Denial of evidence of our existence is a social problem not scientific.
DATA exists...
3. Our ability to correctly interpret the DATA is irrelevant to it's character or source and offers no support to actuality of fact unless the interpretation is correct.
4.Because current science has it's head up it's ass is not to say it may wake up one day.
5. God was PROVED by verifiable lab standards by perhaps THEE MOST COMPETENT SCIENTIST/INVENTOR EVER....NIKOLA TESLA.
The problem with atheists is they are so stuck on our materialist science which currently isn't capable of dealing with anything beyond our simple 3D material universe. It knows nothing of other dimensions or states of reality. You'll also never hear them bring up verifiable past life memories, verifiable NDE's/OBE's, verifiable accurate prophecies, or medically verified miracle healings which can't be explained without God. Atheism = Ignorance and Denial and that shows in this video big time.
@Elhardt HAHA! Your statement can be ployed against you. //...materialist science which currently isn't capable of dealing with anything beyond our simple 3D material universe. It knows nothing of other dimensions or states of reality.// the statements the bible gives can be tested and proven wrong, in a physical (material) world, they are wrong and disproves your god. If his claims don't work then he doesn't work. If he doesn't work when he says that he will, means he is false. Creationism? Ha!
@Elhardt You are absolutely right. We know NOTHING about other dimensions and states of reality. How is it that you know more than the rest of humanity? How will you spread you're amazing knowledge about these things with the rest of us, who occupy this matrial reality. I enjoy you're ignorance and denial commnet. Denial of what? Something that we can't experience and ignorance of something unexperienced. In such an instance I find it helpfull to be ignorant and to deny it untill prooven.
If there is a God, that's all powerful, that can do whatever he wishes whenever he wishes with no setbacks whatsoever while having the ability to see clearly into the future then he is a very cruel being to watch as innocent people suffer. People need religion because it gives them a feeling that all the things that happen are part of a plan. Which makes one feel a lot more hopeful....
You never debunked the Hindu's notion of God. I linked you to a video, AntiCitizenX, of Alan Watts describing the Hindu's notion of the divine in comparing western and eastern religions. You said you listened, but somehow I believe you only listened to a portion of it or not at all. You may be cognitively bias. Please don't intellectually evade the challenge that has been posed to you, 'cause if you think what I've said is malarkey, then eat 5 dried grams of mushrooms, then you can judge.
If you have been indoctrinated at youth you have to get high to see the world as it is and shed all the bullshit. Philosophically God is incredibly easy to disprove. We can prove what cannot be outside the Universe (infinity which equals stasis/nonexistence) and what exactly can exist in the universe, (bound finite material or energetic things). That which takes up a finite amount of space exists, is defined from what it isn't.
"I believe in God but you're clearly convinced YOU ARE God!! Who's deluded again?"
The evidence is starting to strongly suggest it is you. I am not going to argue any more, as you are apparently incapable of paying attention to reality. Please leave my forum.
"You vs. God??? You couldn't even handle You vs. CT!!!"
Obviously. This single video of mine has almost as many views as all your videos put together. And this is one of my lesser videos. You must be winning hands down. It must be fun ignoring reality.
Since you apparently read the only first sentence of my comment and abruptly stopped, allow me bring you up to speed:
"I made a tentative inference based on a lack of physical evidence that justifies me in operating under an assumed conclusion."
And if this is the representative quality of your attention span, I'm through talking to you. You are officially a complete fucktard if all you do is ignore what is being said and insert your own little fantasy words.
I never made a truth claim about ethics. I made a tentative inference based on a lack of physical evidence that justifies me in operating under an assumed conclusion. Or do you really not understand how this works? I'm trying to be patient with you, but you're making it very difficult with this belligerence.
Actually that was what I was attempting to argue too, just not smart enough to word it like you smart people :) thanks for the read particularly CartesianTheist for wording it better than i can, and both for making me want to learn
"logical evidence as a way of giving evidence for the existence of God"
Logic is not evidence for anything. It is a framework for constructing arguments. The ultimate arbiter of reality is not your ability to formulate deductions. You can "conclude" anything you like, but that does not automatically make it true or real.
"WHAT PHYSICAL OBJECT demonstrates the concept of 'wrongness'!??!"
There isn't any. That's why there is no such thing as an objective morality. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest that the perception of morality it is a purely subjective construct that varies in its definition, application, and consequences across individuals and cultures.
"And will you please stop harping on about how any other methodology must compete with the scientific method"
So scientific method is a methodology? Thanks for admitting that. I therefore do not have to justify it as a truth claim. I merely have to substantiate it with a track record of producing useful understanding. So again, show me something else that works any better, or go away.
Are you really that naive to think that ethics is a system of actual knowledge that needs no empirical justification? Oh, my poor boy, you have a lot of learning to do.
" I'm STILL waiting for you to provide physical evidence which substantiates the view that knowledge must always be supported by physical evidence"
I have spelled it out for you 6 times already, and you apparently cannot wrap your brain around it. So for the last time:
The tendency for this requirement to produce the goods is positively indicative evidence that it works. The failure of all alternatives to do likewise is also evidence.
"WHERE is the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that demonstrates the principle that knowledge CAN ONLY COME ABOUT BY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? "
The total absence of any alternatives that can do the same. This does not mean they don't exist, but unless you provide me with one, I can't replace something that works with nothing that doesn't.
"But physical evidence cannot be found for lots of VERY RATIONAL tenets"
I do not disagree. But the moment you step out of the realm of, say, mathematics, and start making claims about external reality, then physical evidence is the guiding star. So please give me a single rational tenet about reality that is not founded in any sort of empirical basis.
You can criticize induction all you want, and you'll probably be right about it. But it still has a valid place in generating knowledge when applied properly. However, if all you can do is ridicule it, then I'm not interested.
"you must know that inductivism is still highly controversial and largely ridiculed ever since Popper?"
No, it is not controversial, and no, it is not ridiculed. It is understood very well and applied all the time. The only people who ridicule it are idiot philosophers who never actually tried to produce anything.
"PEE was the contention that ALL KNOLWEDGE requires physical evidence. "
I have never said that PEE is a direct avenue to truth. I have only explained that it works better than anything else at producing justifiable knowledge about our reality. So for the 6th time, Cart: What do you have that works better?
P4: The exercise of P1 has a track record of producing medicine, rockets, and internets.
P5: Failure to exercise P1 has a track record of consistent failure to produce medicine, rockets, and internets.
C: The exercise of P1 has a better track record than any alternative methodology. Therefore, P1 is to be preferred above all others until something better comes along.
Rationalism is only as good as the assumptions upon which it is based. However, assumptions are only as good as the observations used to generate them. By "empirical rationalism," I am referring to rational deduction/induction based on empirical observation. This is not an obscure terminology.
If you seriously have to ask, then you are not nearly as suave at philosophy as you make yourself out to be. And to be perfectly frank, if I have to explain it to you, then I'm probably just wasting my time.
I already told you the evidence multiple times. Empirical rationalism produces the goods better than any other methodology. So unless you have an alternative methodology that can produce physical understanding capable of putting men on the moon, then all you are doing is thumping your chest with empty rhetoric.
"So your methodology itself is not supported by physical evidence"
Methodologies are tools, not statements of fact. The only "support" I need for empirical rationalism and falsification are their power to generate results. If you can show me one that works better, I will happily adopt it. So either put up or shut up. You can babble on all you want about metaphysics, but it means nothing unless you can produce the goods.
"So what physical evidence tells us that all knowledge must be supported by physical evidence?"
The propensity for people to imagine things out of nothing. The set of all things I can imagine is much greater than the set of all things that are genuinely real. Physical evidence is the benchmark for distinguishing between something I made up versus something that is truly real. If you have a better methodology, then I'd like to see it.
Cart, what do you think built the internet? Where did the understanding of information theory, quantum mechanics, solid state physics, and fiber optics come from? They are all built on an understanding of physical laws that are demonstrable through empirical methods. THAT is the verification you asked for. If empiricism was bogus, it would not produce tangible results. THAT is the falsification you asked for.
The mere fact that you have written this message to me over a computer is a testament to PEE. The existence of the internet is a validation of PEE. If PEE was not a valid concept, then it would not produce the goods. So show me another methodology that does the same thing and you'll have a point. Until then, PEE is the only one that gives tangible results in physical understanding. Nothing else does.
Without empirical evidence for something, you have no basis for thinking it exists in the first place. You may as well imagined the entire thing out of nothing. You are openly admitting that there is no physical distinction between a God that genuinely exists in external reality and a God that you just made up. The only hard part is realizing that problem for yourself, but it is perfectly obvious to the rest of us.
One day main stream universities will put real solid proof out that religion is just a tool to control the masses , you would have to say , its mankind's biggest weapon of mass destruction that has span though out history as we know it . Sad thing is , its still destroying lives and killing people around the entire planet . show me a war without religion involved . I SHOW YOU PEACE
Show me a war without technology involved? People believe in things & people fight in wars, fancy the fact that they may actually be the same people. however it is impossible to do an experiment where no religions or beliefs existed so your claim that there would be peace is completely unfounded. as its relative, isn't it interesting that in parts of all tribes and races they find themselves believing in something more than the physical world..
If there is a infinite regression of Time then how could we have got through that infinite amount of time to come to be here in this moment. u either have to approach that from the position, we are at this time so we must have got here (circular argument) or start to think that we don't know how far along we are, but we can't be 'any amount of time along' if its infinite.
There is no "time." There is only "spacetime." Velocity and gravitational fields warp the apparent passage of time and even destroy simultaneity. Physicists have known this for almost 100 years. It is called "relativity."
" that statement doesn't directly deduce the other things i've said"
It absolutely does because you are basing your conclusions on things we've known to be wrong for many decades.
Cool so for space-time to have always existed, we would have an infinite regression of space-time? same argument, how did we come to be in this part of space at this time? if there is an infinite regression how can we be any amount along time, space or space-time??
As for saying that statement doesn't directly deduce ... I was agreeing that my first did not deduce my second, i did not claim it did.
I never stated i was arguing for proof of God, plus i didn't demand anything, I simply asked a question out of curiosity, I know I don't know everything, perhaps you had evidence I did not know about.
as for your Q; I don't believe God has established himself 2 be scrutinized by us in experiment.. he leaves us enough evidence through verifiable knowledge 2 suggest he may existence, then it is through seeking him in personal relationship & experience that our faith grows
" I don't believe God has established himself 2 be scrutinized by us in experiment."
Lis, you need to understand the consequences of that come from this statement. You are openly admitting that there is no functional difference between a God that genuinely exists and a God that you just made up out of your own imagination. The whole point of the experiment is to make a distinction between these two concepts.
the setting up of an experiment is different from us experiencing God in reality, yes there may be more influences from outside factors, but God may be choosing to use multiple outside factors to help a certain circumstance to occur, but it is the culmination of so many factors all converging at one moment, especially when the exact timing of that moment is next to perfect. I guess, how many coincidences needs to occur for you to believe there maybe something influencing them?
I don't care about your "maybe's." If you cannot demonstrate God's behavior in a physically meaningful and reproducible capacity, then I am not interested in any other words that follow. If we're just going to play guessing games, then for all we know God may just be a giant pile of flying spaghetti. It carries equal weight as anything else we might try to suggest in the absence of observational data.
flying spaghetti monster argument, But as i've stated I don't believe God will show you absolute proof, especially as it sounds like you don't want to believe. So the use of maybe's could bring about you accepting the possibility of a God, just coz you don't have all the answers doesn't mean you dismiss science, just coz i don't have all the answers doesn't mean i dismiss God.
You need to understand that I have no desire to "believe" whatsoever. My only motivation is a desire to "know." But in order to qualify as knowledge, there are certain rules we must follow when making positive assertions about reality. One of those rules is that empirical evidence determines reality. Without empirical evidence to validate your claims, they are functionally equivalent to wild speculations.
you have to choose what you believe without full evidence as soon as you take any step away from "i think therefore i am" you don't wake up every day believing gravity might not exist that day. If your saying all that is came about by chance, all the 1 in a google google-th things that seem to be just right for you to exist, how come you don't say when the scientists were doing experiments to find this "empirical evidence" it might be by chance that it turned out the same every time????
"how come you don't say when the scientists were doing experiments to find this "empirical evidence" it might be by chance that it turned out the same every time????"
The law of large numbers. In the limit to a large number of experimental trials in a stationary random process, the empirical probability distribution function always approaches the true value.
Which makes sense in that I believe He desires us to have free Will to choose to believe in him and Love him. If there was 1 experiment that proved God and then all we had to do was teach everyone that and they were forced by there intellect to believe by empirical evidence that God existed, that would not give us that same freedom of choice in Him.
"that would not give us that same freedom of choice in Him."
I really can not see how this is a good thing, Lis. Belief is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of obligate compliance in the face of physical evidence. You are basically insinuating that God wants us to act like gullible suckers who believe in unsubstantiated claims.
its a Good thing, coz Love can never be forced, Belief is obviously a matter of choice, otherwise how do people have such varying opinions on most things even when faced with the same evidence. And I believe it is important to have physical evidence, just not that this evidence will prove God's existence, just suggest it or at least show its in the realm of possibility. God doesn't want gullible suckers, but he likes people turning to him, and choosing to Love him.
"God doesn't want gullible suckers, but he likes people turning to him, and choosing to Love him."
Which God is that exactly? The Mormon version? The Pentecostal? The Hindu? The Scientologist? The Mannenite? The Catholic? The Shi'ite? The Sunni? The Taoist? The Zoroastrian? The Greek Pantheon? The Roman Pantheon? Rah? Anubis? Apophis?
Are you trying to reference the argument that there are so many religions so therefore they are all wrong. I believe in absolute truth and so therefore only one if any can hold the full truth, but the rest can hold parts of the truth and simply be miss guided in places.
"Are you trying to reference the argument that there are so many religions so therefore they are all wrong."
What I am trying to impress upon you is that there are dozens upon dozens of various religious beliefs about God. When you make an assertion about who/what God is/does, you have to elevate your claim above the claims of all other faiths. Otherwise, I can rightly lump your claim in with all the other bogus assertions about spiritual matters.
there's not much point stating my claim in the christian faith as more precise than other faiths or my Catholic faith as yet more precise, when you refuse to believe in the possibility of God from the get go. it would be like me arguing how many limbs the flying spegetti monster has. but as far as what you need to know so far is that I believe there is part of the truth in all religions and in all people just some have more of the fullness of truth.
But if you are asking what faith I ascribe to. I am a Catholic. & before you start, yes the Catholic church has done and been involved in some bad things but A) in most circumstances the Catholic churches involvement wasn't as bad as it is played out to be and B) some members have acted against the faiths beliefs in doing serious crimes, but thats flawed humanity and the downside to free will. you don't dismiss science coz 1 scientist skewed his results for a cause.
"what evidence do you have that it is not linear?"
All sarcasm aside, this is actually a very good question. The answer is simply "study relativity." The mere virtue that GPS satellites have to account for spacetime distortion is a testament to the fact that time is not the simple, linear construct we intuitively imagine it to be. There are also gobs of experiments that have directly measured time dilation.
So time is distorted or dilated in a measurable way? so there is a standard time dimension to this space-time. such as a sheet is the Y axis and the space is the X axis and you get a bulge like you would expect a ball to make around planets etc? as stated if time on this Y axis goes on forever in both directions how can we have got to "when" n "where" we are now?
"So time is distorted or dilated in a measurable way? "
Yes.
"so there is a standard time dimension to this space-time. "
No. There is no time. There is only a perception of time that is distorted by relative velocities and gravitational fields. There isn't even such a thing "now." It is all buried in general relativity, and it is all measurable. Anyone with access to a pair of cesium clocks and demonstrate this stuff on demand.
thanks for teaching me a little, it is encouraging me to learn more :) I'm curious though about this time being just a perception, it sounds like another little dial of fine tuning to me, also can you explain to me about this general relativity, what's it relative to? simply other parts of itself? (also does that mean there are parts to space-time where nothing moves because no time passes?)
The "relative" part of relativity is called a "frame of reference, which is defined by your relative velocity and local gravitational field. I say "relative velocity" because there is no such thing as absolute motion. There is only relative motion with respect to other objects. Our perception of time is best described as the delay between events, but this perception changes with respect to our frame of reference. For example, moving clocks always appear to run slow.
It makes more sense for God to have always existed than for the world to have always existed because the world exists within time & space and seems to have been 'fine tuned' for the possibility of Life. where as a God external to time could have always existed. i do admit within the realm of possibility there could be a 'super God' above that creator, but this is a step we need not take, where as I see need to say there is a creator to explain.
@lis10truth2noledge If one is willing to accept a being that exists "outside of time" than it's not too much a leap from there to tack on another being. So here I would ask, why is it necessary to have a creator god to explain existence?
it is necessary to have a creator God in order to understand existence, because it appears in what i know of the subjects a Creator God makes the most sense in relation to the 'fine tuned' nature of our existence in science, as well as philosophy, phenomenology, sociology, history, theology, as well as but not primarily my experiences. My question is, (assuming you don't believe in God) what makes you so sure there isn't?
@lis10truth2noledge 1. 'fine-tuned' nature? I don't see how that's an argument for god's existence. You'll have to explain this more clearly. 2. Philosophically, I could argue (as in this video) an infinite chain of gods. Yet, there is still no reason to assert the existence of even the first one. 3.4.5. Please explain you're phenomenological, sociological, and historical arguments. 6. I don't know of any theological arguments which prove existence, so I'd be happy to hear it.
1 Fine-tuned nature of our existence - its as if there are hundreds and hundreds of little dial's if any one of them were different then we couldn't be alive on this planet. I don't believe this was by happenstance. on top of that we happen to be pretty much the average size of all things known in existence and in a fantastic place in our galaxy where it seems we almost have the optimum situation to study and growing in Scientific knowledge.
@lis10truth2noledge 1a) Granted, if the forces of nature were different, then the universe would be different. ... and ... I'd say ... so what. The universe here has only an infinitesimally small part of it suitable to humans. If the universe were actually "fine tuned" to humans, then I'd start to consider this notion when the universe were at least 1% habitual.
So we couldn't have existed in that Universe. as for the tiny part of the universe that is suitable for us, It could be a lot less, like none. Also the differences help us study, learn and know our world and our universe a whole lot better. perhaps it is about us learning stewardship as I believe God has called us to do. To look after the little we have. And perhaps we could help make other places more inhabitable.
2. yes u can use philosophy to argue flawed things, but if you step through it slowly admitting what you are choosing to believe. for example if you want to get more out of it than "i think therefore i am" you must chose to believe something, for example, the physical universe i seem to repeatedly wake up into is real and I am not simply going to wake up in another one day. When i did this I found there were still some things that seemed unexplained by physical nature or E=mc'2..
@lis10truth2noledge No. I can still ground my beliefs against the reality as best as I can interact with it. I can believe that gravity is not present at 6pm every evening. My reality has dictated against this belief. So for this, empiricism works rather well. This is not to say there are truths out there which could never be proven, this however did not allow us to concede the existence of god. Belief does not equal truth.
neither does truth equal belief, i don't get what your saying here? simply that you do believe in objective truth?
also, you said "I can still ground my beliefs against the reality as best as I can interact with it." so you accept that what you believe is from your experience of your interaction with 'reality', guess mine just suggests there's a God..
3. Phenomenology, the study of Phenomenon's that occur. often unexplained by science and brushed aside as unable to recreate in a experiment. Also the argument of Qualia (i think its spelt) 4. from witnessing how people interact with each other, there desired behaviors and there actual behaviors. C.S.Lewis has a good point about this in Mere Christianity.
@lis10truth2noledge Actually, the mathematical framework of game theory laced with an individual's goal of self interest works as a highly accurate model for human behavior. Like it or not, this is true. Even from an evolutionary standpoint: A group of people to cooperate together have a better chance of survival than a group of people who remain separate. Thus, a cooperative group is selected for. I'd have to disagree with you on the stance that "science brushes aside" human behavior study.
Can't say i've studied game theory so I can't argue any point here other than. why do people often do the action that is opposite to there desires? in christian terms, why do we desire to avoid sin yet frequently fall into it? Is Love real or simply chemicals being released in our brains? Do we have free will? or are we simply complex robots caught up in a chain of cause and effect?
5 & 6. I guess with History and Theology I was more starting to get into my thoughts on who that God is but that there seems to be a sound completeness about it all when you fully emerse yourself in it and the little sections of pools of Knowledge end up linking up so precisely, and on occasion when my brain manages to glimps that scope of the whole picture, it simply seems to make too much sense, even if it appears slightly absurd from my stand point.
I think arguing...I mean discussing...this stuff with @goodbyebrov is literally like talking to a brick wall. If your "side" does not match his belief then he will refute it. If it removes god from the conversation then he will refute it. It does not matter how much truth is thrown at him...he will then manipulate the truth into something that god did. Case in point in is creationism...truth equals evolution...manipulation of the truth to insert god equals creationism. Unprovable truth.
(continuation) if you think about evolution its pretty much when a species or kind reproduces another one like its kind with some improvements and the ones that get worse die off thus the species get stronger and more efficient. thats exactly what car designers do, constantly improving the next car and the bad ones they dont sell. how long and how many improvements you think it'll take until its a spaceship?
That is a very fair analogy in many ways. The only problem is that natural selection requires no direct intervention. The process itself generates novel features entirely on its own and has no conscious motive or direction. It is simply the statistical result of selective pressure in a population with mutation.
you see God through his works. the fine tuning of the universe and the location of earth and other planets the design of our bodies, DNA structure of all life. your betting against the odds. oh and you can meet God thats what christianity is, having a loving relationship with our God. lastly we dont control miracles God does. The bible is our guide and how we can learn about God and his nature.
Several of those things have perfectly natural explanations. Beware of the "God of the Gaps" reasoning. You are filling in "God" as a place-holder for "I don't know." Besides, think about the fine-tuning. Suppose it proves design. Then what? Prove to me that fine-tuning is evidence of a single creator instead of 17 creators working as a team. Prove to me that the single creator is now the Christian God, and not the Mormon or Hindu.
part 2) also if the universe has been around forever then it would mean there has been an infinite amount of time before this time right now which is impossible because you cant get to the end of infinity. in other words if time has always been, then there is infinite time before this point in time and infinite time after this point in time and we are at the end of the infinite amount of time before us. which is impossible cause infinity is to go on forever. does that make sense?
The fact of the matter is, you are arguing out of ignorance. I honestly have no clue about the origins of the universe. But to be perfectly frank, neither do you. The only difference is that I am not trying to fill my ignorance with the illusion of an answer. If you are so cock-sure that this God fellow created everything, then where is he? Let's meet him and shake his hand. Show me a miracle on demand. Give me something more than your word or the Bible for demonstration.
part 1) if the universe has been in existence forever then it would be dead by now due to entropy or the second law of thermodynamics and the first law says that all the amount of energy is the same. the universe has to be finite for the big bang to be possible cause an infinite amount of universe cant be squished into a tiny spec. it would be and infinite sized spec.
You are making broad generalizations about the nature of something you know little about. For example, time itself is intertwined with space and velocity. Did you know that? This is basic relativity. If space began with the Big Bang, then there is every reason to suppose that time itself also began. You cannot draw conclusions from causality in a situation were time itself behaves differently from what you think you know.
@goodbyebrov the fact that you understand that there ARE laws for life to exist on earth means that you SHOULD understand that there would be such laws above a GOD or should i say omnipotent GOD meaning, an all powerful all seeing miracle man does not and cannot exist if it could than you could drop a poodle on mars and it will live till it starves to death because to our suprise life is really a cartoon and we really dont need oxyogen or an atmosphere after all thanks for clearin that up bud,
search "who created God" into google and it explains it in more depth. and no it cant apply to the universe because the universe had a beginning, God didn't.
@goodbyebrov "the universe had a beginning" Who claims this? I believe you are referring to the big bang theory. If so, then I must point out that the theory only concludes the universe was once very dense, and long ago. Under this premise, the universe was all there, just in a different state than its current form. So, in short: The big bang theory does not claim the universe began billions of years ago, merely that is was a singularity. Questions?
actually there is an explanation of why God doesn't need a creator. seeing as he created time which is said in genesis 1 and scientist have proven the universe had a beginning then God must exist outside of time because he cant create something greater then him. this being so he doesn't apply to cause in affect which is how we see things in our universe. maybe search "who created God?" and see what comes up?
Any explanation you can provide for why God does not need a creator can apply equally well to the universe. You are committing what is called the "ad hoc hypothesis" fallacy. You just invented a convenient excuse to justify your beliefs without providing any physical demonstration to back yourself up. You cannot just invent detailed claims about the nature of a being whom you cannot even physically demonstrat in the first place.
you, sir, are my new fave atheist debunker on youtube, along with philhellenes.. u should check him out if you havent already... keep posting the good stuff
If the God have possess illogical attributes ie omniscient, omnipotent, AND omnibenevolent, one doesn't need evidence for their claim. Logically absurd claims can be refuted with logic alone. Argument from ignorance regarding God is illogical in it's own right. If you don't know how something got here, that's where you should stop. If you don't know how X got here, on what basis can you claim Y did it? You know very little about X let alone the cause of it.
You are mixing up to beliefs. A religious belief in god implies faith. The only evidence for any gods are stories, writings and myths all of which were produced by humans, and in spite of thir claims, show no evidence of a supernatural influence.
A person should not say "I believe there is no god" because it is incorrect usage, it should actually be "I do not believe in god" and therefore he/she then cannot be accused of belief.
If someone says " I believe it is sensible to clean your teeth twice a day" then that is not a religious belief, it is a belief founded on facts and evidence. so "I believe there is no god" is stating the fact that a person finds there is no evidence for god, though put in a grammatically poor way.
@manchildminister Do you believe there are no unicorns? Atheists put god in the same boat as unicorns. So unless you see "believing there are no unicorns" is a religion, your argument is failtastic.
We are all irrational creatures, who knows what future form atheists will take. It is not so much atheism that needs promoted but reason, logic and critical thinking.
Not entirely. Mormons are just the ones I have the most exposure/experience with, so they get the lion's share of the debunking. However, I find that much of what I argue against the LDS church applies equally well to the vast majority of faiths out there.
being an atheist myself, I must point out an assumption here. Santa Claus is posited, for example, to live in our shared physical universe. However, the brilliance of religion is that it is a world beyond observation, and thus, beyond the pervue of science. Hume's argument definitely conforms to Occam's Razor, but that, while best, is not *rationally deduced* but rather points to the best hypothesis.
ACX, glad i found your channel man. I was reading your comments on the BoS vid on QM just now and I wanted to know if that book you recommended, Quantum Mechanics by Eugene Merzbacher, is something a lay person should be able to grasp fairly well, or if you need an extensive math background if you're going to bother. I'm curious cuz I'm a biz student and I suck at math. thx man.
Thanks! In answer to your question, the Merzbacher book is very heavy with the math. You need a VERY comfortable background in partial diff eqs, as well as linear algebra, to get through that text. It is intended for graduate-level physics students. I minored in math and even I still struggle with it very frequently.
There are probably lots of great books out there oriented for a more lay audience, but I do not know of any. I'm sure you'll find something if you ask around.
Thanks! I agree in what you say. I think the best thing we can do is what we're doing right now. Express ourselves openly and get others to think about it. There are a lot of fence-sitters out there, and this sort of thing really helps bring them around.
we all know there is no god, its pretty fucking obvious, your not createing some new theory here thats solving the mystery of religion. some people choose to belive..... so whats your fucking problem?
*looking at watch* You know, there's no crime in admitting you don't know. Your zeal for scientism has caused you to exercise blind faith in hypothesis as proven fact.
Another thing about atheists. They like to play Wile E. Coyote type scenarios. When one argument fails, they pretend it didn't happen and leave a trail of unsupported assertions behind them. Exmech2 is hoping that we won't notice.
Another thing about mythologists... they still, even in the 21st century, cannot get over the fact that there is no proof for their imaginary friends. No matter how much they bleat about it.
Exmech: [the fact that there is no proof for their imaginary friends.]
The fine print among Exmech and his ilk are that his facts are presented as absolutes and thus hypocritical (a.) and proof is defined according to a metaphysical naturalism philosophy only. To Exmech it is the only dogma to follow, despite his ignorance that evidence is dependent on logic.
Realistically, I think we're getting a little off base. So let's try going back to square-one.
You assert that logic is a transcendent entity that exists independently of our own minds. So I will ask you, if this is true, then where does this logic reside? How much does it weigh? Can I eat it? What physical influence does it exert? You sound like you are dancing with substance dualism.
Because you type in caps and because your teacher told you to? Dawkins wouldn't approve of that shoddy kind of thinking. Time to step up and deliver. Stop playing intellectual poseur.
Really? Where is this place? How do we visit it? What else resides here? How far away is this?
[Absurd]
Of course it is. But you apparently don't understand the idea of "figurative language" and "rhetorical questions."
Paul, you cannot assert the existence of something that, by its very definition, cannot exercise influence or be measured. Otherwise, I am free to say that invisible pink incorporeal fairies are real.
The above question assumes that it is somewhere outside the universe. If so, then that's your location. All other questions stem from the assumption as well. Thus, if those questions are not answered to your liking, you cannot assume the location outside the universe doesn't exist.
Paul, you have postulated the existence of a place "outside the universe." So if such a place exists, then how in the world is such a place supposed to exercise any influence in THIS universe? And if it did, how would we know it? How do we distinguish genuine influence from a "transcendent realm" apart from regular influence in our own realm? These are not trivial problems.
Oh you did make MANY GREAT points on the obtuse hysteria and psychopathy of belief...
But throwing the baby out with the bath water is equally hysteric.
philopolymath 1 week ago
Other options for Creation from nothing are valid and logically consistent.
1. Hologram electric-simulation accords exactly to data.
Again it's all rather simple elegant and easy for common man to understand...
Well common sensed men anyway. like Tesla & Walter Russell...
philopolymath 1 week ago
Argument from ignorance flaw..
In late 1480 a man came to UNDERSTAND the laws of Nature such as pertains to HOT air rising.
HE had NO evidence but KNEW man would and could "Fly" in "Machines" one day.
At the time his was a classic "argument from ignorance"
Which is valid ONLY IF IGNORANT.
Like you.
philopolymath 1 week ago
Continued..
Denial of evidence of our existence is a social problem not scientific.
DATA exists...
3. Our ability to correctly interpret the DATA is irrelevant to it's character or source and offers no support to actuality of fact unless the interpretation is correct.
4.Because current science has it's head up it's ass is not to say it may wake up one day.
5. God was PROVED by verifiable lab standards by perhaps THEE MOST COMPETENT SCIENTIST/INVENTOR EVER....NIKOLA TESLA.
Walter Russell 1927
philopolymath 1 week ago
Well there are a couple of fatal flaws in the logic...
1. What does debunking ALL Religions have to do with the existence of a God
Proving ALL air guitarist are fake must mean there are NO real talented guitarists.
2.Yes we should expect ALL empirical evidence to be traced to it's CAUSE.
We have abundant DATA but have not ATTRIBUTED it to a source as yet.
Of course the FACT that we HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS OF data AND OUR ABILITY TO COLLECT AND CONSIDER IT SEEMS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE A creator!
philopolymath 1 week ago
Awsome
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
What happened to part 1?
Greyhound1405 1 month ago in playlist More videos from AntiCitizenX
@Greyhound1405
Part I is the Noah's Ark stuff, but the video was eventually remade into the better version you see now.
AntiCitizenX 1 month ago
hey I believe in the flying spaghetti monster! :O
TheCommonID 1 month ago in playlist More videos from AntiCitizenX
The problem with atheists is they are so stuck on our materialist science which currently isn't capable of dealing with anything beyond our simple 3D material universe. It knows nothing of other dimensions or states of reality. You'll also never hear them bring up verifiable past life memories, verifiable NDE's/OBE's, verifiable accurate prophecies, or medically verified miracle healings which can't be explained without God. Atheism = Ignorance and Denial and that shows in this video big time.
Elhardt 4 months ago in playlist More videos from AntiCitizenX
@Elhardt HAHA! Your statement can be ployed against you. //...materialist science which currently isn't capable of dealing with anything beyond our simple 3D material universe. It knows nothing of other dimensions or states of reality.// the statements the bible gives can be tested and proven wrong, in a physical (material) world, they are wrong and disproves your god. If his claims don't work then he doesn't work. If he doesn't work when he says that he will, means he is false. Creationism? Ha!
ssj7warrior 1 month ago
@Elhardt You are absolutely right. We know NOTHING about other dimensions and states of reality. How is it that you know more than the rest of humanity? How will you spread you're amazing knowledge about these things with the rest of us, who occupy this matrial reality. I enjoy you're ignorance and denial commnet. Denial of what? Something that we can't experience and ignorance of something unexperienced. In such an instance I find it helpfull to be ignorant and to deny it untill prooven.
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
@Elhardt More like:.
theism = Ignorance and Denial of actual evidence.
shadowknigth95 1 month ago
Well said.
N1K5TA 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4:17 sad. their parents should all be killed. like mine.
LordHines420 8 months ago
If there is a God, that's all powerful, that can do whatever he wishes whenever he wishes with no setbacks whatsoever while having the ability to see clearly into the future then he is a very cruel being to watch as innocent people suffer. People need religion because it gives them a feeling that all the things that happen are part of a plan. Which makes one feel a lot more hopeful....
beanio12 9 months ago
˙sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı sʇuɐd ɹnoʎ ʇıɥs oʇ ƃuıoƃ ʎןqɐqoɹd ɹnoʎ
gameshowkid222 10 months ago
You never debunked the Hindu's notion of God. I linked you to a video, AntiCitizenX, of Alan Watts describing the Hindu's notion of the divine in comparing western and eastern religions. You said you listened, but somehow I believe you only listened to a portion of it or not at all. You may be cognitively bias. Please don't intellectually evade the challenge that has been posed to you, 'cause if you think what I've said is malarkey, then eat 5 dried grams of mushrooms, then you can judge.
Hanahleia 10 months ago
type this
Miracles in Nigeria 13 - Raising the Dead
misken101 10 months ago
@misken101
Do you honestly believe that video is legitimate? Because that would make you an embarrassingly gullible idiot.
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago 6
MIRACLE - LEG GROWS type this in youtube
misken101 10 months ago
MIRACLE - LEG GROWS
misken101 10 months ago
@misken101 The girl isn't an Amputee, only has a leg shorter than the other one...
novicegamer01 8 months ago
Type this and you will see in anew light >...Raised from the Dead! by Reinhard Bonnke - Part 1 of 6
misken101 10 months ago
If you have been indoctrinated at youth you have to get high to see the world as it is and shed all the bullshit. Philosophically God is incredibly easy to disprove. We can prove what cannot be outside the Universe (infinity which equals stasis/nonexistence) and what exactly can exist in the universe, (bound finite material or energetic things). That which takes up a finite amount of space exists, is defined from what it isn't.
Luigi84289 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"I believe in God but you're clearly convinced YOU ARE God!! Who's deluded again?"
The evidence is starting to strongly suggest it is you. I am not going to argue any more, as you are apparently incapable of paying attention to reality. Please leave my forum.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"You vs. God??? You couldn't even handle You vs. CT!!!"
Obviously. This single video of mine has almost as many views as all your videos put together. And this is one of my lesser videos. You must be winning hands down. It must be fun ignoring reality.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
Since you apparently read the only first sentence of my comment and abruptly stopped, allow me bring you up to speed:
"I made a tentative inference based on a lack of physical evidence that justifies me in operating under an assumed conclusion."
And if this is the representative quality of your attention span, I'm through talking to you. You are officially a complete fucktard if all you do is ignore what is being said and insert your own little fantasy words.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago 2
@CartesianTheist
"A TRUTH CLAIM about meta-ethics!"
I never made a truth claim about ethics. I made a tentative inference based on a lack of physical evidence that justifies me in operating under an assumed conclusion. Or do you really not understand how this works? I'm trying to be patient with you, but you're making it very difficult with this belligerence.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"I mean if it were SO self-evident that physical evidence is required for all knowledge then how come you're SO on you own?"
At the moment, you are the only person who has attempted to argue otherwise on my forum. That should tell you something, Cart.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago 2
@AntiCitizenX
Actually that was what I was attempting to argue too, just not smart enough to word it like you smart people :) thanks for the read particularly CartesianTheist for wording it better than i can, and both for making me want to learn
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"I would like evidence for that contention please"
READ THE FUCKING DEFINITION FOR LOGIC IN A DICTIONARY, CART.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago 2
@CartesianTheist
"logical evidence as a way of giving evidence for the existence of God"
Logic is not evidence for anything. It is a framework for constructing arguments. The ultimate arbiter of reality is not your ability to formulate deductions. You can "conclude" anything you like, but that does not automatically make it true or real.
Strike two, Cart.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"Because he cannot spot this he continues to harp on like a broken record."
It is not my fault you aren't listening. And seriously, if you're just going to be like this, I'm going to end our discussion.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"WHAT PHYSICAL OBJECT demonstrates the concept of 'wrongness'!??!"
There isn't any. That's why there is no such thing as an objective morality. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest that the perception of morality it is a purely subjective construct that varies in its definition, application, and consequences across individuals and cultures.
Strike one, Cart.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"And will you please stop harping on about how any other methodology must compete with the scientific method"
So scientific method is a methodology? Thanks for admitting that. I therefore do not have to justify it as a truth claim. I merely have to substantiate it with a track record of producing useful understanding. So again, show me something else that works any better, or go away.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
Are you really that naive to think that ethics is a system of actual knowledge that needs no empirical justification? Oh, my poor boy, you have a lot of learning to do.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
" I'm STILL waiting for you to provide physical evidence which substantiates the view that knowledge must always be supported by physical evidence"
I have spelled it out for you 6 times already, and you apparently cannot wrap your brain around it. So for the last time:
The tendency for this requirement to produce the goods is positively indicative evidence that it works. The failure of all alternatives to do likewise is also evidence.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"This means your methodology is not knowledge and therefore does not have to be adhered to."
Then what distinction do you use to separate made-up fantasy from valid assertions about reality? I am still waiting for you to answer this.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"WHERE is the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that demonstrates the principle that knowledge CAN ONLY COME ABOUT BY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? "
The total absence of any alternatives that can do the same. This does not mean they don't exist, but unless you provide me with one, I can't replace something that works with nothing that doesn't.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"But physical evidence cannot be found for lots of VERY RATIONAL tenets"
I do not disagree. But the moment you step out of the realm of, say, mathematics, and start making claims about external reality, then physical evidence is the guiding star. So please give me a single rational tenet about reality that is not founded in any sort of empirical basis.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
You can criticize induction all you want, and you'll probably be right about it. But it still has a valid place in generating knowledge when applied properly. However, if all you can do is ridicule it, then I'm not interested.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"you must know that inductivism is still highly controversial and largely ridiculed ever since Popper?"
No, it is not controversial, and no, it is not ridiculed. It is understood very well and applied all the time. The only people who ridicule it are idiot philosophers who never actually tried to produce anything.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"PEE was the contention that ALL KNOLWEDGE requires physical evidence. "
I have never said that PEE is a direct avenue to truth. I have only explained that it works better than anything else at producing justifiable knowledge about our reality. So for the 6th time, Cart: What do you have that works better?
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
For the 6th time, Cart, P4 is wrong:
P4: The exercise of P1 has a track record of producing medicine, rockets, and internets.
P5: Failure to exercise P1 has a track record of consistent failure to produce medicine, rockets, and internets.
C: The exercise of P1 has a better track record than any alternative methodology. Therefore, P1 is to be preferred above all others until something better comes along.
Do you have something better?
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
" None of those things are evidence that ONLY things which are supported by physical evidence can be considered knowledge!"
Then give me a counter example of factual knowledge about our external reality that is not based on empirical evidence.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
Rationalism is only as good as the assumptions upon which it is based. However, assumptions are only as good as the observations used to generate them. By "empirical rationalism," I am referring to rational deduction/induction based on empirical observation. This is not an obscure terminology.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"Empirical rationalism? What's that?!"
If you seriously have to ask, then you are not nearly as suave at philosophy as you make yourself out to be. And to be perfectly frank, if I have to explain it to you, then I'm probably just wasting my time.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"it has to be a DEMONSTRABLE piece of knowledge."
For the 5th time, Cart, it put men on the moon, generated the internet, and gave you modern medicine. What alternative do you have that does better?
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"I see NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER"
I already told you the evidence multiple times. Empirical rationalism produces the goods better than any other methodology. So unless you have an alternative methodology that can produce physical understanding capable of putting men on the moon, then all you are doing is thumping your chest with empty rhetoric.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"So your methodology itself is not supported by physical evidence"
Methodologies are tools, not statements of fact. The only "support" I need for empirical rationalism and falsification are their power to generate results. If you can show me one that works better, I will happily adopt it. So either put up or shut up. You can babble on all you want about metaphysics, but it means nothing unless you can produce the goods.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"So what physical evidence tells us that all knowledge must be supported by physical evidence?"
The propensity for people to imagine things out of nothing. The set of all things I can imagine is much greater than the set of all things that are genuinely real. Physical evidence is the benchmark for distinguishing between something I made up versus something that is truly real. If you have a better methodology, then I'd like to see it.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
Cart, what do you think built the internet? Where did the understanding of information theory, quantum mechanics, solid state physics, and fiber optics come from? They are all built on an understanding of physical laws that are demonstrable through empirical methods. THAT is the verification you asked for. If empiricism was bogus, it would not produce tangible results. THAT is the falsification you asked for.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
The mere fact that you have written this message to me over a computer is a testament to PEE. The existence of the internet is a validation of PEE. If PEE was not a valid concept, then it would not produce the goods. So show me another methodology that does the same thing and you'll have a point. Until then, PEE is the only one that gives tangible results in physical understanding. Nothing else does.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
Yes.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@CartesianTheist
Without empirical evidence for something, you have no basis for thinking it exists in the first place. You may as well imagined the entire thing out of nothing. You are openly admitting that there is no physical distinction between a God that genuinely exists in external reality and a God that you just made up. The only hard part is realizing that problem for yourself, but it is perfectly obvious to the rest of us.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Dude, I'm gonna subcribe to you right now...Do not stop making videos man...SKEPTICSM FOR THE WIN!!!!!!!!*echo*
enysp 11 months ago
One day main stream universities will put real solid proof out that religion is just a tool to control the masses , you would have to say , its mankind's biggest weapon of mass destruction that has span though out history as we know it . Sad thing is , its still destroying lives and killing people around the entire planet . show me a war without religion involved . I SHOW YOU PEACE
slaughterme1 11 months ago
@slaughterme1
Show me a war without technology involved? People believe in things & people fight in wars, fancy the fact that they may actually be the same people. however it is impossible to do an experiment where no religions or beliefs existed so your claim that there would be peace is completely unfounded. as its relative, isn't it interesting that in parts of all tribes and races they find themselves believing in something more than the physical world..
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
If there is a infinite regression of Time then how could we have got through that infinite amount of time to come to be here in this moment. u either have to approach that from the position, we are at this time so we must have got here (circular argument) or start to think that we don't know how far along we are, but we can't be 'any amount of time along' if its infinite.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
Time is not the linear construct that you think it is. Everything you try to deduce from this assumption is pretty much bogus from the get-go.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
We seem to only move in one direction through time, what evidence do you have that it is not linear?
Also of course that statement doesn't directly deduce the other things i've said, i never claimed it to.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
There is no "time." There is only "spacetime." Velocity and gravitational fields warp the apparent passage of time and even destroy simultaneity. Physicists have known this for almost 100 years. It is called "relativity."
" that statement doesn't directly deduce the other things i've said"
It absolutely does because you are basing your conclusions on things we've known to be wrong for many decades.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
Cool so for space-time to have always existed, we would have an infinite regression of space-time? same argument, how did we come to be in this part of space at this time? if there is an infinite regression how can we be any amount along time, space or space-time??
As for saying that statement doesn't directly deduce ... I was agreeing that my first did not deduce my second, i did not claim it did.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
"what evidence do you have that it is not linear?"
Seriously? You have the gall to demand evidence from me while arguing for the existence of God? Well okay, I can play this game too.
lis10truth2noledge: I demand to see a physical experiment with predictive power that would potentially vindicate or falsify the existence of God
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
I never stated i was arguing for proof of God, plus i didn't demand anything, I simply asked a question out of curiosity, I know I don't know everything, perhaps you had evidence I did not know about.
as for your Q; I don't believe God has established himself 2 be scrutinized by us in experiment.. he leaves us enough evidence through verifiable knowledge 2 suggest he may existence, then it is through seeking him in personal relationship & experience that our faith grows
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
" I don't believe God has established himself 2 be scrutinized by us in experiment."
Lis, you need to understand the consequences of that come from this statement. You are openly admitting that there is no functional difference between a God that genuinely exists and a God that you just made up out of your own imagination. The whole point of the experiment is to make a distinction between these two concepts.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
the setting up of an experiment is different from us experiencing God in reality, yes there may be more influences from outside factors, but God may be choosing to use multiple outside factors to help a certain circumstance to occur, but it is the culmination of so many factors all converging at one moment, especially when the exact timing of that moment is next to perfect. I guess, how many coincidences needs to occur for you to believe there maybe something influencing them?
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
"...God may be choosing..."
I don't care about your "maybe's." If you cannot demonstrate God's behavior in a physically meaningful and reproducible capacity, then I am not interested in any other words that follow. If we're just going to play guessing games, then for all we know God may just be a giant pile of flying spaghetti. It carries equal weight as anything else we might try to suggest in the absence of observational data.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
flying spaghetti monster argument, But as i've stated I don't believe God will show you absolute proof, especially as it sounds like you don't want to believe. So the use of maybe's could bring about you accepting the possibility of a God, just coz you don't have all the answers doesn't mean you dismiss science, just coz i don't have all the answers doesn't mean i dismiss God.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
"it sounds like you don't want to believe."
You need to understand that I have no desire to "believe" whatsoever. My only motivation is a desire to "know." But in order to qualify as knowledge, there are certain rules we must follow when making positive assertions about reality. One of those rules is that empirical evidence determines reality. Without empirical evidence to validate your claims, they are functionally equivalent to wild speculations.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
you have to choose what you believe without full evidence as soon as you take any step away from "i think therefore i am" you don't wake up every day believing gravity might not exist that day. If your saying all that is came about by chance, all the 1 in a google google-th things that seem to be just right for you to exist, how come you don't say when the scientists were doing experiments to find this "empirical evidence" it might be by chance that it turned out the same every time????
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
"how come you don't say when the scientists were doing experiments to find this "empirical evidence" it might be by chance that it turned out the same every time????"
The law of large numbers. In the limit to a large number of experimental trials in a stationary random process, the empirical probability distribution function always approaches the true value.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
Which makes sense in that I believe He desires us to have free Will to choose to believe in him and Love him. If there was 1 experiment that proved God and then all we had to do was teach everyone that and they were forced by there intellect to believe by empirical evidence that God existed, that would not give us that same freedom of choice in Him.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
"that would not give us that same freedom of choice in Him."
I really can not see how this is a good thing, Lis. Belief is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of obligate compliance in the face of physical evidence. You are basically insinuating that God wants us to act like gullible suckers who believe in unsubstantiated claims.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
its a Good thing, coz Love can never be forced, Belief is obviously a matter of choice, otherwise how do people have such varying opinions on most things even when faced with the same evidence. And I believe it is important to have physical evidence, just not that this evidence will prove God's existence, just suggest it or at least show its in the realm of possibility. God doesn't want gullible suckers, but he likes people turning to him, and choosing to Love him.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
"God doesn't want gullible suckers, but he likes people turning to him, and choosing to Love him."
Which God is that exactly? The Mormon version? The Pentecostal? The Hindu? The Scientologist? The Mannenite? The Catholic? The Shi'ite? The Sunni? The Taoist? The Zoroastrian? The Greek Pantheon? The Roman Pantheon? Rah? Anubis? Apophis?
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
Are you trying to reference the argument that there are so many religions so therefore they are all wrong. I believe in absolute truth and so therefore only one if any can hold the full truth, but the rest can hold parts of the truth and simply be miss guided in places.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
"Are you trying to reference the argument that there are so many religions so therefore they are all wrong."
What I am trying to impress upon you is that there are dozens upon dozens of various religious beliefs about God. When you make an assertion about who/what God is/does, you have to elevate your claim above the claims of all other faiths. Otherwise, I can rightly lump your claim in with all the other bogus assertions about spiritual matters.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
there's not much point stating my claim in the christian faith as more precise than other faiths or my Catholic faith as yet more precise, when you refuse to believe in the possibility of God from the get go. it would be like me arguing how many limbs the flying spegetti monster has. but as far as what you need to know so far is that I believe there is part of the truth in all religions and in all people just some have more of the fullness of truth.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
But if you are asking what faith I ascribe to. I am a Catholic. & before you start, yes the Catholic church has done and been involved in some bad things but A) in most circumstances the Catholic churches involvement wasn't as bad as it is played out to be and B) some members have acted against the faiths beliefs in doing serious crimes, but thats flawed humanity and the downside to free will. you don't dismiss science coz 1 scientist skewed his results for a cause.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
"what evidence do you have that it is not linear?"
All sarcasm aside, this is actually a very good question. The answer is simply "study relativity." The mere virtue that GPS satellites have to account for spacetime distortion is a testament to the fact that time is not the simple, linear construct we intuitively imagine it to be. There are also gobs of experiments that have directly measured time dilation.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
So time is distorted or dilated in a measurable way? so there is a standard time dimension to this space-time. such as a sheet is the Y axis and the space is the X axis and you get a bulge like you would expect a ball to make around planets etc? as stated if time on this Y axis goes on forever in both directions how can we have got to "when" n "where" we are now?
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
"So time is distorted or dilated in a measurable way? "
Yes.
"so there is a standard time dimension to this space-time. "
No. There is no time. There is only a perception of time that is distorted by relative velocities and gravitational fields. There isn't even such a thing "now." It is all buried in general relativity, and it is all measurable. Anyone with access to a pair of cesium clocks and demonstrate this stuff on demand.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX
thanks for teaching me a little, it is encouraging me to learn more :) I'm curious though about this time being just a perception, it sounds like another little dial of fine tuning to me, also can you explain to me about this general relativity, what's it relative to? simply other parts of itself? (also does that mean there are parts to space-time where nothing moves because no time passes?)
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge
The "relative" part of relativity is called a "frame of reference, which is defined by your relative velocity and local gravitational field. I say "relative velocity" because there is no such thing as absolute motion. There is only relative motion with respect to other objects. Our perception of time is best described as the delay between events, but this perception changes with respect to our frame of reference. For example, moving clocks always appear to run slow.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
It makes more sense for God to have always existed than for the world to have always existed because the world exists within time & space and seems to have been 'fine tuned' for the possibility of Life. where as a God external to time could have always existed. i do admit within the realm of possibility there could be a 'super God' above that creator, but this is a step we need not take, where as I see need to say there is a creator to explain.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge If one is willing to accept a being that exists "outside of time" than it's not too much a leap from there to tack on another being. So here I would ask, why is it necessary to have a creator god to explain existence?
charkopolis 11 months ago
@charkopolis
it is necessary to have a creator God in order to understand existence, because it appears in what i know of the subjects a Creator God makes the most sense in relation to the 'fine tuned' nature of our existence in science, as well as philosophy, phenomenology, sociology, history, theology, as well as but not primarily my experiences. My question is, (assuming you don't believe in God) what makes you so sure there isn't?
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge 1. 'fine-tuned' nature? I don't see how that's an argument for god's existence. You'll have to explain this more clearly. 2. Philosophically, I could argue (as in this video) an infinite chain of gods. Yet, there is still no reason to assert the existence of even the first one. 3.4.5. Please explain you're phenomenological, sociological, and historical arguments. 6. I don't know of any theological arguments which prove existence, so I'd be happy to hear it.
charkopolis 11 months ago
@charkopolis
1 Fine-tuned nature of our existence - its as if there are hundreds and hundreds of little dial's if any one of them were different then we couldn't be alive on this planet. I don't believe this was by happenstance. on top of that we happen to be pretty much the average size of all things known in existence and in a fantastic place in our galaxy where it seems we almost have the optimum situation to study and growing in Scientific knowledge.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge 1a) Granted, if the forces of nature were different, then the universe would be different. ... and ... I'd say ... so what. The universe here has only an infinitesimally small part of it suitable to humans. If the universe were actually "fine tuned" to humans, then I'd start to consider this notion when the universe were at least 1% habitual.
charkopolis 11 months ago
@charkopolis
So we couldn't have existed in that Universe. as for the tiny part of the universe that is suitable for us, It could be a lot less, like none. Also the differences help us study, learn and know our world and our universe a whole lot better. perhaps it is about us learning stewardship as I believe God has called us to do. To look after the little we have. And perhaps we could help make other places more inhabitable.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@charkopolis
2. yes u can use philosophy to argue flawed things, but if you step through it slowly admitting what you are choosing to believe. for example if you want to get more out of it than "i think therefore i am" you must chose to believe something, for example, the physical universe i seem to repeatedly wake up into is real and I am not simply going to wake up in another one day. When i did this I found there were still some things that seemed unexplained by physical nature or E=mc'2..
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge No. I can still ground my beliefs against the reality as best as I can interact with it. I can believe that gravity is not present at 6pm every evening. My reality has dictated against this belief. So for this, empiricism works rather well. This is not to say there are truths out there which could never be proven, this however did not allow us to concede the existence of god. Belief does not equal truth.
charkopolis 11 months ago
@charkopolis
neither does truth equal belief, i don't get what your saying here? simply that you do believe in objective truth?
also, you said "I can still ground my beliefs against the reality as best as I can interact with it." so you accept that what you believe is from your experience of your interaction with 'reality', guess mine just suggests there's a God..
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@charkopolis
3. Phenomenology, the study of Phenomenon's that occur. often unexplained by science and brushed aside as unable to recreate in a experiment. Also the argument of Qualia (i think its spelt) 4. from witnessing how people interact with each other, there desired behaviors and there actual behaviors. C.S.Lewis has a good point about this in Mere Christianity.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge Actually, the mathematical framework of game theory laced with an individual's goal of self interest works as a highly accurate model for human behavior. Like it or not, this is true. Even from an evolutionary standpoint: A group of people to cooperate together have a better chance of survival than a group of people who remain separate. Thus, a cooperative group is selected for. I'd have to disagree with you on the stance that "science brushes aside" human behavior study.
charkopolis 11 months ago
@charkopolis
Can't say i've studied game theory so I can't argue any point here other than. why do people often do the action that is opposite to there desires? in christian terms, why do we desire to avoid sin yet frequently fall into it? Is Love real or simply chemicals being released in our brains? Do we have free will? or are we simply complex robots caught up in a chain of cause and effect?
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@charkopolis
5 & 6. I guess with History and Theology I was more starting to get into my thoughts on who that God is but that there seems to be a sound completeness about it all when you fully emerse yourself in it and the little sections of pools of Knowledge end up linking up so precisely, and on occasion when my brain manages to glimps that scope of the whole picture, it simply seems to make too much sense, even if it appears slightly absurd from my stand point.
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
@lis10truth2noledge Sorry, I mean no disrespect, but I'm not sure what your point is here.
charkopolis 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@charkopolis
don't know what your referencing to "Sorry, I mean no disrespect, but I'm not sure what your point is here."
lis10truth2noledge 11 months ago
I think arguing...I mean discussing...this stuff with @goodbyebrov is literally like talking to a brick wall. If your "side" does not match his belief then he will refute it. If it removes god from the conversation then he will refute it. It does not matter how much truth is thrown at him...he will then manipulate the truth into something that god did. Case in point in is creationism...truth equals evolution...manipulation of the truth to insert god equals creationism. Unprovable truth.
djkoch65 1 year ago
dude why do you put buddhism in the pie
GreenAndGreezy 1 year ago
(continuation) if you think about evolution its pretty much when a species or kind reproduces another one like its kind with some improvements and the ones that get worse die off thus the species get stronger and more efficient. thats exactly what car designers do, constantly improving the next car and the bad ones they dont sell. how long and how many improvements you think it'll take until its a spaceship?
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
That is a very fair analogy in many ways. The only problem is that natural selection requires no direct intervention. The process itself generates novel features entirely on its own and has no conscious motive or direction. It is simply the statistical result of selective pressure in a population with mutation.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
you see God through his works. the fine tuning of the universe and the location of earth and other planets the design of our bodies, DNA structure of all life. your betting against the odds. oh and you can meet God thats what christianity is, having a loving relationship with our God. lastly we dont control miracles God does. The bible is our guide and how we can learn about God and his nature.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
Several of those things have perfectly natural explanations. Beware of the "God of the Gaps" reasoning. You are filling in "God" as a place-holder for "I don't know." Besides, think about the fine-tuning. Suppose it proves design. Then what? Prove to me that fine-tuning is evidence of a single creator instead of 17 creators working as a team. Prove to me that the single creator is now the Christian God, and not the Mormon or Hindu.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
part 2) also if the universe has been around forever then it would mean there has been an infinite amount of time before this time right now which is impossible because you cant get to the end of infinity. in other words if time has always been, then there is infinite time before this point in time and infinite time after this point in time and we are at the end of the infinite amount of time before us. which is impossible cause infinity is to go on forever. does that make sense?
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
The fact of the matter is, you are arguing out of ignorance. I honestly have no clue about the origins of the universe. But to be perfectly frank, neither do you. The only difference is that I am not trying to fill my ignorance with the illusion of an answer. If you are so cock-sure that this God fellow created everything, then where is he? Let's meet him and shake his hand. Show me a miracle on demand. Give me something more than your word or the Bible for demonstration.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
part 1) if the universe has been in existence forever then it would be dead by now due to entropy or the second law of thermodynamics and the first law says that all the amount of energy is the same. the universe has to be finite for the big bang to be possible cause an infinite amount of universe cant be squished into a tiny spec. it would be and infinite sized spec.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
You are making broad generalizations about the nature of something you know little about. For example, time itself is intertwined with space and velocity. Did you know that? This is basic relativity. If space began with the Big Bang, then there is every reason to suppose that time itself also began. You cannot draw conclusions from causality in a situation were time itself behaves differently from what you think you know.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov the fact that you understand that there ARE laws for life to exist on earth means that you SHOULD understand that there would be such laws above a GOD or should i say omnipotent GOD meaning, an all powerful all seeing miracle man does not and cannot exist if it could than you could drop a poodle on mars and it will live till it starves to death because to our suprise life is really a cartoon and we really dont need oxyogen or an atmosphere after all thanks for clearin that up bud,
JWshark2012 1 year ago
search "who created God" into google and it explains it in more depth. and no it cant apply to the universe because the universe had a beginning, God didn't.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov "the universe had a beginning" Who claims this? I believe you are referring to the big bang theory. If so, then I must point out that the theory only concludes the universe was once very dense, and long ago. Under this premise, the universe was all there, just in a different state than its current form. So, in short: The big bang theory does not claim the universe began billions of years ago, merely that is was a singularity. Questions?
charkopolis 1 year ago
actually there is an explanation of why God doesn't need a creator. seeing as he created time which is said in genesis 1 and scientist have proven the universe had a beginning then God must exist outside of time because he cant create something greater then him. this being so he doesn't apply to cause in affect which is how we see things in our universe. maybe search "who created God?" and see what comes up?
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
Any explanation you can provide for why God does not need a creator can apply equally well to the universe. You are committing what is called the "ad hoc hypothesis" fallacy. You just invented a convenient excuse to justify your beliefs without providing any physical demonstration to back yourself up. You cannot just invent detailed claims about the nature of a being whom you cannot even physically demonstrat in the first place.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
Plus, the "Me VS God" vids are lame. You should really watch the Psychology of Belief stuff instead.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
you, sir, are my new fave atheist debunker on youtube, along with philhellenes.. u should check him out if you havent already... keep posting the good stuff
ojal90 1 year ago
Pretty cool. But it will, infortunately, have zero impact on the believers.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
@stevehayes13
Yeah, but it was still fun to make. :)
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
I once met God and he told me he doesn't exist.
psilocyberspaceman 1 year ago
If the God have possess illogical attributes ie omniscient, omnipotent, AND omnibenevolent, one doesn't need evidence for their claim. Logically absurd claims can be refuted with logic alone. Argument from ignorance regarding God is illogical in it's own right. If you don't know how something got here, that's where you should stop. If you don't know how X got here, on what basis can you claim Y did it? You know very little about X let alone the cause of it.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Believing there is no God is a belief. You are as religious as anybody else, poster.
manchildminister 1 year ago
@manchildminister
I also do not collect stamps. So by your logic, my absence of a stamp collection is my hobby.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago 7
@AntiCitizenX lol pwned minister
willsk8zero 1 year ago
@manchildminister
You are mixing up to beliefs. A religious belief in god implies faith. The only evidence for any gods are stories, writings and myths all of which were produced by humans, and in spite of thir claims, show no evidence of a supernatural influence.
A person should not say "I believe there is no god" because it is incorrect usage, it should actually be "I do not believe in god" and therefore he/she then cannot be accused of belief.
wordavee 1 year ago
@manchildminister
If someone says " I believe it is sensible to clean your teeth twice a day" then that is not a religious belief, it is a belief founded on facts and evidence. so "I believe there is no god" is stating the fact that a person finds there is no evidence for god, though put in a grammatically poor way.
wordavee 1 year ago
@manchildminister Belief there is no God is a disbelief. Word play will not change that.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@manchildminister Do you believe there are no unicorns? Atheists put god in the same boat as unicorns. So unless you see "believing there are no unicorns" is a religion, your argument is failtastic.
jeffsandychelsea 1 year ago
Peh... In my othodox christian country there are some people that still belive that the Earth is flat.
droidwarf 1 year ago
BULLSHIT! The underpants gnomes are real!!! I SEENT EM!!!....Great vid
jojo8178 1 year ago
We are all irrational creatures, who knows what future form atheists will take. It is not so much atheism that needs promoted but reason, logic and critical thinking.
philhunter2005 1 year ago
Chuck Norris ends the infinite regress. No debate about that.
Hadel022 1 year ago
8:28 so true
TheBarns95 1 year ago
5:58 Now that is an awesome quote :P
wikuk 1 year ago
by what I remember, your beautiful argument in the beginning of the video is the argument from divine hideness, or argument from disbelief.
marteco 1 year ago
the quote at the end is genius
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
2:28 - 2:52 fucking spot on!
Appledude500 1 year ago
do you make your comparisons entirely contrasting mormonism? I find mormonism as being a cult anyway.
jimu57 2 years ago
@jimu57
Not entirely. Mormons are just the ones I have the most exposure/experience with, so they get the lion's share of the debunking. However, I find that much of what I argue against the LDS church applies equally well to the vast majority of faiths out there.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Nice series, AntiCitizen!
I think you might appreciate my own series, "The Case For An Evil God." It's in the same tone, different tact.
Underlings 2 years ago
in short - it's beyond deduction.
yogurtking 2 years ago
still, I agree -> but the brilliance of the god fantasy is it doesn't *require* proof - just like any schizophrenic delusion.
yogurtking 2 years ago
being an atheist myself, I must point out an assumption here. Santa Claus is posited, for example, to live in our shared physical universe. However, the brilliance of religion is that it is a world beyond observation, and thus, beyond the pervue of science. Hume's argument definitely conforms to Occam's Razor, but that, while best, is not *rationally deduced* but rather points to the best hypothesis.
yogurtking 2 years ago
ey dont say that underpants gnomes dont excist!
slash3rr 2 years ago
ACX, glad i found your channel man. I was reading your comments on the BoS vid on QM just now and I wanted to know if that book you recommended, Quantum Mechanics by Eugene Merzbacher, is something a lay person should be able to grasp fairly well, or if you need an extensive math background if you're going to bother. I'm curious cuz I'm a biz student and I suck at math. thx man.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
@ngarbo00
Thanks! In answer to your question, the Merzbacher book is very heavy with the math. You need a VERY comfortable background in partial diff eqs, as well as linear algebra, to get through that text. It is intended for graduate-level physics students. I minored in math and even I still struggle with it very frequently.
There are probably lots of great books out there oriented for a more lay audience, but I do not know of any. I'm sure you'll find something if you ask around.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
all right, no worries. I thought that might be the case. I've got some others that are good reads. appreciate you bro.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
you got a new subscriber AntiCitizenx
The problem is that blind faith in God or spirits is seen as a honorable virtue and makes you human.
Atheists are seen as stern unsexy and emotionless robots.
So people are much more susceptible to emotional appeal than to logic.
But what can we do about it, it seems to be part of human nature for emotions triumph over logic.
qbslug 2 years ago
Thanks! I agree in what you say. I think the best thing we can do is what we're doing right now. Express ourselves openly and get others to think about it. There are a lot of fence-sitters out there, and this sort of thing really helps bring them around.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
guys like this cunt really piss me off.
we all know there is no god, its pretty fucking obvious, your not createing some new theory here thats solving the mystery of religion. some people choose to belive..... so whats your fucking problem?
CommonSenseUK 2 years ago
great videos, religious people are so stupid.
restoremaz 2 years ago
8:49 of great funny and true video, pefect.LOL
TheLunarmonkey 2 years ago
*looking at watch* You know, there's no crime in admitting you don't know. Your zeal for scientism has caused you to exercise blind faith in hypothesis as proven fact.
Paulomycin 2 years ago
Another thing about atheists. They like to play Wile E. Coyote type scenarios. When one argument fails, they pretend it didn't happen and leave a trail of unsupported assertions behind them. Exmech2 is hoping that we won't notice.
Paulomycin 2 years ago
Another thing about mythologists... they still, even in the 21st century, cannot get over the fact that there is no proof for their imaginary friends. No matter how much they bleat about it.
Exmech2 2 years ago
Exmech: [the fact that there is no proof for their imaginary friends.]
The fine print among Exmech and his ilk are that his facts are presented as absolutes and thus hypocritical (a.) and proof is defined according to a metaphysical naturalism philosophy only. To Exmech it is the only dogma to follow, despite his ignorance that evidence is dependent on logic.
Paulomycin 2 years ago
I'm still waiting for that single example of an absolute that exists without an observer. And I had high hopes for you! lol!
Exmech2 2 years ago
[Another thing about atheists. They like to play Wile E. Coyote type scenarios.]
Is that an absolute? ;)
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
ACX: [Is that an absolute? ;)]
Forgot your penchant for needless redundancy. But then I also recall a lot of different ways to drop the same anvil.
Paulomycin 2 years ago
Realistically, I think we're getting a little off base. So let's try going back to square-one.
You assert that logic is a transcendent entity that exists independently of our own minds. So I will ask you, if this is true, then where does this logic reside? How much does it weigh? Can I eat it? What physical influence does it exert? You sound like you are dancing with substance dualism.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
ACX: [then where does this logic reside?]
Outside the universe. That's where the "transcendent" label comes from.
ACX: [How much does it weigh?]
Are you trying to assert that a law has mass? This is like asking how much gravity should weigh. Absurd.
ACX: [You sound like you are dancing with substance dualism.]
Dualism comes after the Discourse. We don't throw the Descartes out with the bathwater just because he thought animals didn't feel pain.
Paulomycin 2 years ago
"We don't throw the Descartes out "
We do when he's blatantly WRONG!
Exmech2 2 years ago
Exmech: [We do when he's blatantly WRONG!]
Because you type in caps and because your teacher told you to? Dawkins wouldn't approve of that shoddy kind of thinking. Time to step up and deliver. Stop playing intellectual poseur.
Paulomycin 2 years ago
@Paulomycin
[Outside the universe]
Really? Where is this place? How do we visit it? What else resides here? How far away is this?
[Absurd]
Of course it is. But you apparently don't understand the idea of "figurative language" and "rhetorical questions."
Paul, you cannot assert the existence of something that, by its very definition, cannot exercise influence or be measured. Otherwise, I am free to say that invisible pink incorporeal fairies are real.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
ACX: [Really? Where is this place?]
The above question assumes that it is somewhere outside the universe. If so, then that's your location. All other questions stem from the assumption as well. Thus, if those questions are not answered to your liking, you cannot assume the location outside the universe doesn't exist.
Paulomycin 2 years ago
@Paulomycin
Paul, you have postulated the existence of a place "outside the universe." So if such a place exists, then how in the world is such a place supposed to exercise any influence in THIS universe? And if it did, how would we know it? How do we distinguish genuine influence from a "transcendent realm" apart from regular influence in our own realm? These are not trivial problems.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago