All you have done in all your videos is quote Atheist philosophers and scholars after you were inspired by a Professor who it seems you were also inspired by, becoming him in the process, so all you have done is substitute his beliefs as your own and tricked yourself into believing that you arrived at this decision by your choice when the fact of the matter is you were just indoctrinated, much in the same way you were your entire life only now instead of Christianity its Atheism.
@MrJeffFort Indoctrination is the practice of inducing people to uncritically accept certain ideas.
I don't see anything in this series which would qualify as such.
The thinkers in question aren’t being uncritically accepted as authorities, rather they are presented to illustrate their reasoned arguments and the serious scholarly research they present concerning these subjects.
Being convinced by argumentation and evidence is very different from indoctrination.
But belief in God is just based on faith so not much of this is all that relevant to believers. They know they could be wrong in what they belive but they believe it anyway, that's why its called faith not rational reason.
Sentient animals put a face to phenomena - the evolution of the 'god' concept. All anyone has to do is see an animal react to noise or movement in the woods and watch it assume something is there, something invisible to be wary of. Some unusual invisible force that must be respected and scared of, and how easily this assumption can be extrapolated into an all mighty invisible being at the cause of all things unknown by sentient beings. Belief in god is more proof of evolution.
why cant my assumption be, that there is a God who has granted me senses which are at least sometimes are accurate.
Why are you avoiding solipsism, if it is the only world view which does not require unjustified beliefs. Seems like the most rationale view, in accordance with you second axiom.
My belief that you are correct is justified by the cello, because...
Cellos Never Lie!
.
Seriously, I don't know how anyone could disagree with this...
.
"Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water; after enlightenment - chop wood, carry water!" Geometric certainty is not possible outside of trivial tautologies. But good provisional knowledge still beats bad provisional knowledge... and the difference is evidence... and results!
What's the point of epistemology then? It's like paradise for Captain Obvious to me. The issue of cognitive errors is something completely different IMHO
@Evid3nc3 Great series. But let me pose one idea: we do have "innate" knowledge that didnt come from our traditional senses via evidence in our own lives. This knowledge is the information in our genome. We can consider this an historical "sense". The genome could be considered as a form of measuring device (sense)... one that has measured or recorded knowledge from interaction with the "evidence" (matter) of the material world over millennia. Can evidentialism encompass this? I suspect so
Another question. Why do those of us who don't believe in God still shout to the sky in times of immense stress or trouble. I dont necessarily believe in God but my belief in what God is if it were to exist is based more on science and the nature of well nature. If God is everything we see and dont see then isn't it possible that monotheism and polytheism could both be accurate?
@jakejumpover To explain I mean that God is the fabric of everything it makes up what makes up what makes up a quark. Then would it not be accurate that one God makes up everything but when you put different pieces of God together that it would form a different entity? Well both different and the same.
@jakejumpover The main thing is, would someone believe in a god as a philosophical statement, or out of actual fear of eternal damnation after death? If god is so abstract in the sense of being every molecule regardless of religion and its doctrines, why not just understand science instead, which actually has viewable results than try to pin every atom and chemical reaction with the name "God". Its extreme reductionism like that which inhibits understanding the variance of reality.
The evidence for God is that even if the big bang took place. Something had to kick start it. Something created us. Whether you like it or not that's what science dictates. We are also in the process of trying to discover how life formed because even with all necessary molecules recreating the experience is impossible. Another thing where even if everything lines up perfectly a missing outside source is necessary. What are your thoughts on this?
@jakejumpover Something kickstarted the big bang, but there's no evidence it's a "who", just the natural laws of the universe. Reading any more into than that is dishonest until evidence suggests otherwise. And there is no evidence yet.
And we didn't need to be created at all. Our existence is yet another case of the natural laws of the universe.
And since the big bang only describes an expansion event there must've been something already there to expand, right? No god needed.
I liked the video. I'm a little unclear about the nature of your view. Are you claiming, like a traditional internalist foundationalist, that belief in sensory reliability is basic and thus justifies the use of sensory information as evidence, or are you endorsing a kind of externalist view in which the actual reliability of our senses is what turns sensory information into evidence. In other words, would the falsity of assumption 2 make it so sensory information was no longer evidence?
I would love to show these videos in physics class, but it is hard to justify videos on atheism from an academic viewpoint (and a lot of my students are religious, I do not want to influence their young minds).
Your videos are very good. I am tempted to turn them into one single video to be movie like. Would release the video as a movie? Or, if you would let me, should I just do it on my own?
This string of videos is the most un-biased, honest, and beautiful account of a deeply meaningful search for truth that I've seen so far. If you really care about whether your beliefs hold any truth at all, and are a fairly intelligent and reasoning being, the conclusions reached here seem unavoidable and self evident.
48 people believe they have strong evidence that God not only exists but was listening to this video and told Santa Claus that Evid3nc3 is a very very naughty boy.
As I understand from your videos you never believed in Jesus Crist as your saviour. You had no need for Him. Your true god was and is your pride. God does not expect you to be truly selfless, that's impossible for men, but to acnowledge your evil nature and accept the gift of Jesus dying before your sins.
@Jupehe83 On what evidence do you base your beliefs about what god expects, what is impossible for men, mans 'evil nature' or that Jesus dying actually had/has any effect on our supposed 'sins'?
Holy smokes! I have been reasoning in basically the same way, starting with Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum", arguing that all statements after that have to be based on assumptions that may, or may not be true, and that certain assumptions are needed for further, usable conclusions. I thought I was unique in this, and have been thinking of writing a book on it when I've further developed my thoughts! It is a great joy to find these thoughts being spread in the community!
"I think, therefore I am." In Zen meditation, you aim to cease thought. So, is that to say, "I think not, therefore I do not exist"? I think Descartes was seeing the yin without the yang.
@gocrazy432 Yes, that's right. I was pointing out in my comment that this "I think" is an illusion of the ego, and in Zen, the ego is seen for what it is, a mirage, because you are not the ego, but all that there is, and it can be a peaceful revelation.
@Hanahleia I understand what you are saying, but it still does not refute the argument. Even if we accept that the ego is just an illusion, thoughts and experiences still happen inside the mind and this is what is meant by the word "I" in this argument.
@ryan84160 Ah, yes, but these thoughts and experiences aren't what the "I" truly is, they're abstractions, the ego is a collection of these abstractions. Where is the "I"? The "I" is always associated with the body and the body as seen through the microscope is nothing but a play of cells being created and destroyed. The moment you think of Reality, the reality is a concept. You are the Reality of which the split-mind makes a concept. You are the Reality, but not as the "me."
@Hanahleia I agree.I don't believe there is a coherent "self". I think Derek Parfaits book Reasons and Persons deals with this subject very well. I still think the argument stands though. The only thing I can be 100% certain of is that the thing I call my "self" (for lack of a better word) has thoughts and experiences.
@ryan84160 Well, that's why I mentioned Zen. In Zen, the "I" is dissolved and therefore the argument dissolves, then what happens is a transformation of "self" in consciousness. This experience in Zen is called "satori," but it has many names, i.e. samadhi, nirvana, etc. It is always characterized by being an impersonal or transpersonal experience, and isn't always facilely described because it is an experience.
Alan Watts spoke very eloquently about mystical experiences.
@Hanahleia Maybe we should just say the only thing we can know for sure is that consciousness exists. But that begs the question of how we know that consciousness exists. I know that at least one conscious entity exists because "I" have experiences. I don't know of a better word that could be used to communicate this.
@ryan84160 Yes, the topic of consciousness has always interested me. Even if you read into "Philosophy of Mind," it admits that there is nothing written about consciousness that is worth reading. Philosophy of Mind aims to answer such questions as: "Is consciousness distinct from matter?" "What is consciousness?" etc. Have you ever Googled "Cosmic consciousness"? It's a take on what is the mystical experience, what is the "satori" of Zen. Y'ever ran a Google image search for brain cell/universe?
You started talking about divided attention and the likeliness of my mind wandering just as my mind was wandering thinking about what you said just previous to that. My first thought after that was "Are you a friggin' mind reader?" @_@
i think you're wrong about the maths part. 2 + 3 = 5 is not self-evident but it tautological - true by definition. you don't need any physical evidence to prove it because 5 is defined as 2 + 3 (or 1 + 4, or any combination of numbers that has that particular value). and in the same way angles in a triangle add up 180 degrees because a triangle is defined as a shape with angles sum 180 degrees. maths operates within definitions are remains true even in the absence of the physical world.
Awesome stuff. I'm a teacher in both physics and mathematics and I now feel I've barely touched on this level of reasoning. It's quite enlightening, probably the most thought-engaging material I've come across in the past year. Thank you very much for this series.
I enjoyed this entire series, and this was my favorite video in it (3.3.3 part 1 is a very close second place).
The only thing I'd like to point out is that radiation can be moved above the limit of personal experience. Radiated heat from the sun and the effects of sunburns are evidence.
That small point isn't meant in any way to detract from the message you were conveying as a whole.
When anybody makes 2+3=5 and its process any more than what it is, they are truly lost and confused while in the company of abundant knowledge. No need to make a mental mountain out of a mental molehill.
The singularity of mankind will be having more knowledge than we can process alone, causing an overlap and tangling of information ultimately leading to delusion and downfall. Atheists and videos like these are prime examples. The end is nigh.
@kevinrspBelieves Except that this video is correct. 2+3=5 is completely meaningless without things to attribute the function to. He describes why this understanding is important in a more recent video. If there is any "end" to come, it can only be the result of the lack of thought and understanding that people like you represent. The world and our understanding of it is vast and complex, and if we ignore that then we fall into ignorance.
@kevinrspBelieves I take it through your apparent ignorance that you have a minimal understanding of mathematics. The conceptualization of the the number zero alone is a tremendous logical undertaking. In order to represent something, you must also be able to represent nothing, which eventually leads to representing the inverse of something IE negative numbers. 2+3=5 is something you may take for granted but there is so much more to it than just the equation.
@kevinrspBelieves All forms of art (and everything else in existence) are intrinsically tied to mathematics. I understood at 9 years old learning to read music that the phrasing of the notes on paper were representative of simple mathematics. With a greater understanding of physics I learned that even the vibrations of the strings and the subsequent pitch could be represented mathematically. There is no dichotomy to mathematics.
@Trisket Mathematics is a means, not an end. I can and do understand the mathematics of art, but who cares? Robots will and can identify and achieve digital art, but nobody cares because it comes from nowhere, it means nothing.
Tell me to eat a pile of flour, sugar, cocoa, eggs, oil and water and I'll reject you. Give me a cake and you'll make me smile. You have much to learn.
I'll spend my life living with joy, you waste your time being suspicious.
@kevinrspBelieves Your cake analogy falls apart immediately (along with most of what you said) once you understand that in order to create a cake from its base ingredients, chemical reactions must occur, which are themselves represented mathematically. Mathematics expresses, demonstrates and provides the "end" as you put it, without it we'd have virtually no understanding of the complex world around us. "you waste your time being suspicious." I'd describe it as inquisitive.
@Trisket I think we're not on the same page, let me try to break down the point I'm trying to make.
Mathematics is a means, NOT an end. We use math (means) to achieve the skyscraper we want (end). If you think math can be applied to and explain the ends of all things then tell me...
What is the mathematics of love, the end we all desire?
@kevinrspBelieves Love is emotional response triggered by chemical reactions in the brain, which are represented mathematically; ingest C11-H15-NO2 and you'll love everybody and everything. You demonstrated some decent prose with that question, but it (the question) was still on a high school level.
@Trisket I'm not concerned with intellectual level per se, but the content being discussed.
If you're referring to ecstasy and it's more potent types, that's an outside influence as a drug alters the state of one's natural being, thereby reducing your claim of what love is to nothing more than another unprovable theory. If your ecstasy caused me to love Satan, Hitler or Evil itself, it would be nothing more than producing a lie, which we call delusion, as it would not be true.
@kevinrspBelieves Some would describe love in every sense a delusion unto itself. Ecstasy merely causes the brain to fire off the same chemicals that are released when you feel euphoria and love. The question you should be asking is: If the chemicals that make up the emotion are natural, but the catalyst is artificial, and your body is incapable of differentiating the two, is the emotion felt any less real?
This whole series is one of the most well thought out, well communicated, most meaningful things I have seen in... well, a long time. You have a beautifully analytical, honest mind. I've never believed in anything really, outside of the physical, so I've never had to confront some of the monumental things that you have, but the way you speak about it - I just feel like I understand so much more now than I have before. Even knowing I wasn't the target audience, thank you so much for these videos.
Attention viewers!! Evid3nc3 is an evangelical atheist trying to convert Christians and other religious people to atheism. Looks like he got his prostelytizing skills from whatever he was before (I think he said Pentecostal). He is no different from the evangelical fundamentalists who try and convert people to whatever. He should go out and build his own atheist megachurch like the evangelicals to pull in bunch of cash for himself. And his long video series wasn't convincing at all.
@magnus56j =O OMG thanks for warning us! What is atheism? When do they meet for church? What are their tenets? Do I have to accept any doctrines/teachings/dogma? Please enlighten me so I don't fall victim to a person expressing their point of view and how they got there.
@TheRavensGhost Lol! I wasn't warning anyone. Just watching this whole series made it look like he was prostelytizing and like he was actually going to convince theists (unless they are evangelical fundamentalists) that God doesn't exist. Someone who is not shackled in a cave and sees the light is not going to go back and be shackled again. This is why I don't prostelytize. Trying to explain colors to a person blink at birth is madness to them. One needs to experience it.
@TheRavensGhost *blind at birth. And to be a bit more clear, I think of atheists and evangelical fundamentalists as the people shackled in a cave in Plato's Allegory of the Cave. They can only see shadows and not what really is. They have no true experience. If you don't experience God, it makes it almost impossible to believe in God. That's why I think prostelyizing is pointless, since it is only experience that will make someone believe.
BTW, before anyone begins to even entertain the idea that the Luciferians may have been "on to something" which they were teaching the general public, consider that among their other teachings was that Osiris was the Sun as it descended into the underworld every night, with the new Horus Sun rising in the morning. This was their explanation of the daily rotation of the Earth. obviously, they, having invented the story, did not actually believe it, but used it to deceive and enslave the populous.
"And none of this has to do with the evolution of different genders of a same species...." Yes, it seems far easier to admit than the professed notion of independently evolution of very similar morphology.
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9: What on Earth are you talking about? I have no problem with convergent evolution. I think convergent evolution clearly happens. I think convergent evolution is the only thing that can happen when different organisms are under similar selection regimes.
And convergent evolution has nothing to do with the evolution of gender dimorphism. They are two completely different processes. I have explained why. Care to address that explanation sometime?
@arkalen29 You think that the same internal and external structures (which is what I have read, as opposed to their being superficial as you claim) are an unavoidable development, as opposed to being tremendously unlikely? What about those animals which are supposedly descended from an animal which had a certain trait that they share, but with a great number of intermediary ancestors which didn't have the trait?
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9: wow, another change in subject ! Depends on the structure. When I talk about "superficial" it isn't about internal vs external although there can be that; it's about functional aspects vs deep structure, development and underlying genetics.
So, which traits are you thinking of here that you think couldn't have evolved convergently ? And which animals are you thinking of that share a trait with an ancestor that a bunch of intermediates didn't ?
@arkalen29 I just said that they are genetically different. That was the whole point: that they chose to mate with those who were genetically unrelated but morphologically very similar, as opposed to mating with those who are somewhat less morphologically similar but closely related to them genetically.
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 : and I fail to see what that point has to do with the evolution of gender dimorphism. (or with convergent evolution itself; as I said, what an animal will mate with has less to do with the morphological similarities involved and more to do with how indiscriminate that particular species' mating habits are. Any specific species you're thinking of here anyway? It might clarify things)
@arkalen29 "what an animal will mate with has less to do with the morphological similarities involved and more to do with how indiscriminate that particular species' mating habits are." Then why is it that they will more readily mate with animals which are morphologically very much like themselves, while spurning those to whom they are genetically related?
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 : Again, how should I know unless you tell me which animals you're talking about? That animals vary widely in their mating habits and discrimination means I don't know why the specific animals you're thinking of prefer a convergent species to their own. If you told me which animals we're talking about I could look it up. I'd love to; they sound interesting.
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 : Cool. Well, I haven't been able to find out what Hugh Ross in particular says about them, but looking them up it appears they all speciated very recently (so they're ALL closely genetically related, different species or no), they have a very high morphological diversity, and they colonized several different lakes at different times.
Insofar as the lakes are all similar I'd expect many of those new fish species to evolve in a similar direction independently(...
And since they're so plastic morphologically I'd expect their morphological adaptations to their niches to be quite precise, so two species adapted to the same niche in different lakes would be morphologically similar indeed while two species exploiting different niches in the same lake would be morphologically different.
As for mating, I haven't been able to find out but I'll take your word for it that they choose their mates on the basis of morphology (unlike cichlid fish, who (...)
... have complex mating rituals). In that case it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't mate with morphologically different species, but would get fooled by a morphologically similar species that they never encounter naturally because it's from a different lake.
If you had two different species that were morphologically identical in the same lake I bet they'd develop some reproductive markers right quick, like mating rituals or (since it seems to be how sticklebacks roll) different morphology.
...organisms so morphologically similar that they prefer to mate with each other than with those to which they are genetically related, stating that genders of one species can do the same seems like a cake walk.
"Of course there is a slight difference between the evolution of two non-interbreeding species and the two genders of a same species. I wonder if you can figure out what it is? Hint: it relates to gene flow." Would you stop with this pseudo-pedagogical attempted condescension? I didn't say they were the same thing. In fact, the point was that when one can state with a straight face that he/she believes that the same traits have evolved who knows how many times, even independently producing...
...evolved independently. Even when there are multiple different genetically related types with morphological differences between the types from one region, but with analogous morphological types from a different region, the genetically related are rejected for mating in favor of the morphologically similar, and yet, it is claimed that they simply evolved independently.
And the only response I remember to my two suggested ways that this "bump" would fail to produce a penis was you simply stating that they didn't matter. To refresh your memory, the first was that the inbreeding necessary to cause this "bump" to be maintained would result in genetic deformities which would nullify the advantage completely. The second was that if those with the "bump" bred with enough mates not to be severely genetically deformed, then the "bump" would never predominate,...
@arkalen29 "that's really not how genes work." So how is it that it can be said that whales once had legs? And plase don't dodge this or waste time by being pedantic enough to point out that it is not said of modern whales. " The separation of genders happened in the first eukaryotes, so all evolutionary change in multicellular organisms happened after the separation of genders." So you are saying that somehow males shared their newly acquired penis genetics with females to form the clitoris?
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9: The first: why would inbreeding be necessary to cause this "bump"? And the second: why would breeding with many mates mean the "bump" would never predominate? It's quite the opposite actually. The only reason one would think breeding with many individuals "dilutes" a trait is if inheritance is blended, which we've known isn't the case since Mendel.
BTW, the normative clitoris is approximately four inches long, in spite of the fact that only a small portion is externally visible. Its two "legs" travel downward around the sides of the vagina from the shaft portion above the vagina.
....developed after gender separation from a "bump" which gave an advantage? To clarify, the clitoris has a semblance of a shaft, it has a semblance of a head, and it has a urethra which terminates at the end of it, though technically it is said that the urethra ends between the clitoris and vagina.
How can i exist, where i am , where i think this things, where does come my starting from?
everything starts ænd.Yes we are restricted, because Allah wants it.We are in an exam with using, our pencil,eraser,paper.These tools in our exam is eye ,ears, and other feeling parts.
@KeySour Can you explain that how can Kuran knows the things that will happen in the future.İf you are really curious person, you might be searching for what is the true or what was the answer of your question(s).Please search one time.Thank you,good bye
I have not watched the video, my friend sent me the link, but being a catholic, I am going to assume that it is wrong. Also I am not stupid. I believe in evolution and anyone that believes dinosaurs lived along side with man is just being ignorant. A;so just to make people mad, hahahahahahaha we are the majority. In God we trust is on are money and God is in are pledge of allegiance. Also if a atheist every ran for President they would probably lose hahaha.
@chans686 When are you going to restart the Inquisition? Since you are the majority, I mean, you could just start burning atheists alive again. And those damn witches too.
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
This guy took the hard way to becoming an atheist! I feel like I took the easy way and just felt there was no need for a god so I stopped believing. But this guy is in inspiration to all atheists and to all people that completely want to seek the truth.
@islamconstitution sounds like you're more interested in politics than philosophy.
This isn't about pride, I'm asking you to explain how you have this justification and knowledge. Is it part of your beliefs? If you have the answer, why don't you share it?
no actually.. it sounds like you dont know what politics is to and what philosophy is to it.
you should take a look at the Quran's justification style.. although its not just in there.. the very idea of pascals wager in a sense is about that as well..
that's on religion..
but generally speaking? why do you think you choose to trust your eyes?
doesn't it atleast marginally ENOUGH keep harm away and gets you by?
@islamconstitution What does being a westerner and pride have to do with philosophy?
You don't need to be so rude.
Pascal's wager is flawed because you must assume your position is true before it can be compared. It's circular reasoning in disguise. Are circular reasoning and paradoxes acceptable to you?
What does trusting my eyes have to do with this. This is about identifying all the premises and hidden premises. Are you saying Islam is more practical?
.. your getting confused i can tell! im not trying to be rude! just sip on a cup of tea and re-read what i wrote.. youll get it.. IM PROUD of being a westerner part because WE came up along our history with verbalizing the idea of pragmatism. im just trying to tell you shame on you and indeed the vid guy for even addressing this old question when we HAVE ITS ANSWER. i didnt say anything about pascals wager.. i just said it reflects the idea.. practicality triumphs reason.
@islamconstitution You're still just repeating yourself, and now it's in all caps.
You just appear to be satisfied with your beliefs, very arrogant and obnoxious about it, and you're still not showing any reason why anyone else should adopt your views. It's not very convincing to me, and if you're happy with that, then fine, be on your way.
If you want to say islam is the most practical, you should show why.
I don't know what it has to do with anything. I'm making an effort to understand.
i caped what i wanted to emphasise and highlight. i was not trying to be arrogant or obnoxious. if that just how you are going to turn the argument. after being very simple q and a. i dont know whats your problem. you dont find it convincing fine! just say that and thats it! why all the digress? and if your real question stems from you raising a brow when i mentioned my islamic background in a comment, then just say so and redirect the conversation there.
" WE came up along our history with verbalizing the idea of pragmatism. im just trying to tell you shame on you and indeed the vid guy for even addressing this old question when WE have its answer."..
and i wasnt talking about islam to even go into why its practical! you see why i said you are just confusing things together? i just talked about a simple responce to a simple question of what are we really justified to believe.. and my answer is that practicality is the answer not the need to have a well justified logic based reason.
and about the eyes thing.. practicality.. its about that its already a given natural to BELIEVE your eyes.. because MARGINALLY ENOUGH its PRACTICAL AND FRUITFUL ENOUGH. to JUSTIFY BELIEVING IT. and yeah.. i would say Islam is much more practical than any other system untill now.. now what does THAT have to do with anything :-) ?
@lilchris4444 why wouldn't it? You can question that you're dreaming when you're dreaming, and that's a simulation on its own. We just usually don't realize since we forget how inconsistent it is.
2+3 might not equal to 5 because there might be hidden rounded numbers. What if it was actually 2.5+3.5, it might equal to 6, because when we round, it will be less accurate.
@Raymond0412Tube In science, they use significant figures to represent precision. If something is measured to in between 2 and 3 mm on a scale that has no smaller ticks and another between 3 and 4 mm, they would have to round it to 2.5 and 3.5, respectively. Then the sum will be 6.0 + or - 1.0 because the last digit was a guess.
Recording the false precision of 2.0 and 3.0 mm would give you a less accurate sum.
@Raymond0412Tube think im right in saying that 2 and three dont exist. they are just a way of signifying a general amount of something.(a concept for convenience in communication rather an accurate description) i.e. a finer scale will produce a better measurement of something etc. until current technology limits how far that can go. so, aloutgh its mega useful to use figures like two and three in everyday life - in terms of looking for an absolute truth they dont make any sense.
@Raymond0412Tube I said the last digit is assumed to be estimated, so with sig. fig., "2" and "3" are so imprecise that the sum of "5" may be inaccurate. If one had a scale with only cm and not mm for some reason, one would have to estimate that it is 0.2 or 0.3 cm aka 2 mm and 3 mm and that may actually sum to 6 mm
Also, hidden rounded numbers make no sense when counting discrete values such as pebbles. If you break a rock in half, do you have two 0.5 rocks or just two rocks?
You have also misunderstood the texts of Ha Tanach (the Jewish Bible AKA Old Testament). Judaism was never polytheistic. Some individual Jews might have been but not Judaism as a whole.
YouTube user AskAMathmatician addressed why using evidence to prove mathematics is not reliable. The video is titled How do we know that 1+1=2? A journey into the foundations of math. Part 1 of 3.
Evidence of atheism? If atheism is the belief in the lack of God, or or any jigger power, wouldn't that belief require sufficient proof to conclude that everything could be made by itself?
@rc100692 No... I don't have to know who built my car to disbelieve the proposition that it was built by a blind crazy person. The situation is even worse if you want to assert that a God made the universe, because the universe has no obvious purpose and cannot be said to be artificial. Where a car is obviously meant to get a person from one point to the next, and has no natural potential to exists. We have no frame of reference for where universes come from. So, no "proof" required.
@rc100692 Wow, someone commented without watching the video! LMAO Love when u guys do that though it shows a fear to look at the othersides views without already having a judgement before hand on it. Otherwise y wouldn't u watch the video & comment after. Its not evidence of atheism its how he could not justify his theistic beliefs because they possessed no evidence. So if that is the case the default possition is atheism. Athiesm is not a belief system, nonsmoking is not a bad habit.
Atheism is "the lack of a belief in a God", not "belief in the lack of a God." I assume you do not believe in Vishnu or Ra, you are an atheist when it comes to nonbelief in those Gods. I also assume you don't believe in dragons, fairies, or vampires; however, some people do believe in dragons, fairies, and vampires. Should a person spend all their time disproving every batshit crazy theory presented to them or is it more reasonable to say "come back when you have evidence?"
You are asking about the beginning of matter (if matter had a beginning). My answer is - I don't know. It is an honest answer. It's also O.K. to not know everything. That doesn't mean I'm not looking for answers, but when someone says, "God done did it!" that is a non-answer. That person has given up and took the easy way out. How do rainbows work? We don't say, "God done did it" because we worked on the problem and came to a real answer.
R.I.P. Christopher Hitchens, a courageous man whom I believe to have been honest, and willing to speak from the truth of his perspective with no fear of the consequences. I believe that he has a pleasant eternity ahead of him, notwithstanding his disbelief therein.
...actually serve to strengthen the notion that the scientific community is, for whatever reason, working on behalf of the Luciferians. Such statements also serve as evidence in favor of my observation that evolution confirms the Luciferian/gnostic myths as to the rise of mankind, with my implying that this seems unlikely to be a coincidence.
It was apparently claimed, until recently, that there is a four to five percent genetic distinction between humans and neanderthals, Now, it is stated that they are, in fact, the same species. This does not lend toward my attributing credibility or honesty to the scientific community. Michio Kaku's comments on a unified world system, etc., in which he, hopefully unintentionally, categorized dissenters against such a system as terrorists, are also problematic in that regard. Such comments...
The response to this will, undoubtedly, be something along the lines of "You can't expect to be taken seriously if you cannot provide proof or even evidence of _____." Let's extrapolate this logic to pain. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to provide empirical evidence of pain. It would be infuriating to be told that because you cannot do so, that you cannot be taken seriously when you are, and claim to be, experiencing excruciating pain.
Due to Youtube's new layout and your multiple comments being scrambled and my responces absert, on top of my current situation of little sleep and little time to sleep in the next set of 4 days: unless you summarize your comments and send me a PM to be responded to when I am no longer in a work/sleep shift then I can't respond to 6 messages about 6 thing s which are responding to comments which I can't find...cogently or enjoyably.
...Reality does not depend upon a consensus. What is is, regardless of whether it can be demonstrated or not. Many of you give the impression that you would stop and attempt to penalize someone walking down the street due to the fact that they are not hopping and are nowhere near the hop scotch markings.
Descartes, realizing the matrix before it was even a concept. lol?
LazyOtaku 4 days ago
All you have done in all your videos is quote Atheist philosophers and scholars after you were inspired by a Professor who it seems you were also inspired by, becoming him in the process, so all you have done is substitute his beliefs as your own and tricked yourself into believing that you arrived at this decision by your choice when the fact of the matter is you were just indoctrinated, much in the same way you were your entire life only now instead of Christianity its Atheism.
MrJeffFort 6 days ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@MrJeffFort And yet, somehow, you're so much better. Lol..
LazyOtaku 4 days ago
@MrJeffFort Indoctrination is the practice of inducing people to uncritically accept certain ideas.
I don't see anything in this series which would qualify as such.
The thinkers in question aren’t being uncritically accepted as authorities, rather they are presented to illustrate their reasoned arguments and the serious scholarly research they present concerning these subjects.
Being convinced by argumentation and evidence is very different from indoctrination.
TheHabbadasher 2 days ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
But belief in God is just based on faith so not much of this is all that relevant to believers. They know they could be wrong in what they belive but they believe it anyway, that's why its called faith not rational reason.
Enzo012 6 days ago
Logic makes my brain happy.
TheMagicRobot 1 week ago
Great video!
bayanimills 1 week ago
Sentient animals put a face to phenomena - the evolution of the 'god' concept. All anyone has to do is see an animal react to noise or movement in the woods and watch it assume something is there, something invisible to be wary of. Some unusual invisible force that must be respected and scared of, and how easily this assumption can be extrapolated into an all mighty invisible being at the cause of all things unknown by sentient beings. Belief in god is more proof of evolution.
RealityDistirbutor 1 week ago
That NLP part at the begining must have helped a lot of people reconsider their beliefs XD
Punkekito123 1 week ago
May I ask why you believe the 'Barn Owl' is among the bizarre of the owl species?
FreedomAndEducation 1 week ago
You're all in my mind!
vjott 1 week ago
why cant my assumption be, that there is a God who has granted me senses which are at least sometimes are accurate.
Why are you avoiding solipsism, if it is the only world view which does not require unjustified beliefs. Seems like the most rationale view, in accordance with you second axiom.
MegaExelo 2 weeks ago
@MegaExelo your assumption cant be that because the belief that ther is a god is an unjustified belief
Punkekito123 1 week ago
My belief that you are correct is justified by the cello, because...
Cellos Never Lie!
.
Seriously, I don't know how anyone could disagree with this...
.
"Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water; after enlightenment - chop wood, carry water!" Geometric certainty is not possible outside of trivial tautologies. But good provisional knowledge still beats bad provisional knowledge... and the difference is evidence... and results!
ThePeaceableKingdom 2 weeks ago
What's the point of epistemology then? It's like paradise for Captain Obvious to me. The issue of cognitive errors is something completely different IMHO
r0galik 3 weeks ago
@Evid3nc3 Great series. But let me pose one idea: we do have "innate" knowledge that didnt come from our traditional senses via evidence in our own lives. This knowledge is the information in our genome. We can consider this an historical "sense". The genome could be considered as a form of measuring device (sense)... one that has measured or recorded knowledge from interaction with the "evidence" (matter) of the material world over millennia. Can evidentialism encompass this? I suspect so
jtu100 3 weeks ago
Another question. Why do those of us who don't believe in God still shout to the sky in times of immense stress or trouble. I dont necessarily believe in God but my belief in what God is if it were to exist is based more on science and the nature of well nature. If God is everything we see and dont see then isn't it possible that monotheism and polytheism could both be accurate?
jakejumpover 4 weeks ago
@jakejumpover To explain I mean that God is the fabric of everything it makes up what makes up what makes up a quark. Then would it not be accurate that one God makes up everything but when you put different pieces of God together that it would form a different entity? Well both different and the same.
jakejumpover 4 weeks ago
@jakejumpover The main thing is, would someone believe in a god as a philosophical statement, or out of actual fear of eternal damnation after death? If god is so abstract in the sense of being every molecule regardless of religion and its doctrines, why not just understand science instead, which actually has viewable results than try to pin every atom and chemical reaction with the name "God". Its extreme reductionism like that which inhibits understanding the variance of reality.
SH0CK3I2 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
SH0CK3I2 3 weeks ago
The evidence for God is that even if the big bang took place. Something had to kick start it. Something created us. Whether you like it or not that's what science dictates. We are also in the process of trying to discover how life formed because even with all necessary molecules recreating the experience is impossible. Another thing where even if everything lines up perfectly a missing outside source is necessary. What are your thoughts on this?
jakejumpover 4 weeks ago
@jakejumpover Something kickstarted the big bang, but there's no evidence it's a "who", just the natural laws of the universe. Reading any more into than that is dishonest until evidence suggests otherwise. And there is no evidence yet.
And we didn't need to be created at all. Our existence is yet another case of the natural laws of the universe.
And since the big bang only describes an expansion event there must've been something already there to expand, right? No god needed.
gvman3670 3 weeks ago
@jakejumpover It raises the great question: What is God?
PointlessSteel 3 weeks ago
I liked the video. I'm a little unclear about the nature of your view. Are you claiming, like a traditional internalist foundationalist, that belief in sensory reliability is basic and thus justifies the use of sensory information as evidence, or are you endorsing a kind of externalist view in which the actual reliability of our senses is what turns sensory information into evidence. In other words, would the falsity of assumption 2 make it so sensory information was no longer evidence?
dieutombe 1 month ago
I would love to show these videos in physics class, but it is hard to justify videos on atheism from an academic viewpoint (and a lot of my students are religious, I do not want to influence their young minds).
Madarabster 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
Excellent movies.
confrontig 1 month ago
Your videos are very good. I am tempted to turn them into one single video to be movie like. Would release the video as a movie? Or, if you would let me, should I just do it on my own?
gocrazy432 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
I love the thoroughness of these videos! Rock on!!!!
SuperMemzzz 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Evid3nc3
This string of videos is the most un-biased, honest, and beautiful account of a deeply meaningful search for truth that I've seen so far. If you really care about whether your beliefs hold any truth at all, and are a fairly intelligent and reasoning being, the conclusions reached here seem unavoidable and self evident.
leighalison1983 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian 5
This is an amazingly well-made video.
MrCattlehunter 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
subbed :)
Layla5915 1 month ago
48 people believe they have strong evidence that God not only exists but was listening to this video and told Santa Claus that Evid3nc3 is a very very naughty boy.
PadawanRJ 1 month ago
these Videos are helpling me figure out were my believes lie. I thank you.
gooders1002 1 month ago
As I understand from your videos you never believed in Jesus Crist as your saviour. You had no need for Him. Your true god was and is your pride. God does not expect you to be truly selfless, that's impossible for men, but to acnowledge your evil nature and accept the gift of Jesus dying before your sins.
Jupehe83 1 month ago
@Jupehe83 This is a version of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago 3
@Jupehe83 A great example of how our culture shames intellectualism and rationalism.
RosaAquafire 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@Jupehe83 Did you watch the first video in the series?
kevinscales 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Evid3nc3
@Jupehe83 On what evidence do you base your beliefs about what god expects, what is impossible for men, mans 'evil nature' or that Jesus dying actually had/has any effect on our supposed 'sins'?
kevinscales 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Evid3nc3
0:25 ... Hammer Time!
perspectivedetective 1 month ago
Holy smokes! I have been reasoning in basically the same way, starting with Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum", arguing that all statements after that have to be based on assumptions that may, or may not be true, and that certain assumptions are needed for further, usable conclusions. I thought I was unique in this, and have been thinking of writing a book on it when I've further developed my thoughts! It is a great joy to find these thoughts being spread in the community!
TheCpaptain 1 month ago
"I think, therefore I am." In Zen meditation, you aim to cease thought. So, is that to say, "I think not, therefore I do not exist"? I think Descartes was seeing the yin without the yang.
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia I see it more as I think not therefore i see all or am at peace
gocrazy432 1 month ago
@gocrazy432 Yes, that's right. I was pointing out in my comment that this "I think" is an illusion of the ego, and in Zen, the ego is seen for what it is, a mirage, because you are not the ego, but all that there is, and it can be a peaceful revelation.
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia I understand what you are saying, but it still does not refute the argument. Even if we accept that the ego is just an illusion, thoughts and experiences still happen inside the mind and this is what is meant by the word "I" in this argument.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 Ah, yes, but these thoughts and experiences aren't what the "I" truly is, they're abstractions, the ego is a collection of these abstractions. Where is the "I"? The "I" is always associated with the body and the body as seen through the microscope is nothing but a play of cells being created and destroyed. The moment you think of Reality, the reality is a concept. You are the Reality of which the split-mind makes a concept. You are the Reality, but not as the "me."
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia I agree.I don't believe there is a coherent "self". I think Derek Parfaits book Reasons and Persons deals with this subject very well. I still think the argument stands though. The only thing I can be 100% certain of is that the thing I call my "self" (for lack of a better word) has thoughts and experiences.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 Well, that's why I mentioned Zen. In Zen, the "I" is dissolved and therefore the argument dissolves, then what happens is a transformation of "self" in consciousness. This experience in Zen is called "satori," but it has many names, i.e. samadhi, nirvana, etc. It is always characterized by being an impersonal or transpersonal experience, and isn't always facilely described because it is an experience.
Alan Watts spoke very eloquently about mystical experiences.
/watch?v=6qSCaxaUyf8
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia Maybe we should just say the only thing we can know for sure is that consciousness exists. But that begs the question of how we know that consciousness exists. I know that at least one conscious entity exists because "I" have experiences. I don't know of a better word that could be used to communicate this.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@ryan84160 Yes, the topic of consciousness has always interested me. Even if you read into "Philosophy of Mind," it admits that there is nothing written about consciousness that is worth reading. Philosophy of Mind aims to answer such questions as: "Is consciousness distinct from matter?" "What is consciousness?" etc. Have you ever Googled "Cosmic consciousness"? It's a take on what is the mystical experience, what is the "satori" of Zen. Y'ever ran a Google image search for brain cell/universe?
Hanahleia 1 month ago
I much prefer Mr. Ed's philosophy to Rene's... you can't put Descartes before the horse.
triftenC 1 month ago
You started talking about divided attention and the likeliness of my mind wandering just as my mind was wandering thinking about what you said just previous to that. My first thought after that was "Are you a friggin' mind reader?" @_@
kamikazekent777 1 month ago
i think you're wrong about the maths part. 2 + 3 = 5 is not self-evident but it tautological - true by definition. you don't need any physical evidence to prove it because 5 is defined as 2 + 3 (or 1 + 4, or any combination of numbers that has that particular value). and in the same way angles in a triangle add up 180 degrees because a triangle is defined as a shape with angles sum 180 degrees. maths operates within definitions are remains true even in the absence of the physical world.
JJGMTS 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Awesome stuff. I'm a teacher in both physics and mathematics and I now feel I've barely touched on this level of reasoning. It's quite enlightening, probably the most thought-engaging material I've come across in the past year. Thank you very much for this series.
SirGoP2 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
Comment removed
SirGoP2 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
This has been flagged as spam show
I enjoyed this entire series, and this was my favorite video in it (3.3.3 part 1 is a very close second place).
The only thing I'd like to point out is that radiation can be moved above the limit of personal experience. Radiated heat from the sun and the effects of sunburns are evidence.
That small point isn't meant in any way to detract from the message you were conveying as a whole.
deicidaltendancies 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
Comment removed
deicidaltendancies 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
I love all of your videos. You have the best visuals I have ever seen. Please keep making them.
yashaouchan 1 month ago 55
When anybody makes 2+3=5 and its process any more than what it is, they are truly lost and confused while in the company of abundant knowledge. No need to make a mental mountain out of a mental molehill.
The singularity of mankind will be having more knowledge than we can process alone, causing an overlap and tangling of information ultimately leading to delusion and downfall. Atheists and videos like these are prime examples. The end is nigh.
kevinrspBelieves 1 month ago
@kevinrspBelieves Except that this video is correct. 2+3=5 is completely meaningless without things to attribute the function to. He describes why this understanding is important in a more recent video. If there is any "end" to come, it can only be the result of the lack of thought and understanding that people like you represent. The world and our understanding of it is vast and complex, and if we ignore that then we fall into ignorance.
genobahamut1337 1 month ago
@kevinrspBelieves I take it through your apparent ignorance that you have a minimal understanding of mathematics. The conceptualization of the the number zero alone is a tremendous logical undertaking. In order to represent something, you must also be able to represent nothing, which eventually leads to representing the inverse of something IE negative numbers. 2+3=5 is something you may take for granted but there is so much more to it than just the equation.
Trisket 1 month ago
@Trisket You be the robot, I'll be the artist. Other than that, thank you for your comment, I respect your opinion.
kevinrspBelieves 1 month ago
@kevinrspBelieves All forms of art (and everything else in existence) are intrinsically tied to mathematics. I understood at 9 years old learning to read music that the phrasing of the notes on paper were representative of simple mathematics. With a greater understanding of physics I learned that even the vibrations of the strings and the subsequent pitch could be represented mathematically. There is no dichotomy to mathematics.
Trisket 1 month ago
@Trisket Mathematics is a means, not an end. I can and do understand the mathematics of art, but who cares? Robots will and can identify and achieve digital art, but nobody cares because it comes from nowhere, it means nothing.
Tell me to eat a pile of flour, sugar, cocoa, eggs, oil and water and I'll reject you. Give me a cake and you'll make me smile. You have much to learn.
I'll spend my life living with joy, you waste your time being suspicious.
kevinrspBelieves 1 month ago
@kevinrspBelieves Your cake analogy falls apart immediately (along with most of what you said) once you understand that in order to create a cake from its base ingredients, chemical reactions must occur, which are themselves represented mathematically. Mathematics expresses, demonstrates and provides the "end" as you put it, without it we'd have virtually no understanding of the complex world around us. "you waste your time being suspicious." I'd describe it as inquisitive.
Trisket 1 month ago
@Trisket I think we're not on the same page, let me try to break down the point I'm trying to make.
Mathematics is a means, NOT an end. We use math (means) to achieve the skyscraper we want (end). If you think math can be applied to and explain the ends of all things then tell me...
What is the mathematics of love, the end we all desire?
kevinrspBelieves 1 month ago
@kevinrspBelieves Love is emotional response triggered by chemical reactions in the brain, which are represented mathematically; ingest C11-H15-NO2 and you'll love everybody and everything. You demonstrated some decent prose with that question, but it (the question) was still on a high school level.
Trisket 1 month ago
Comment removed
kevinrspBelieves 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trisket I'm not concerned with intellectual level per se, but the content being discussed.
If you're referring to ecstasy and it's more potent types, that's an outside influence as a drug alters the state of one's natural being, thereby reducing your claim of what love is to nothing more than another unprovable theory. If your ecstasy caused me to love Satan, Hitler or Evil itself, it would be nothing more than producing a lie, which we call delusion, as it would not be true.
kevinrspBelieves 1 month ago
@kevinrspBelieves Some would describe love in every sense a delusion unto itself. Ecstasy merely causes the brain to fire off the same chemicals that are released when you feel euphoria and love. The question you should be asking is: If the chemicals that make up the emotion are natural, but the catalyst is artificial, and your body is incapable of differentiating the two, is the emotion felt any less real?
Trisket 1 month ago
@Trisket I deleted the previous comment because of a typo. Fixed it and re-posted it.
kevinrspBelieves 1 month ago
I haven't read Descartes, but based on his ideas presented here, I'm starting to think he was a bit of a dumbass.
tml4873 1 month ago
This whole series is one of the most well thought out, well communicated, most meaningful things I have seen in... well, a long time. You have a beautifully analytical, honest mind. I've never believed in anything really, outside of the physical, so I've never had to confront some of the monumental things that you have, but the way you speak about it - I just feel like I understand so much more now than I have before. Even knowing I wasn't the target audience, thank you so much for these videos.
nonexistantpup 1 month ago 104
@nonexistantpup my sentiments exactly!!!
SuperMemzzz 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Evid3nc3
Attention viewers!! Evid3nc3 is an evangelical atheist trying to convert Christians and other religious people to atheism. Looks like he got his prostelytizing skills from whatever he was before (I think he said Pentecostal). He is no different from the evangelical fundamentalists who try and convert people to whatever. He should go out and build his own atheist megachurch like the evangelicals to pull in bunch of cash for himself. And his long video series wasn't convincing at all.
magnus56j 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@magnus56j =O OMG thanks for warning us! What is atheism? When do they meet for church? What are their tenets? Do I have to accept any doctrines/teachings/dogma? Please enlighten me so I don't fall victim to a person expressing their point of view and how they got there.
TheRavensGhost 1 month ago in playlist Presuppositional Apologetics 2
@TheRavensGhost Lol! I wasn't warning anyone. Just watching this whole series made it look like he was prostelytizing and like he was actually going to convince theists (unless they are evangelical fundamentalists) that God doesn't exist. Someone who is not shackled in a cave and sees the light is not going to go back and be shackled again. This is why I don't prostelytize. Trying to explain colors to a person blink at birth is madness to them. One needs to experience it.
magnus56j 1 month ago
@TheRavensGhost *blind at birth. And to be a bit more clear, I think of atheists and evangelical fundamentalists as the people shackled in a cave in Plato's Allegory of the Cave. They can only see shadows and not what really is. They have no true experience. If you don't experience God, it makes it almost impossible to believe in God. That's why I think prostelyizing is pointless, since it is only experience that will make someone believe.
magnus56j 1 month ago
I never thought about "self-evident" concepts also being experiential. Interesting...
riahmatic 1 month ago
BTW, before anyone begins to even entertain the idea that the Luciferians may have been "on to something" which they were teaching the general public, consider that among their other teachings was that Osiris was the Sun as it descended into the underworld every night, with the new Horus Sun rising in the morning. This was their explanation of the daily rotation of the Earth. obviously, they, having invented the story, did not actually believe it, but used it to deceive and enslave the populous.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
...conveniently corroborate what the Luciferians have been teaching for millenia.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
"And none of this has to do with the evolution of different genders of a same species...." Yes, it seems far easier to admit than the professed notion of independently evolution of very similar morphology.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9: What on Earth are you talking about? I have no problem with convergent evolution. I think convergent evolution clearly happens. I think convergent evolution is the only thing that can happen when different organisms are under similar selection regimes.
And convergent evolution has nothing to do with the evolution of gender dimorphism. They are two completely different processes. I have explained why. Care to address that explanation sometime?
arkalen29 1 month ago
@arkalen29 You think that the same internal and external structures (which is what I have read, as opposed to their being superficial as you claim) are an unavoidable development, as opposed to being tremendously unlikely? What about those animals which are supposedly descended from an animal which had a certain trait that they share, but with a great number of intermediary ancestors which didn't have the trait?
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9: wow, another change in subject ! Depends on the structure. When I talk about "superficial" it isn't about internal vs external although there can be that; it's about functional aspects vs deep structure, development and underlying genetics.
So, which traits are you thinking of here that you think couldn't have evolved convergently ? And which animals are you thinking of that share a trait with an ancestor that a bunch of intermediates didn't ?
arkalen29 1 month ago
@arkalen29 I just said that they are genetically different. That was the whole point: that they chose to mate with those who were genetically unrelated but morphologically very similar, as opposed to mating with those who are somewhat less morphologically similar but closely related to them genetically.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 : and I fail to see what that point has to do with the evolution of gender dimorphism. (or with convergent evolution itself; as I said, what an animal will mate with has less to do with the morphological similarities involved and more to do with how indiscriminate that particular species' mating habits are. Any specific species you're thinking of here anyway? It might clarify things)
arkalen29 1 month ago
@arkalen29 "what an animal will mate with has less to do with the morphological similarities involved and more to do with how indiscriminate that particular species' mating habits are." Then why is it that they will more readily mate with animals which are morphologically very much like themselves, while spurning those to whom they are genetically related?
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 : Again, how should I know unless you tell me which animals you're talking about? That animals vary widely in their mating habits and discrimination means I don't know why the specific animals you're thinking of prefer a convergent species to their own. If you told me which animals we're talking about I could look it up. I'd love to; they sound interesting.
arkalen29 1 month ago
@arkalen29 The example mentioned on the Hugh Ross website is the British Columbia stickleback.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 : Cool. Well, I haven't been able to find out what Hugh Ross in particular says about them, but looking them up it appears they all speciated very recently (so they're ALL closely genetically related, different species or no), they have a very high morphological diversity, and they colonized several different lakes at different times.
Insofar as the lakes are all similar I'd expect many of those new fish species to evolve in a similar direction independently(...
arkalen29 1 month ago
And since they're so plastic morphologically I'd expect their morphological adaptations to their niches to be quite precise, so two species adapted to the same niche in different lakes would be morphologically similar indeed while two species exploiting different niches in the same lake would be morphologically different.
As for mating, I haven't been able to find out but I'll take your word for it that they choose their mates on the basis of morphology (unlike cichlid fish, who (...)
arkalen29 1 month ago
... have complex mating rituals). In that case it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't mate with morphologically different species, but would get fooled by a morphologically similar species that they never encounter naturally because it's from a different lake.
If you had two different species that were morphologically identical in the same lake I bet they'd develop some reproductive markers right quick, like mating rituals or (since it seems to be how sticklebacks roll) different morphology.
arkalen29 1 month ago
...organisms so morphologically similar that they prefer to mate with each other than with those to which they are genetically related, stating that genders of one species can do the same seems like a cake walk.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
"Of course there is a slight difference between the evolution of two non-interbreeding species and the two genders of a same species. I wonder if you can figure out what it is? Hint: it relates to gene flow." Would you stop with this pseudo-pedagogical attempted condescension? I didn't say they were the same thing. In fact, the point was that when one can state with a straight face that he/she believes that the same traits have evolved who knows how many times, even independently producing...
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
...evolved independently. Even when there are multiple different genetically related types with morphological differences between the types from one region, but with analogous morphological types from a different region, the genetically related are rejected for mating in favor of the morphologically similar, and yet, it is claimed that they simply evolved independently.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
(Read the last two in vertical order, as I edited and reposted the first of the two)
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And the only response I remember to my two suggested ways that this "bump" would fail to produce a penis was you simply stating that they didn't matter. To refresh your memory, the first was that the inbreeding necessary to cause this "bump" to be maintained would result in genetic deformities which would nullify the advantage completely. The second was that if those with the "bump" bred with enough mates not to be severely genetically deformed, then the "bump" would never predominate,...
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
...much less have the opportunity to progressively develop, and might disappear by way of dilution.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 : "and might disappear by way of dilution" oh wow, you actually DO believe in blending inheritance ?
Because that's really not how genes work.
arkalen29 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arkalen29 "that's really not how genes work." So how is it that it can be said that whales once had legs? And plase don't dodge this or waste time by being pedantic enough to point out that it is not said of modern whales. " The separation of genders happened in the first eukaryotes, so all evolutionary change in multicellular organisms happened after the separation of genders." So you are saying that somehow males shared their newly acquired penis genetics with females to form the clitoris?
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
Comment removed
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9: The first: why would inbreeding be necessary to cause this "bump"? And the second: why would breeding with many mates mean the "bump" would never predominate? It's quite the opposite actually. The only reason one would think breeding with many individuals "dilutes" a trait is if inheritance is blended, which we've known isn't the case since Mendel.
arkalen29 1 month ago
BTW, the normative clitoris is approximately four inches long, in spite of the fact that only a small portion is externally visible. Its two "legs" travel downward around the sides of the vagina from the shaft portion above the vagina.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
....developed after gender separation from a "bump" which gave an advantage? To clarify, the clitoris has a semblance of a shaft, it has a semblance of a head, and it has a urethra which terminates at the end of it, though technically it is said that the urethra ends between the clitoris and vagina.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
...both "evolved" independently, in spite of the fact that the clitoris would serve no evolutionary function.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
Where's the next part? :( I love this series.
Lpoolboy 1 month ago
You forgot these things, Who create me?
How can i exist, where i am , where i think this things, where does come my starting from?
everything starts ænd.Yes we are restricted, because Allah wants it.We are in an exam with using, our pencil,eraser,paper.These tools in our exam is eye ,ears, and other feeling parts.
CrashThomasRacing 1 month ago
@CrashThomasRacing Life is complicated. religion only offers child like answers.
KeySour 1 month ago
@KeySour Can you explain that how can Kuran knows the things that will happen in the future.İf you are really curious person, you might be searching for what is the true or what was the answer of your question(s).Please search one time.Thank you,good bye
CrashThomasRacing 1 month ago
@CrashThomasRacing What does the book know? Please provide something and how do you know it knows if it hasnt happend
KeySour 1 month ago
where is part 2?
johnmangalathil 1 month ago
Yes .... to everything you say - more please
Artifactorfiction 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
I have not watched the video, my friend sent me the link, but being a catholic, I am going to assume that it is wrong. Also I am not stupid. I believe in evolution and anyone that believes dinosaurs lived along side with man is just being ignorant. A;so just to make people mad, hahahahahahaha we are the majority. In God we trust is on are money and God is in are pledge of allegiance. Also if a atheist every ran for President they would probably lose hahaha.
chans686 2 months ago
@chans686 When are you going to restart the Inquisition? Since you are the majority, I mean, you could just start burning atheists alive again. And those damn witches too.
saguhh00 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@chans686 Stop trolling.
Lpoolboy 1 month ago
@chans686 You said your not stupid but the last few sentences of your comment brought down my respect for you
KeySour 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 2 months ago
This guy took the hard way to becoming an atheist! I feel like I took the easy way and just felt there was no need for a god so I stopped believing. But this guy is in inspiration to all atheists and to all people that completely want to seek the truth.
Shnimberz 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
here is the Islamic answer.. and mine;
Im justified in believing whatever while believing reaps me the best benefits without the extra belief fat.
:-)
islamconstitution 2 months ago
@islamconstitution but how are you justified and how do you know it's the best benefits?
jbz3 2 months ago
@jbz3
its called pragmatism..
?are you actually a westerner? funny i need to point this out.. be proud boy.. we already got the answer.
islamconstitution 2 months ago
@islamconstitution sounds like you're more interested in politics than philosophy.
This isn't about pride, I'm asking you to explain how you have this justification and knowledge. Is it part of your beliefs? If you have the answer, why don't you share it?
jbz3 2 months ago
@jbz3
no actually.. it sounds like you dont know what politics is to and what philosophy is to it.
you should take a look at the Quran's justification style.. although its not just in there.. the very idea of pascals wager in a sense is about that as well..
that's on religion..
but generally speaking? why do you think you choose to trust your eyes?
doesn't it atleast marginally ENOUGH keep harm away and gets you by?
because its practicle to PERIOD.
what other answer do you think we need?
islamconstitution 2 months ago
@islamconstitution What does being a westerner and pride have to do with philosophy?
You don't need to be so rude.
Pascal's wager is flawed because you must assume your position is true before it can be compared. It's circular reasoning in disguise. Are circular reasoning and paradoxes acceptable to you?
What does trusting my eyes have to do with this. This is about identifying all the premises and hidden premises. Are you saying Islam is more practical?
jbz3 2 months ago
@jbz3
.. your getting confused i can tell! im not trying to be rude! just sip on a cup of tea and re-read what i wrote.. youll get it.. IM PROUD of being a westerner part because WE came up along our history with verbalizing the idea of pragmatism. im just trying to tell you shame on you and indeed the vid guy for even addressing this old question when we HAVE ITS ANSWER. i didnt say anything about pascals wager.. i just said it reflects the idea.. practicality triumphs reason.
islamconstitution 2 months ago
@islamconstitution You're still just repeating yourself, and now it's in all caps.
You just appear to be satisfied with your beliefs, very arrogant and obnoxious about it, and you're still not showing any reason why anyone else should adopt your views. It's not very convincing to me, and if you're happy with that, then fine, be on your way.
If you want to say islam is the most practical, you should show why.
I don't know what it has to do with anything. I'm making an effort to understand.
jbz3 2 months ago
@jbz3
i caped what i wanted to emphasise and highlight. i was not trying to be arrogant or obnoxious. if that just how you are going to turn the argument. after being very simple q and a. i dont know whats your problem. you dont find it convincing fine! just say that and thats it! why all the digress? and if your real question stems from you raising a brow when i mentioned my islamic background in a comment, then just say so and redirect the conversation there.
just chill! no one is being rude~
islamconstitution 2 months ago
@islamconstitution What are you talking about when you say "we already got the answer"?
jbz3 2 months ago
Comment removed
islamconstitution 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jbz3
! jesus christ monkey balls !
" WE came up along our history with verbalizing the idea of pragmatism. im just trying to tell you shame on you and indeed the vid guy for even addressing this old question when WE have its answer."..
+
"its called pragmatism..
?are you actually a westerner"
hhhhh.. seriously?
you thought i was talking islam huh?
islamconstitution 2 months ago
@jbz3
and i wasnt talking about islam to even go into why its practical! you see why i said you are just confusing things together? i just talked about a simple responce to a simple question of what are we really justified to believe.. and my answer is that practicality is the answer not the need to have a well justified logic based reason.
whats the problem?
islamconstitution 2 months ago
@jbz3
and about the eyes thing.. practicality.. its about that its already a given natural to BELIEVE your eyes.. because MARGINALLY ENOUGH its PRACTICAL AND FRUITFUL ENOUGH. to JUSTIFY BELIEVING IT. and yeah.. i would say Islam is much more practical than any other system untill now.. now what does THAT have to do with anything :-) ?
islamconstitution 2 months ago
mindfuck.
killsarawr 2 months ago
so essentially, you're saying no one can or should trust anything you say because you are just another piece of multimedia to them.
fifaman114 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
hahahaha, now that i'm not baked, i understood this video, lol.
JymzJameson 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
Sorry, not to rush you but are you working on part 2 or is this the end of the series? I'd just like to know when it may be out, if ever. ^_^
blazearmoru 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
If you were in a simulation why would the simulation allow you to question that you are in a simulation?
lilchris4444 2 months ago
@lilchris4444 why wouldn't it? You can question that you're dreaming when you're dreaming, and that's a simulation on its own. We just usually don't realize since we forget how inconsistent it is.
jbz3 2 months ago
I'm baked out of my fucking mind.
JymzJameson 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
I know exactly what you mean by divided attention between personal thoughts and video perception!
Tranquilance 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
2+3 might not equal to 5 because there might be hidden rounded numbers. What if it was actually 2.5+3.5, it might equal to 6, because when we round, it will be less accurate.
Raymond0412Tube 2 months ago
@Raymond0412Tube
'Hidden Rounded Numbers?'' Hm. Now that's a term I've never heard. Not in math, anyway.
flithern 2 months ago
@Raymond0412Tube In science, they use significant figures to represent precision. If something is measured to in between 2 and 3 mm on a scale that has no smaller ticks and another between 3 and 4 mm, they would have to round it to 2.5 and 3.5, respectively. Then the sum will be 6.0 + or - 1.0 because the last digit was a guess.
Recording the false precision of 2.0 and 3.0 mm would give you a less accurate sum.
jbz3 2 months ago
@jbz3 but there was never a .0 in the video was there? It was a mere 2 + 3, so the fact that there were a hidden rounded number is unknown.
Raymond0412Tube 2 months ago
@Raymond0412Tube think im right in saying that 2 and three dont exist. they are just a way of signifying a general amount of something.(a concept for convenience in communication rather an accurate description) i.e. a finer scale will produce a better measurement of something etc. until current technology limits how far that can go. so, aloutgh its mega useful to use figures like two and three in everyday life - in terms of looking for an absolute truth they dont make any sense.
ADProtty 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@Raymond0412Tube I said the last digit is assumed to be estimated, so with sig. fig., "2" and "3" are so imprecise that the sum of "5" may be inaccurate. If one had a scale with only cm and not mm for some reason, one would have to estimate that it is 0.2 or 0.3 cm aka 2 mm and 3 mm and that may actually sum to 6 mm
Also, hidden rounded numbers make no sense when counting discrete values such as pebbles. If you break a rock in half, do you have two 0.5 rocks or just two rocks?
jbz3 2 months ago
You have also misunderstood the texts of Ha Tanach (the Jewish Bible AKA Old Testament). Judaism was never polytheistic. Some individual Jews might have been but not Judaism as a whole.
JohnnyandNicoleTV 2 months ago
@Evid3nc3 I can only say "thank you", now I can only wait to keep watching the rest...
Jarb2104 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
YouTube user AskAMathmatician addressed why using evidence to prove mathematics is not reliable. The video is titled How do we know that 1+1=2? A journey into the foundations of math. Part 1 of 3.
jeb3937 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
Evidence of atheism? If atheism is the belief in the lack of God, or or any jigger power, wouldn't that belief require sufficient proof to conclude that everything could be made by itself?
rc100692 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@rc100692 No... I don't have to know who built my car to disbelieve the proposition that it was built by a blind crazy person. The situation is even worse if you want to assert that a God made the universe, because the universe has no obvious purpose and cannot be said to be artificial. Where a car is obviously meant to get a person from one point to the next, and has no natural potential to exists. We have no frame of reference for where universes come from. So, no "proof" required.
chedillychedilly1 2 months ago
@rc100692 Wow, someone commented without watching the video! LMAO Love when u guys do that though it shows a fear to look at the othersides views without already having a judgement before hand on it. Otherwise y wouldn't u watch the video & comment after. Its not evidence of atheism its how he could not justify his theistic beliefs because they possessed no evidence. So if that is the case the default possition is atheism. Athiesm is not a belief system, nonsmoking is not a bad habit.
IllegalAlien1 2 months ago
@rc100692
Atheism is "the lack of a belief in a God", not "belief in the lack of a God." I assume you do not believe in Vishnu or Ra, you are an atheist when it comes to nonbelief in those Gods. I also assume you don't believe in dragons, fairies, or vampires; however, some people do believe in dragons, fairies, and vampires. Should a person spend all their time disproving every batshit crazy theory presented to them or is it more reasonable to say "come back when you have evidence?"
caposton 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@rc100692
You are asking about the beginning of matter (if matter had a beginning). My answer is - I don't know. It is an honest answer. It's also O.K. to not know everything. That doesn't mean I'm not looking for answers, but when someone says, "God done did it!" that is a non-answer. That person has given up and took the easy way out. How do rainbows work? We don't say, "God done did it" because we worked on the problem and came to a real answer.
caposton 2 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
This has been flagged as spam show
R.I.P. Christopher Hitchens, a courageous man whom I believe to have been honest, and willing to speak from the truth of his perspective with no fear of the consequences. I believe that he has a pleasant eternity ahead of him, notwithstanding his disbelief therein.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 2 months ago
Comment removed
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 2 months ago
...actually serve to strengthen the notion that the scientific community is, for whatever reason, working on behalf of the Luciferians. Such statements also serve as evidence in favor of my observation that evolution confirms the Luciferian/gnostic myths as to the rise of mankind, with my implying that this seems unlikely to be a coincidence.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 2 months ago
It was apparently claimed, until recently, that there is a four to five percent genetic distinction between humans and neanderthals, Now, it is stated that they are, in fact, the same species. This does not lend toward my attributing credibility or honesty to the scientific community. Michio Kaku's comments on a unified world system, etc., in which he, hopefully unintentionally, categorized dissenters against such a system as terrorists, are also problematic in that regard. Such comments...
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 2 months ago
"doing so on the basis of knowing certain things which are not subject to scientific method" This was a reference to the belief part.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 2 months ago
The response to this will, undoubtedly, be something along the lines of "You can't expect to be taken seriously if you cannot provide proof or even evidence of _____." Let's extrapolate this logic to pain. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to provide empirical evidence of pain. It would be infuriating to be told that because you cannot do so, that you cannot be taken seriously when you are, and claim to be, experiencing excruciating pain.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 2 months ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9
Due to Youtube's new layout and your multiple comments being scrambled and my responces absert, on top of my current situation of little sleep and little time to sleep in the next set of 4 days: unless you summarize your comments and send me a PM to be responded to when I am no longer in a work/sleep shift then I can't respond to 6 messages about 6 thing s which are responding to comments which I can't find...cogently or enjoyably.
Harizl 2 months ago
@Harizl Alright. I hope that your situation improves soon, and I'll just make some general comments for all who visit this page to read.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 2 months ago
...Reality does not depend upon a consensus. What is is, regardless of whether it can be demonstrated or not. Many of you give the impression that you would stop and attempt to penalize someone walking down the street due to the fact that they are not hopping and are nowhere near the hop scotch markings.