and in the post below I suggest open-ended possibility. Beyond that no one can suggest anything without invoking supposition or special pleading for a concept that is either baseless or an essential component that is....contingent upon the aforementioned. Beware the logical fallacy.
To be polite, yet concise...you're pissing in your own pocket. Peace.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn That's better, I thought it seemed unusual.
I am not looking for a common denominator at all, what I am seeking is a cosmological constant. The reason for this is because our mathematics are breaking down. Or to word it a way more suited to you, logic is breaking down and becoming illogical. This is not new and there is a pattern to it, we go through periods of confusion and periods of clarity. It is a bit like the dog chasing his own tail, he never seems to catch it, but still try,s
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK hmmm...again. Nothing wrong with not knowing..right? Or are you uncomfortable with that? I suspect the later. Do yourself a favour and take comfort in an uncertain future. Has it ever let us down? answer that my anxious fiend.....
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn You imply that there is a future to take control of!
Pulling the apes out of the forest to make man took millions of years, I suppose it is only inevitable that evidence of a prehistoric mentality will remain.
People do not like to pay attention to the things that contradict there understanding, you are clear evidence of this. Do not feel bad though, we had to have them to cause equilibrium. Just like we have crazy Christians.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK No...I was agreeing with you. Uncertainty is predictably uncertain..paradox I know. Meant no offence, was drinking beer at same time and I get verbose. To mistake that for a neanderthal mentality is surely the pot calling the kettle black. Nice backhand insult btw.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Uncertainty = lack of understanding relating to the governing factors.It actually relates to relativity and not things being uncertain. Because things have a relative nature, overlooking them will have a relative effect on the results we compile. If we knew every governing factor then there would be no uncertainty, however knowing all of these factors may turn out to be impossible to do. Back to that old gnostic Vs agnostic debate. Pff
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK True...I was referring to Heisenberg, as are you.
breaneainn 5 months ago
Comment removed
breaneainn 5 months ago
If it only it was true what you say about suggestions and supposition, I also wonder if you yourself apply these principles to evolution theory?
I mean no disrespect, but I get the impression that you do not know that much about theoretical physics, and current understandings in this field?
Are you a gnostic or agnostic atheist?
What is your supposition for this faith based belief, and is it based on any logic?
Questions are out of curiosity.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK meh...forget that "get to know you" thread. We are on the same page, and it's a shock for me, after 7 years of trolls and...expert delusionists..unfair but true.
To answer your question: I am an armchair physicist and a Chef by Trade...and a cgi 3d artist....and a dba application developer....and.....pft.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn You can claim to be what ever you like. I have no issues with that, and an arm chair physicist sounds interesting. I take it that involves a lot of guess work?
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK I'm having comments removed from this channel. first for me. my channel is open if you wish to continue.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@TCupUK ...no, a lot of reading in a comfortable chair with no work at all! lol. More fun than claiming the devils advocates real estate as your own, regardless of the position of a healthy debate. (see what I did there?..backhand insult, in your face! yeah!)
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Yes, I see, you made another assumption, and then tried wording that example to make it applicable to myself. However really all you have done is weakened your stance as an armchair physicist.
This is clearly you that is being spoken about, as you have not even bothered to ask what level of education I have regarding the topic.
Like I said before, I study it, not just watch a few twisted YT vids and think I know. Most of these YT vids bend reality so much that it will soon collapse.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK I'm not in competition with you, if you study physics great. I consider it an interest only enough to value Richard Feynman over "Dr Quantum" and read my science trashmag Newscientist. If it will sooth your bruised ego I will ask more questions about legitimate conundrums in current theoretical physics, and leave my depricative sense of humour for other threads.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Your opening statement is interesting, do you subscribe to evolution?
Feynman was in a league that very few get to achieve, however he by his own omission was far from perfect, and made his far share of wrongs along the way. He is a man who I have great admiration for.
He also understood that all science fundamentally started with "Guesses" that we try to prove wrong. And how if we can not prove it wrong, we consider it to be right. Also what is right can later be proved wrong. +1 :)
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK I accept evolution by natural selection as it is a fact. Don't bother trying to introduce an agency of doubt to the subject by claiming that 100 years ago Darwin wasn't 100% perfect. He didn't know about transverse hybridisation by viral action. I like Feynman because he understood the limitations of human perception, and points out how easy it is to take simple things for granted and make colossal errors. Also what it means to really understand something.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Darwin did not know about DNA, RNA, or horizontal gene transfer for a start. 2 points and then I will leave it. What exactly is natural selection? And how old do you actually think evolution theory is?
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK You tell me smartass. I already know.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@TCupUK O.K. I'll bite, what area are you studying? I assume you have to start with classic newtonian, then as much relativity as you can grasp...or do you start at the other end with thermodynamics...I really have no idea how it works.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Cont- A perfect example is that video you suggested about down the rabbit hole. After watching this any one would think that science has proven God beyond all doubt. This is so far from the truth that it is not even funny. This is a common problem that arises with fundamentalists, as they always twist it to suit there pre conceived belief's. This phenomena is not new in science, and has been around for as long as science has. Don't believe the hype springs to mind.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK Total agreement there, "what the @#$% do we know" is the most devisive movie ever, new age miseducation dressed up as groundbreaking news on so-called metaphysics....whatever the hell that is. I hate it.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn It was people projecting expectations.
As clear as I can say this is as so, We can not prove God, or disprove God if we can not agree on what God is.
Current understandings in physics allows intelligence to exist externally to matter. What that intelligence is, or could be is at best down to guess work. Proving that there is or is not intelligence is also still at the guess work stage. Or in other words, we have not proved anything to know for sure even if it is known to be possible
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUKTrue, Religious often point to the complexity of the universe and assign an agency responsible for generating it...then vainly stick a face on it. The fact that the universe is "intelligable" is a cause for concern. Consider the fact that the ratio of chemical elements that comprise a human is close to the ratio of elements in the visible universe. Vicarious kinship, but it makes the emergence of consciousness or intelligence less special, perhaps even inevitable. just an idea.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Interesting view.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK Arrogance...Reality is obviously a spectator sport for you. You have nothing to contribute other than conjecture at best and contradiction otherwise.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn That is exactly what it is, I am the passenger :p
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK Interesting view. lol.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@TCupUK lot of questions. What, are you a cop or something? I get the impression that you know more about theoretical physics and current issues that the argumentative trolls you are used to on youtube. Why you assume I operate from a faith based position is beyond me. I do not.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Because you make a claim that what can not be falsified or proven correct. It in my opinion takes a leap of faith to draw a conclusion on things that we cannot prove either way. Just deciding what God is or is not has created many wars and conflicts, and given rise to multiple religions. none of them have any proof for there claims, and yet all claim to be the correct way. It takes a leap of faith to say one is right over another, and it could be that none of them are right. Cont--
TCupUK 5 months ago
@breaneainn
With all of this considered, it really is no wonder that people choose to believe in the non existence of God rather than picking a side of faith. For some this is not acceptable, simply choosing to not believe can easily turn into a fundamental push to promote there understanding on others. Then then become just as bad as any preacher in my opinion.
I am not a troll, I like to discuss things.
I understand the maths and prefer to use them to communicate, but it goes over most heads.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK I disagree on the point of your assertion that a faith based position equates to a position that is based on a lack thereof..and on criteria noncontigent on the primary context. Burden of proof lies with the assertion. You can't "preach" a negative statement. Where's your =? Logical fallacy my learned friend. Left hand side must equal the right hand side..right? or have I rightly left something out?
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn We can say that the left must equal the right (balance), and this is a statement that holds true in many outlooks. However we can also say that the left is the right and the right is the left, or in other words they are a part of the same thing (balanced). Both statements can be true depending on our position of observation.
The hologram explains this well. When we look from one angle we see one image, and from another angle a new image appears. Both are there even if you can not see
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK ..I'm not keen on your analogy. Stereoscopic view is indeed balanced as the two sides relate to the one coin. In the same analogy, I say that one eye is a subset of a hologram, the other is a subset of nothing at all, so the arguement is not balanced. [(holo*eyeA)=(holo*(1*-1))*eyeB))] That's how your logic statement looks to me. I'm no mathematician, but have had plenty of syntax errors in my face courtesy of excel and access.
..see if I can solve this with more beer..doubt
breaneainn 5 months ago
@TCupUK ugrfuygfnugfufgnugxhyfyufyufyfyhgfybvfydbv =(holo*(holo*(1*-1)).....x=(holo*(holo*-1))....x=(holo*(-holo))....x=0_____ (holo*eyeA)=(x*eyeB)....(holo*eyeA)=(0*eyeB)......(eyeB=0)_____ (holo*eyeA)=(holo*eyeA+0)______ (holo*eyeA)=(holo*eyeA)____ (holo*eyeA)=1_____ ((holo*(1*-1))*eyeB)))=0_____ 1 does not equal 0. There. pick holes please, I screwed that up for sure. hgfyjufyjufbyjufbyjufyjufyjfbjyyfjyfyjfjyfyfbyf
breaneainn 5 months ago
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK Amusing. B=1. Cosmological constant? What the hell do you mean? there are 6 numbers that govern the fundamental constants..are you asking me why they are what they are?
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn C++ is a programming language. pfft
The cosmological constant would involve a lot more complexed maths than demonstrated above.
Super string theory has not been proven and can not be, we would need an accelerator the size of our galaxy to detect them.
6 numbers that govern the constants? care to share them!
Clearly you missed my point.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK Dude, I know c++ is a programming language..It actually makes more sense to me than java, java may as well be swahilli or klingon as far as I care. Your string there actually says what I was trying to say far simpler than my beer soaked quasi-VBA. I just don't think B=1. Wasn't comparing that to the language required to speak mathanese. I did miss your point, or was it mine? A unified field theory constant or pathway to...? Anyway, below is 6 constants for fun.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn ☺ Come along to that site I gave you bro, we have lots of information on all different languages.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK But, you already know this right?....N = ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to that of gravity;
Epsilon (ε) = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
Omega (ω) = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe;
Lambda (λ) = cosmological constant;
Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime
60 symbols seems inadequate.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Looks like you pulled those from wikipedia :)
"gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C"
And yes, I already know about these and many more.
I also know that some of these are wrong, like G. It plays havoc with the mathematics.
I used to try to explain to people that E does not =MC², but no need to now as it would appear CERN has proved it.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK Totally wikipedia. lazy.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@TCupUK please excuse the jibberish either side of that post, it prevents google from thinking that I am injecting java script code. Fun hacker fact.
breaneainn 5 months ago
Hacker fact, interesting.
I like a bit of HTML injecting myself, as well as packets. But I also like some shell coding or as we say, smashing the stack. Popping and pushing just for my amusement.
I suppose the question of what colour you associate yourself with should be asked? I will PM you as it may be mutually entertaining.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK hmmm. as far as I can tell, the field mask here allows a 25 text character buffer, with a global filter of common initiative scripts. You gotta be Linux if you "shell". Asking what colour I am and popping/pushing sounds like drugs to me...popping pushing I understand, my colour is anonymous.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Heheheehe
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK Ah! finally. page.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@TCupUK ..still filtered out some basic expressions...bastards. More beer, that'll help.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn To the observer it would appear that there view point is correct and unquestionable. But as I am sure you have already worked out, it is dependent on what observational point that they take to look at the hologram that is relative to what they observe. They see what they want to see in other words. Try to look at both perspectives at once and you will see those two images merge into a third. Faith is to say that what you observe is all there is and that there can not be other views.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK I agree that there are two types of viewpoint, and that one claims unquestionability. What worries me is that you seem to buy in to the idea that the agency of doubt promoted by those you oppose, applies to you also. Seriously it does not. It is a logical debating tool to divide you from your own argument. You have facts and testable verification on your side...to say that nobody can know anything at all to the standard of certainty demanded by those without it also is sheer folly.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn "Science is a way to teach how something gets to be known, what is not known, to what extent things are known (for nothing is known absolutely), how to handle doubt and uncertainty, what the rules of evidence are, how to think about things so that judgements can be made, how to distinguish truth from fraud, and from show."
Many people have been proclaimed as all knowing, to later be proved to be unknowing because of some other factor that they overlooked. Patterns repeat.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@breaneainn that can contradict your view. If the observer changes there observational point alone, then they will see the other image. But moving,s peoples faith is harder than moving a mountain.
It also relates back to the observer is creating there own reality.
poco9964 5 months ago
@poco9964 "...but moving peoples faith is harder than moving a mountain..." Gotcha. Reminds me of the joke: Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?...A: One, but the lightbulb has to want to change :) .. Not taking the piss btw, just saying that the onus is on the individual to take responsibility for their own viewpoint...or belief in those cases, and not expect others to go along with their story just because they can't think for themselves. scary helping others...
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn
The root is within the seed, and the seed is within the tree.
We know that the universe only accounts for 5% of all that there is. There is 95% that we have yet to understand in a way as to explore it. So even if the universe ends there, it is inevitably only a small part relative to the whole.
That is dangerous, to label it as God we will need to define what is or is not God.
A better way would be to ask. if creation is aware of what it is creating or is it just pure coincidence?
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK I like the way you think. Staunch atheist btw, if you weren't sure. Can see you subscribe to the idea of a seamless interconnectedness...without going "Geia" as some do. I like the idea of the universe being a "possibility machine" of sorts, given the initial conditions. Turns out it has to be big enough to contain all those possibilities, so it's a bloody large box. The seed being "aware" of the tree becomes inevitable in that case, as there is every chance available. why not?
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn I am pleased that you like my thoughts, especially as this is not the norm for me. I am not sure if Geia is a typo and you our referring to Gaia theory. If so, in short I struggle accepting theory's that can not be backed up with mathematics, or physical experiments. My passion is in theoretical physics, and this has a lot to say on potential, and the universe. These views may be different to yours of the universe and the reality of nature. DR Quantum is a good source on YT for info
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK Fuck sake, theoretical physics. You and I are both online, we both think the other has preconceptions about fucking god. We both have a passion for theoritical physics, or at least follow it as others follow sporting teams. You corrected my typo.
Hello brother!....sister? comrade, whatever.
Friend invite
P.s..."what the #@%$ do we know" is a slick and misleading vid. I read "newscientist" as a reliable geek trashmag.
10-4
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn You make a lot of affirmations with what appears to be a preconception that you know everything.
You can ask me about God and my views on it, it would be a lot easier I think than making all these assumptions.
I personal prefer to leave God out of conversations mainly because defining what it is, or is not is an argument that can not be one either way. This is because God takes on a personal connection, it slightly different for all. This concept can not be used in science.
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK pfft, redundant thread. cool bananas.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Cont- We can not look for something if we do not know what it is we are looking for.
I do not follow it like a sporting team, I study it and have done for a long time now.
You realise that past, present and future are non existent according to special relativity right?
You also must know that matter is only 5% of the total energy in the universe, and that what we can not see or perceive is greater than that what we can.
With these basics how do you account for this illusion we live?
TCupUK 5 months ago
@TCupUK Far-out, you need to relax a little bit. I understand the idea of "block-time" which is a tool for looking at 4d concepts. eg: the earth in blocktime looks like a bluegreen spiral in space, much like the old phone cords squished flat...considering the drift of the solar system relative.... Other things are way uglier if you get your head around it. Your entire life is a creepy fleshy stringy thing...everywhere you have ever been as one solid mass. yuck.
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn I feel very relaxed thank you :)
I like your description on the spiral of time. But some questions springs to mind.
What is space-time?
What is time?
What is space?
What is there relevance in proportion to dark matter and energy?
With the illusionary appearance of matter, is it safe to judge our understanding based solely on the material world?
String theory is incomplete, as will any theory's that ignore the lack of understanding we have about gravity. Einstein was wrong!
poco9964 5 months ago
@poco9964 I think if I tried to answer all those questions I would have a panic attack and my brain would explode. Some physicists think that spacetime is an emergent property of the relationship between gravity and the unseen dark energy and dark matter, but that just poses more questions than answers, because they don't know. The guys at CERN are looking for the Higgs Boson which is a theoretical particle that is supposed to give all other particles their mass. not yet found btw.
breaneainn 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
i love how matt just shuts up to let slick make a fool of himself.
rysw19 6 months ago
this is painful
Bockatadi 6 months ago
actually they werent debating God and the proves of Him, but they were discussing logics and whats logic or real, and universe with no mind? What does that matters to prove God is real?
Fantasticlist 6 months ago
What will Christians argue about in heaven when they realize that they only got a one way ticket and now have to spend eternity with each other (deservedly)?
Can you hear the absurd arguments in favor of hell?
Who will lead the next war in heaven?
Why was there one in the first place?
How can evil manifest in heaven (LUCIFER)? Does it come from NOTHING? Or did it somehow snick in through a secret tunnel?
These numb-nuts should be thrown into a black hole and recycled into to something usefl
saburius 6 months ago
None of this had anything to do with the concept of God and even less with the Christian concept of God. These kind of arguments are completely pointless because they prove nothing about nothing.
saburius 6 months ago
Sorry to say, but this time it is Matt that's got it wrong. It has no sense to even say 'In a world without minds a rock is still a rock' - in fact one might only say 'In a world without minds.... ROCK!', see? Even just using logical forms assumes that some sense may be attributed to them. In other words, in a world without minds a rock is a rock no more than a rock &&^% a rock. Note: both speakers got it wrong by even moving the discussion of logic into metaphysics. Nice listening, though. ;)
llnoba 6 months ago
"Proof of God" is such a silly idea.
If God exists and he wants us to know his existence, he would give us evidence instead of leaving us to "prove" it.
It's obvious that God doesn't want us to know he exists, so all you god believers will most likely get punished for defying God's will.
gupsphoo 6 months ago
I tried to follow along, but since I didn't have the emails they were reading from, it wasn't easy. The atheist did interrupt alot.
LothairOfLorraine 6 months ago
@LothairOfLorraine The writing that they were referring to was included in the video description.
Dillahunty (the atheist, as you say) interrupted Slick (the believer) a lot because Slick either made certain logical mistakes in the course of their discussion, or they have different definitions on certain terms that need to be cleared up before the discussion can proceed productively.
ChienStrap1H 6 months ago
Minds don't define what is true and what is not. They simply OBSERVE the truth. You're ability to understand the truth differs in your IQ.
asdfghjkl6661 6 months ago
@asdfghjkl6661 your ability* :( need to train MY IQ
asdfghjkl6661 6 months ago
I'm a huge fan of TAE but I feel the need to point out that Quantum Physics says that the observer is an important part of what exists and what doesn't. Schroedinger's cat is both dead and alive until someone opens the box, then its state gets nailed down. And it's not just that we don't KNOW whether it's dead or alive, it's BOTH until we observe it. So in a Universe with no observers, it might not be as clearcut as Matt says.
Just saying..... small point really, I guess.
warren52nz 7 months ago
@warren52nz "So in a Universe with no observers, it might not be as clearcut as Matt says."
I get what you're saying, but also what Matt is. The means by which we describe the universe exist only because we create them. However, they reflect the actual state of the universe. In a universe without observers there would be no words to describe the things therein, but the things therein would still exist in whatever state they happened to be created in.
RememberJudas314 6 months ago
@RememberJudas314 Yeah, it's really a test of how well language accurately models reality. Same thing with mathematics. If you get the model right, the predictions will also be right.
But if you call a Platypus a bird you won't get far.
Or as Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) said "... the best way to not be unhappy is not to have a word for it".
warren52nz 6 months ago
"Lean not unto your own understanding" So let me get this straight. You've been given a brain that has the capacity for logic, but don't you dare use it!
bastardoftheparty1 7 months ago
lol ceci nest pas une pipe, magritte understood it much more quickly. this is basic semiotics.
nuncaleite 7 months ago
um, religious views don't have to be proven, only scientific ones do... remember? anyone who falls for this simple debate trick needs to go back to school... atheists are the ones with the burden of proof, not us. so far? no proof.
cwross1976 8 months ago
@cwross1976 atheism is the rejection of the claim that there is a god. the people making the claim need to prove the claim.
when someone says fairies exist, the people who reject that claim don't have to prove that they don't exist.
by your logic EVERY god that's EVER bee thought of exists because no one has proved they don't exist.
religious views absolutely need to be proven, you can't say "this exists and this happened" without any kind of evidence. that's just being gullible.
rememberthename33 7 months ago
@cwross1976 Here's to help you understand better what 'rememberthename33' was saying. Here's a simple dialogue between Person A and Person B:
A: Hey man, my penis size is 12 inches unbuffed!
B: Really? prove it then.
A: No, it's true! I don't have to prove it to you.
B: Well, I don't have to believe what you're saying if you can't prove it to me.
A: Look, if you don't think what I'm saying is true, then PROVE ME WRONG!
B: What!? I have to prove that your penis size is 12 inches unbuffed? LOL!
12InchesUnBuffed 7 months ago
Cliff Notes refutal of Matt Slick's argument; from 8:00 to 9:40, Slick blatantly admits he is conflating "statements" (which ARE a product of the mind) with actual "logical absolutes" which are the "transcendental" nature of the universe
Take note that immediately at 9:40 Slick COMPLETELY ignores this 100% refutation, makes NO attempt to correct, but instead CHANGES THE SUBJECT.
He lost, TAG is a joke to anyone who actually understands it but stands as 'proof' to mental lightweights who don't
Hopeful71 8 months ago
Matt D is wrong at 8:45. If every mind disappeared tomorrow, then the day after tomorrow the statement "The Eiffel Tower exists" would still be either true or false. This would be unaffected by the fact that there would be no one around to make or conceive of the statement nor to investigate or apprehend its truth value.
DuhIdiot1 8 months ago
Is he saying that if minds didn't exist square circles would be possible?
4dsouzaluiz 8 months ago
i think the caller might be a Deist in Christian's clothing.
TAXEXEMPTION 8 months ago
Argument for god's existence: make your own! 1) Pick some property of reality or the universe, 2) claim that this property is contingent on god's existence, 3) insist that this property is contingent on god's existence, 4) state matter-of-factly that this property is contingent on god's existence, 5) brush away arguments like you would flies, 6) Jesus created the universe in a week and if you don't believe it, you will burn in hell forever.
THE KOMBUCHA! MUSHROOM PEOPLE! SITTING AROUND ALL DAY!
tempo3rd 9 months ago
My head hurts =/
DragonsREpic 9 months ago
I think Matt is spot on with this debate.
taffwob 9 months ago in playlist The Atheist Experience