All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then Hell. that's not God's will. He became a man Jesus Christ and suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His lifes blood. now He can legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from sin and trust alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ for your eternal salvation
Richard Dawkins is a big LIAR , dont listen to him peolpe, he is talking to you as if you are an idiots or an animals, we are not an animals but better than monkeys belive me in this and be careful about this point .
he doesn't say the truth but he dulls you because he is fake , racial and wrong .
Richard Dawkins is a big LIAR , dont listen to him peolpe, he is talking to you as if you are an idiots or an animals, we are not an animals but better than monkeys belive me in this and be careful about this point .
he doesn't say the truth but he dulls you because he is fake , racial and wrong .
Dawkins, why don't you go park your car on a busy motorway, in the fast lane, in heavy fog for a nap and do natural selection a favor by removing yourself from the gene pool.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Here's a great IRONY with the extremely stupid comment about Satan enjoying torturing Dawkins. If you actually know what the Bible says (and recovered past "believers" like myself often know the Bible better than fundies) you know that the hell described in Matthew 25 was originally created for fallen angels. So Satan, etc. would be too busy screaming in agony themselves to torture anyone else with extra pain. And even if they could, it would be small comfort to them. "God" keeps hell going.
Guys this is listed under comedy.....but this is anyway what i would say to these theistic people....they are incapable of understanding Logic........and Dawkins is far beyond them frankly!
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
The excerpts of him reading his hate mail are the best. They video is trying to make it seem like Dawkins is saying most of these "fuck off" type comments about believers, when he's just reading hate mail he has received. Shows their ignorance.
It is common for skeptics to sneer at christianity because it makes so much account of faith. They seem to assume that they have no need of faith, in anything. It would be easy to show that of all men, religious skeptics must be most credulous and must have most faith, of some sort.
The chief peculiarity in their case is, that having rejected the light and the evidence of truth through their radical enmity of heart against it, they are shut up to the necessity of believing things without evidence and against evidence as their only resort. They are compelled to believe that to "leap into the dark" at death is the best ending of human life.
@ReverendPopeFoxyFox Misrepresentation and defamation is not a joke. Just because others do not take law seriously, you shouldn't find solace in that. You've just met someone equally juvenile is all.
@OrthodoxAtheist Dude lighten up. It's not misrepresentation or defamation. It's SATIRE! And if you can't understand that then you're a joke. Some Atheists are just as uptight and ridiculous as some theists.
@Ender8419 Sorry if I gave the perception I totally give a shit. That's not the case. I can take a joke as well as Dawkins, which is pretty well from what I hear. :D (You should take note though... it isn't satire. Satire is the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices. Dawkins has no stupidity or vices. Therefore a better description is 'cheap humor'. :)
@OrthodoxAtheist Obviously you do give a shit since you have now taken the time to write two comments about the matter. And you have not shown that you can take a joke so take your uppity shit and shove it.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
butif this is true indeed, then what sets an atheist apart from the rest of us 'simple minded' theists ? wheres the difference when both of our minds function the same way ....... ?
@kingspider1000 Well, there is no difference in brain function between the mind of a theist and the mind of an atheist. It is a common misconception that both sides fall into. I don't view my theist, polytheist, or deist friends as any less intelligent for believing in a higher power.
Also, it is not a question of simplicity vs complexity of mental qualities as much as it is about universal view. No, my friend, we are all equal! No matter how our beliefs differ. :) So yes, we do think alike.
@kingspider1000 It's not about the structure of the brain, it's about what is put into it.
Theists aren't stupid, they're misinformed, if someone tells you red is blue your whole life, it's not the fault of the student, it's the fault of the teacher.
i could say the same about atheists, friend. besides, red and blue are simply names to describe colors. if im told red is blue all my life then ill always ideantify the color of dusk, blood, watermelon juice as all blue, meaning i can put them under the same category. the only diff being im using a diff name which is really not a big deal.
but my point is, if both think alike, why are atheists right and theists wrong ?
@kingspider1000 ok that was a bad analogy, because you're not getting my point. Basically, your question is flawed due to atheism not being a state of mind, it's a rejection of a claim (of there being a god or gods) due to lack of evidence.
Other than that, there is nothing else that a theist and an atheist will automatically disagree on. There are some traits that are quite common among atheists but they aren't required to be one.
ok so finally we arrive at someplace. so your objection to theistic claim is that there is no evidence of god ..... and that we are smarter than some simpletons to just simply hearken to words in mouldy old book .....
very good, but yet you believe in atoms ,and electrons...... yet you yourself never saw them. your claims are based on whats written on books by people .....
@kingspider1000 because I know that I could repeat the experiments done to find said atoms if I so wished. It's all open to the public. I know if I expose iron to oxygen, that it will oxidise due to the reactivity of oxygen atoms and if I don't expose it, it will remain shiny forever. These experiments are not difficult, we did them at primary school!
Also electron microscopes exist, they wouldn't work without electrons...neither would electricity.
Again I'm not saying we're smarter, we just have consistent standards for evidence across all our beliefs, rather than separating one out for lower standards. I've never met a theist that believes everything on the same standard as their chosen god, why believe in any specific god when there are so many with an equal amount of evidence?
I don't believe in anything supernatural, because supernatural claims are constantly conflicting with eachother, with no recourse to evidence to settle it.
you did not answer my question. no point in swerving off topic..
how is your belief in somethng so bizarre ( an atom) justified despite your absence of personal empirical obsrvation of it, while a religious mans belief in the INTELLIGENT CREATOR is dismissed as fairytale when he actually bases his belief on the indication of GOD by observing nature and its precise order ?
you havent seen touched or felt an atom, yet you believe in it blindly. why ?
@kingspider1000 How is it off topic, I explained my belief in atoms, because without the knowledge we have of atoms we wouldn't be able to split them in a predictable manner (for example)
Nature is not a precise order, it's convenient chaos. If it was ordered, we wouldn't be here, it's the random fluctuations that allowed for the variation that led to gas collapsing into stars.
Occams razor also comes into effect here, an explanation that makes less assumptions, is more likely to be true.
oh please dont even start on occams razor. ill tell you what it means. it means when multiple explanations are given on a certain thing, scientists choose the least complex or most simple one, which in time, when studied deeply, actually reveals more complexity than the previous explanation.
meaning, things get more complex and intricate as you look deeper into details. you stand corrected.
and please answer my previous question if you are sincere.
if these random 'fluctuations' are occuring on a regular basis producing the same things, then it isnt chaos is it? chaos does not repeat itself. repetition is the work of patterns. pattersn in turn indicate intelligent mind.
couldnt it be that what youre calling chaotic is merely an order of a higher configuration not yet detectable by men ?
@kingspider1000 why are atoms bizarre anyway ? everything is made up of smaller parts, why is it bizarre to look into what those smaller parts are made of. We see atoms with electron microscopes, as I said in my last post. Why is it "blind belief" when we can see atoms?
Detecting things often relies on detecting the effect of them, just as we can't see the wind but we can detect its effects, we can't see subatomic particles but we can detect their electromagnetic fields.
you have never witnessed an atom yourself, as far as your personal observation is concerned, you havent experienced one yourself. your belief in atoms is based on the benefit of the doubt you give to external sources of info (scientists, books)
so how different are you from theists that believe in angels based on their source of information when they havent seen one themselves ?
@kingspider1000 i've told you twice, I could repeat those experiments and see an atom if I wished, that's the difference. The source for angels is unreliable
You are not understanding the difference between the possibility of any "god" and the possibility of specific gods. God claims tied to anything testable has never stood up to the test. Making something up that can't be disproved, doesn't make it true. Occams does apply, you missed the part where it says "given all other factors are equal"
@kingspider1000 No they aren't the same, I believe in the repeatable methodology that led to the discovery of atoms, because I use the same method in daily life
The core of science is to be able to make predictions based off of data. Basically, using observations from the past to predict what will happen in the future.
What do gods explain? Nothing. They just cause more questions.
Atoms could be "faeries" but if they don't do anything else that faeries might do, why call them faeries?
repeatable methodology of people unconnected to your personal cognitive faculties. you certainly did not repeat those tests, they did, theywho tell you atoms exist. your belief in atoms is a matter of faith than based on personal observation of actual atoms, am i right ?
and as for repeatable, i can easily say that so many prophets received revelations from GOD in the same mnner and experienced the same things, thus establishing a pattern for being conscious of GOD.
@kingspider1000 And as I said before, those prophets have added nothing of worth to the human condition.
Results are what matters when you create a method for ascertaining knowledge. When you have knowledge, you can then create predictions based on the knowledge.
As for "prophets" they all received different experiences that they applied to a god. It's very different.
hen you already have a conclusion, you can easily pick and choose the evidence that backs up your position.
@kingspider1000 There is no methodology that leads to divine revelations, people just get them when they say they get them, it's not verifiable. Much like trying to prove someone committed a crime when there is no evidence or witnesses. (Hi witch burning , another religious cognition fail)
I could say I got a message from the flying spaghetti monster, but you couldn't reproduce that. So you would most likely dismiss it - why do you not apply the same scrutiny to your own beliefs?
i was only trying to strike a similarity between different forms of observation by using the prophets example. they did receive revelations in a similar way and preached the same thing despite having hundreds of years of gaps between them.
but coming back to atoms : have you seen one with your own eyes ? what do you use as proof to believe in atoms ?
@kingspider1000 Why do you constantly call atoms "bizarre" when everything in the macro scale is also made of smaller pieces?, it only follows that the smaller things are made of small pieces too.
Also I just watched a documentary on the effects of xrays on crystals, and they do detect the shadows of the atoms within the structure, so there's even more proof. You can't personally verify everything but the method that leads to knowledge has been proven. You think all the LHC results are fake?
atoms are bizarre. they are 99.99999 percent hollow ! did you know this ? meaning we are mostly hollow . if this isnt bizarre, i dunno what is.
look youre telling me the same thing over and over : what you saw others tell you. documentaries and books. i ask you : have u seen an atom yourself ? with your own eyes?
@kingspider1000 I've told you why repeatedly, and it's intriguing you also know the properties of something you don't believe in. It's not bizarre, because it just is. What are you comparing them to? There is nothing else out there like atoms, so what are they bizarre in relation to? Things feel solid because of the electromagnetic forces that hold everything together, the gap between two repelling electromagnets is hollow too, but it's not strange that you can't pass metal through that is it?
@kingspider1000 To add, you believe I exist yes? you believe countries you haven't visited exist? Though you've seen no personal verification that I'm not a Turing machine, or countries are just made up. The fact that I *could* visit you or Australia, is enough for normal claims.
Only extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Things being made of smaller things is not an extraordinary claim. especially when the predictions from the theories based on that hypothesis are accurate.
i believe . thast it. period. i dont think that i need to verify this exists or not, i believe in the unseen. and i believe in the concept before i can test it.
man learns ideas. we learn dedcutively, not empirically. meaning, we believe in things without being able to test them ourselves.
look, explain why you believe in the claim that atoms exist . ok ?
@kingspider1000 Hello again. Not to butt into the middle of this debate, but let me answer your question for myself. Belief is a strong thing and can be either positive or negative. Empiricism doesn't touch belief because science cannot touch faith. Vice versa is true as well. My understanding of atoms comes from the empirical evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that atoms exist. The same cannot be said for any creator-being because such beings are outside of the realm of science. :)
i beg to differ, but you have no empirical evidence for atoms ! understand that there is no point in debating if we are not being honest with each other.
all you know about atoms so far is from secondary sources and not from your cognition. you have never seen an atom with your own eyes. your acceptance of atoms is similar to a theists acceptance of angels which he read about in his scriptures. neither person has actualy seen the things they believe in.
@kingspider1000 Being a University student, I've been given access to an extremely high-powered microscope in the science lab. By using that, I, myself, have seen atoms, thus making my experience of them a little more first-hand than you would like to say, friend.
my friend, your insistence of me accepting your claim of seeing atoms also requires belief from me. i have no empirical evidence of you havng empirical evidence of atoms. you see,you cant cut away belief from the equation after all.
lets assume, that you have seen atoms. how do you know theyre atoms?
secondly, how would you expect those not blessed with your faciities to simply believe in atoms when they are mentioned. how much proof do they need to believe you ?
@kingspider1000 and in addition, i've seen photos of atoms, i've seen the effects of atoms, and i've seen things based off the predicted effects of atoms. The cause of all these evidences, is what we call "atoms"
How much more evidence do you need?
Remember words are labels, in the same way cosmologists could have called "dark matter" and "dark energy" , "steve" and "owen" (watch Neil deGrasse Tyson's lectures) When something that doesn't have an existing label turns up, it gets a new word.
ahh photos. how about videos ? you mustve seen blue skinned aliens riding pterodactyls on tv. surely you must believe in them as well. ;-)
look stop crying behind your scientists aprons. im asking you, the individual. are yu not liek a theist in giving benefit of the doubt to secondary information sources to believe in atoms ?
wheres the difference here? please speak entirely from your own individual experience. im not interested in otherwise.
@kingspider1000 I should explain that I was once a theist, spiritualist, supernaturalist and I was taught in a Church of england school. I am now Atheist and scholarly and can only speak for myself, but my outlook on life has completely changed. I have alleviated myself of a lot of confusion and negativity since becoming atheist and rational. There is a reason why it is called freethinking and clear minded.
anyways, define rationality. what i rational to you isn rational to lets say a tribesman living in madagascar. its rational for you to believe that cern can produce anti particles in a giant circle under the ground, can one living in a remote village ever find reason in such a claim if it were presented before him ?
would a man whos familiar with mechanisms of a bike ever find the mechanism of a rocket rational when hes never seen a rocket
@kingspider1000 Rational does not mean intuitive, sensible or acceptable. It has a clearly defined definition and code of application. Rationality is discipline of using methodological cognition in deducing truths and making sense of the universe. It encompases logic and reason and is a central part of philosophy. Basically it is the act of reasoning from a known observation or truth to a nescessary truth that is not observed.
that does not answer my question. so ill help you out a bit. would it be rational for the village guy to outrightly deny the antimatter in a giant circle claim ? something that exits by the way.
and if rationality does not include intuition or sensible, then the greeks were wrong to deduce that atoms existed as building blocks by drawing an analogy between everything that exists ith structures men made : buildings.
they didnt have microscopes, how did they know about atoms
@kingspider1000 How about I help YOU out a bit. I defined what Rationalism is so that you may answer your own question. And, the greeks did not make analogies to buildings when deducing that atoms must exist. Democtritus deduced that for a peach to be able to be cut with a knife, it must contain empty space. he deduced that he could continue cutting the peach into smaller and small segments but not infinitely into nothingness. He deduced rationally that all things contained substance and void.
whatever democritus did to find out about atoms, he did it using dedcuctive reasoning, intuition and faith. he didnt see the atom to believe in it ! do you get me ?
my point being, rationality isnt about objectivity and if you believe that then you are misrepresenting human intellect. lack of empirical evidence therefore is irrelevant.
so when theists deduce that there must be CREATOR for the ordered existence, isnt it the same as what democritus did to discover atoms ?
@kingspider1000 No. Because Democritus did not use faith. Faith and reason are poles apart. Reason is working from a known truth and working along steps that necessarily follow from the truth to a conclusion that is True by necessity. That is reason. Faith is hoping that something is true based on your own intuition and wants. When theists "Deduce" they are not using reason or logic. They are basically using intuition based on human failiures of cognition.
oh so democritus was also being irrational then. wasnt he? since he never actually saw the atom when declaring its existence. his deduction led him to the theory of atoms which he believed.
belief was as much apart of his theory than anything else.
youre simplystating that belief cannot come without cognitive proof. absolutey untrue sir. man learns dedcutivly, never empirically.
so deduction in his case was right, but in my case its wrong ?
@kingspider1000 sigh. There would be no need for rationalism and reason if to be rational is to observe something to exist. Do you not understand what reason is despite me explaining it to you? Democritus deduced the existence of atoms by following an axiom to its logical conclusion. That is reason. Also, belief has nothing to do with faith. Belief is the conviction that something is true regardless of the actual objective truth. If we can't agree on basic semantics then why continue?
exactly what im trying to say ! he used an axiom to fugure out something he could never see with his own eyes. something beyond his empirical verification.
meaning, truth can be found out using reason, and not necessarily direct objective proof of the said thing. now im gonna sigh.
having said all this, is it logical for atheists to use the excuse of no empirical evidence for god to disbelieve in god? do you follow ?
@kingspider1000 Ok, but you were mixing faith and reason when they are poles apart. Reason is not faith because the conclusion logically follows the premise and as such must be true. The whole point of reason is to construct a framework of reality from epirical observation. Democritus's discovery of atoms HAD to be true because the conclusion of his reason followed naturally from a truthful premise. Faith is not reason. There need be no faith with reason.
lol faith is based on reason . dont you see the similarity ? i dont think youve really explored the meaning of these words like 'faith' 'reason' 'science' when youve been told them.
theists observe themsevles and the universe and come to the conclusin of GOD , whom they later believe.
1) instinct to worship the UNIQUE REALITY
2)observation showing sgns of design which indicate CREATOR
3)religious scriptures that confirm these observations made before religious belief
@kingspider1000 Don't condescend to me. I have a philosophy degree and I know full well what Faith, reason and science are. Faith is not based on reason. Faith and reason are two seperate and mutually exclusive things. Why have faith in a necessary truth? I am not saying that theologians and apologists do not attempt to use reason. However, in my philosophy classes we examined the Kalam cosmological argument as an example of poor reasoning.
well the faithful world does not agree with you. i am proof of my claim. GOD occured to me before i learned about religion. youre probably confusing ritual worship with instinct to recognize the CREATOR.
all people that believe in god do so because it makes sense. not because faith has been dictated to them.
the rationale for god is that the orderly universe and its contents have a conscious creator just like a cina vase has a potter. design can come only from mind.
@kingspider1000 But I just explained to you that God doesn't make sense. It is irrational. People believe in God because a belief in God makes the world make sense to them. People like to have answers and a belief in the Bible gives them the illusion that they have answers. People fear death, and the belief in an afterlife takes away that fear. I understand WHY people would be drawn to theism, but I argue that truth is always better than a lie. I take the world as it is and love it regardless.
lol by saying god dosent make sense youre merely pressing your opinion on me. and i explained to you that people believe in god becasue it makes sense: 1) they want to believe in god 2) peoples belief in causality, indicating the god idea further 3) scriptures as confirmation of previous two points.
just as i explained how god makes sense, you must have a logical rationale behind your claim that god dosent make sense. people wont simply take your word for it.
and coming back to our understanding of rationality.
if democritus can conceive of atoms based on an observation that led him to believe in their existence, then would it be wrong for us to arrive at the idea of CREATOR by observing the precise design of everything around us including ourselves ?
how can you justify something so little as lack of empirical proof to deny something ?
@kingspider1000 1) A desire to believe in something is only proof of it's desirablity, not it's truth 2) The God hypothesis does not solve the Infinite regression problem, it merely delays it by one step. Either causality stretches back through infinite or stops. And that is treating causality as a linear and quantitative dimension which it isn't. In the absense of time, there is no causality so the first event must be self caused if it occured at all. Which we know it did.
desires are a part of human nature and nature always accounts for the characteristics of its constituents. if we are part of nature and have an innate desire to believe in god, it must be legitimate a demand. its instinct.
infinite regression requires us to accept an endless series of one cretaing the next. an endless sequence, a pattern .
it requires faith to believe in this. however, it does not take faith to believe in one uncaused eternal first cause .common sense.
@kingspider1000 I think you are arguing for a kierkegaardian notion of subjective truth which I doubt anyone today would take seriously. "It is true for me" is a cop out and an admition of defeat. And Aristotle is the source of the cosmological argument for a first cause and it was as a solution to the infinite past problem. It has since been hijacked by theologeans and rebranded as a the kalam argument. Both versions are equally fallacious, common sense or not.
in order to call something fallacious, ample counter arguments must be provided that seem plausible. you have none. just your forced statements.
and nothing kierkgaardian here, desire to beleve in the highest conceivable being is inherent in all men. some pay attention to it while others dont. that is why religion is the most powerful institution of people because it addresses something we all relate to.
@kingspider1000 We all fear death, nobody wants to die and we would all love to live forever. That does not mean that we should all believe it to be true. It doesn't mean that it is objectively true. Kiekegaard attempted to argue that subjective experience IS truth and that whatever your beliefs are, that is true reality until a time as you change them. That is similar to your stance it seems.
kiergaard knew that our intuition was proportional to the things present in REALTY.. he was a smart man who know it was too intricate not to include our subjective awareness of things. intuition, dedution and inductive reasoning have shown man more truths than empirical evidence ever has.
isnt that why democritus figured out atoms even when he lacked the tools to do so ?
or do you argue that atoms began to exist only when our ability to detect them started to exist ?
@kingspider1000 What has intuition ever shown? You say that deduction and induction are more valuble than empiricle evidence... How so? Just like kierkegaard you are attempting to elevate the status of those things because doing so adds value to your a-priori position. Kierkegaard is regarded as an example of someone who was desperate to justify his religious beliefs and resorted to silly semantic tricks to do so.
intuition has shown us things that advanced tools have confirmed. atoms. cells. the solar system, the star system spoken of ncient civilizations, which they could never have known using gadgets.
are you cancellin out your own admission of the fact that democritus used intuittion and dedcutive reasoning to prove atoms ?
youve lost me there.
and as for kierkgaard, youre missing the point. his argument was that subjectivity often mirrors what exists objectively.
@kingspider1000 We are having problems with definitions again. Democritus used reason. Not intuition. Intuition and reason are seperate things and mutually exclusive. In fact Intuition be definition is the acquisition of knowledge without the use of reason. Intuition is what made natural philosophers assume that lighter objects fall slower than faster objects. An intuitive assumption that even modern minds fall for. Ans Kierkegaard was not arguing that. Not by a long way.
@kingspider1000 "philosophers were right to assume that lighter objects do fall slower than heavier ones." Are you saying that they were correct to make that assumption? It is wrong. It was an intuition based assumption. Copernicus however, actually tested it. Put aside his bias and intuitive thinking and looked at it empirically and found that objects actually fall at the same speed regardless of mass given that friction is the same for all masses of object. Intuition is useless and hinders.
@kingspider1000 I haven't evaded any question.. The answer to your question is neither. He used Reason. Reason.. Reason is following a known truth along premises that must logically follow to a conclusion that is necessarily true. what is so hard to understand? If the Initial premise is true, and every following premise must follow from that truth, then the conclusion to the proposal MUST be true. That is what Democritus used. Learn some logic and argumentation mate.
believing that ordered symmetrical things have a designer is follwoing a known truth as well. strangely, you dont seem to grasp that.
it is not known for complex things to arise out of their own, which you believe they do, meaning thus that it is you that lacks reasoning. i suggest you take your own advice, mate.
and i think uve conveninetly escaped the main theme of our discussion.
the relevance of empirical evidence in man's reasoning. weve both seen how democritus used reason to believe in atoms, and not by actually seeing them, so is it justified to disbelieve in god due to lack of empirical evidence ?
and if it is empirical evidence youre looking for, what is proof of god according to you ? surely u need to at least know what the the evidence is .......
both follow patterns already recognized by them. the grek cut a fruit and realised everything must be consituted of orderly smaller parts without actually seeing those parts (atoms)
a theist sees the precisely mechanical universe and thus concludes it is made by the MAKER, as they know from their own engineering of intricate devices that they need intelligence to build.
where exactly do you not see reason in the theists deduction here ? please point out.
@kingspider1000 We design orderly and intricate things = correct Therefore all things orderly and intricate are designed = False. Where is the reason there? it ignores the many instances of orderly structures arising from chaos and also infers design when no purpose is known. There is no design without purpose. You see. The funny little thing about reason is that the conclusion has to follow the initial premise along logical steps.
is it or is it not reasonable to conclude that symmetrical patterns are result of precision ? as we learn from our own observations with our own gadgets and utensils ..........
so democritus was right to assume that atoms existed based on his observation of recurring patterns, but i am wrong to assume GOD made all by observing recurring patterns around me ?
@kingspider1000 "where does the difference lie ? " Can you seriously see no difference between Democritus's infallible logic and your assumption? Where is this order? Name something orderly in the universe. Planets orbit the sun due to gravitation. it looks like clockwork right? But what about the materials that were sucked into the sun? What about planets destroyed & absorbed during the early solar system? What about failed solar systems? What about exploding stars & inhospitable conditions?
democritus infalible logic ? he was folowing an assumption coupled wth a prior abstract understanding. thats all. his form of logic isnt similar to the logic todays scientists use. it was deductive reasning at best.
i think you're simply evading the issue.
and im not about t dignify your embarassing inquiry on the orderof the unierse. youd have to be blind for that to have escaped you.
we cant continue ou discusson if you refuse to recognize the obvious things.
furthermore, how are you sure its chaos ? example in a lab : complex chemical reactions, when observed, at first impression look like chaotic motion of forces. when its anyhting but.
we really use the the word chaos too liberally when in reality it simply does not exist.
calculus looks like chaos to the untrained mathmatician. its not chaos.
what ur calling chaos is simply undetected, more sophisticated order.
@kingspider1000 You mean using chaos liberally as you just did? I mean chaos to mean a system that has no order or decipherable causality. Chaos does not mean cacophanous or confusing. It means without order and therefore calculus is extremely non-chaotic even if someone percieves it as indecipharable. Again you are giving too much credence to human perception. There exists many chaotic systems that create orderly structure. Crystals, snowflakes etc. How do they fit into your initial premise
were not concerned with your understanding of chaos, which isnt really chaos at all, but what laymen understand it to be.
my friend, there are branches of science and math explaining chaos, saying chaos is actually order. again, refusing to see the obvious established truths.
you claimed we see order rising from chaos. if orer repeatedly rises from chaos, it is a predictable phenomenon. meaning its not chaos at all. chaos isnt predictable.
@kingspider1000 My layman understanding of chaos is in line with the actual definition and how physicists and mathematicians use it. You were the one who gave a false definition of chaos which I had to correct. If you have to deny that there is exists such a thing as chaos, then you are lost. The fact is that the more you explore the quantum world, the more chaotic it becomes. Particles can me in multiple places simultaneously and perform every possible action in any situation.
lol nothing in the quantum world becomes chaotic, just undetectable after a point. it is not chaotic since no matter how unexplicably the super microscopic particles behave, they always yield the same result.
@kingspider1000 This exchange never evolved beyond pointless. You don't know what reason is and how it is used. You deny the usefulness of its application and you give credence to things like intuition and personal account. You don't know what chaos is (It is not randomness, only lack of order) You deny it's very existence eve though there is a whole branch of science dedicated to Chaos in the universe. Then you deny that Quantum physics is massively chaotic. Read a book. Thanks 4 ur time.
@kingspider1000 What you essentially are postulating with the kalam argument is that all things must be caused except god which must by nescessity break a universal law. It is a small minded special plead and is based on a misunderstanding of causality and time. It is more likely that the universe is self caused, as your "Eternal first cause" must be. Either God must be uncaused or self caused which is the very thing you are against the universe being.
lol, ask this to yourself, GOD (the highest conceivable reality) having to obey universal laws? if HE did, would HE be god ? there is a reason why we call HIM ALLAH.
he is god since he isnt subjet to laws. you are required to look at the rationale behind our acceptance of HIM as god almighty.
if the unverse is self causes, then the watch on your hand is also self caused.
i think is time you reconsidered your doctorate in philosophy.
@kingspider1000 Actually no. It is my education in philosophy that allows me better clarity when spotting logical fallacies such as false dichotomy, false continuum, genetic fallacy, all of which you have commited in our exchange. Because the universe may be self caused does not mean that all things are self caused or that componants of a self caused system are themselves self caused. If you want to say that god is able to do anything then what use is that as an explanation?
@kingspider1000 And the Kalam argument AND the original cosmological argument are used as examples of fallacious logic, at least in my college because they are both examples of the breaking of two fundemental rules of logic. 1) That the initial premise be a self evident, verifiable or observable truth as it must be accepted in order for the proposition to follow. 2) The proposition must not add any new information that did not logically follow in prior premises. Both arguments break these.
the kalam argument is in line with th ratonality of causality. period. that satisfies our observational knowledge that patterns have a creator. just because the creator does not fall within the rules he created does not deem the argument as moot.
we may know how tornadoes are formed, with the intricate motion of wind, without actually knowing why the winds start to behave that way suddenly. its a mystery till now..
it does not cancel out the fact that tornadoes have a cause
@kingspider1000 That is the problem with the Kalam argument. It is extremely oversimplified as well as being fallacious. 1) Everything that begins to exist is caused to exist. This is an unacceptable premise because nothing is ever observed to begin to exist from a state of non-existence. And it is very monist in its tackling of causality. What is a cause? and what is a thing? When a table is caused to exist by a carpenter, exactly what is the cause? And when does it begin to exist?
here let me use an earthly example : a man who knows nothing about how to build a fire, and sees an outdoorsman making fire from sticks and stones, does he know the cause exactly ? no .
but doubtless, he registers the fact that there is a cause. period. he may not be aware of it, but it is there.
i think youre disfavouring the kalam argument on grounds of not being able to comprehend with your limited mind how the CREATOR created from nothingness .
@kingspider1000 That is a version of the blind watchmaker which is an alegory for the teleological argument. But you fall into a lot of shakey philosophical ground when making such an argument. It is a false analogy. You are talking of mechanisms within the universe and within a quanitative, linear space time. The analogy can not apply to the totality of all things or to matter and energy. Also in the example you are aware of a functional purpose for a fire, or watch.
neither did we understand the full purposes of a fire all at once , but realised it slowly with our realisation of its needs gradually.
similarly, the universe has a purpose that ultimately is recognized by mans inner being. man is also a subjective faithful creature and nature accounted for it. meaning the universe has room for spirituality in it.
the purpose of the universe is to express the glory of the CREATOR.
@kingspider1000 What you essentially are postulating with the kalam argument is that all things must be caused except god which must by nescessity break a universal law. It is a small minded special plead and is based on a misunderstanding of causality and time. It is more likely that the universe is self caused, as your "Eternal first cause" must be. Either God must be uncaused or self caused which is the very thing you are against the universe being.
@kingspider1000 3) Scriptures from the Bible which go contrary to many other creation accounts and metaphysical dogmas. Mythology is not proof of anything, especially when it has claimed many falsified things.
chrsitianity is roman paganism rebuilt on an abrahamic template. it is not telling of the message of christ at all.
in the quran we are given signs that it is indeed the word of ALLAH , since we have clear information of expanding universe, existence of many universes, the solar apex and the ostrich shaped earth 1400 years ago in the quran .
@kingspider1000 What you essentially are postulating with the kalam argument is that all things must be caused except god which must by nescessity break a universal law. It is a small minded special plead and is based on a misunderstanding of causality and time. It is more likely that the universe is self caused, as your "Eternal first cause" must be. Either God must be uncaused or self caused which is the very thing you are against the universe being.
lol, ask this to yourself, GOD (the highest conceivable reality) having to obey universal laws? if HE did, would HE be god ? there is a reason why we call HIM ALLAH.
he is god since he isnt subjet to laws. you are required to look at the rationale behind our acceptance of HIM as god almighty.
if the unverse is self causes, then the watch on your hand is also self caused.
i think is time you reconsidered your doctorate in philosophy.
@kingspider1000 That claim is false by definition. You are saying 'Atheist' and 'theist' and by using those labels you are refering to those specific beliefs. Atheism being the lack of belief in a personal God, and Theism being the belief that a personal god objectively exists and intervenes in the universe. These two positions are mutually exclusive. However, many atheists like fishing as do many theists. But you did not define them by their attracttion to fishing.
An incredibly skewed version of Richard Dawkins. In fact this is tantamount to slander. Richard Dawkins is a renowned well known rational person who has the courage to stand up against fundamental religious idiocy. Only a fundamental Christian or Jew or Islamist would copy patch and paste and remake a video putting him in a bad light. Your morals depict just how your bible prescribes you to be, Morally corrupt. Practise what you preach wanker.
@derrickvanzyl Sir, don't be an ass. I'm an Atheist who wanted to release some sort of parody. Did you not read the description? Quote... "In all honesty, if you haven't noticed, this IS a satire. I support and completely respect Professor Dawkins."
Watch my other videos if you don't entirely believe me... And yes, I AM a wanker at times, but this time was rather insulting.
@TheFg1980 "Darwin's daughter Henrietta Litchfield stated in The Xtian for 23 February 1922 in an article titled: Charles Darwin's Death-Bed: Story of Conversion Denied by Mrs. R.B. Litchfield:
I was present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. The whole story has no truth what-so-ever." Facts: Get to know. Slandering Darwin's name like that. kmt.
Also MOUNTAIN DEW IS THE BEST SODA EVER MADE!
narutokage777 1 week ago 3
I stopped listening after just 3 seconds! No other Video has made me do that!
RobbeyT 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then Hell. that's not God's will. He became a man Jesus Christ and suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His lifes blood. now He can legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from sin and trust alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ for your eternal salvation
mamainmancj 1 week ago
Hahahahaha! "You sir, are nothing more than the fart of God" I'm rolling! It started out educated, and then just goes down hill.
TheAndiePerson 2 weeks ago
The use of richard dawkins's clips for a youtube poop.....................is odd. But I still managed to LOL
baahhhFATALITY11 2 weeks ago
This was funny, but I still clicked "dislike".
ralax3 3 weeks ago
"the flying spaghetti monster could fuck off!" haha! that first line made me laugh! Godspeed stephen dorkins!
joey143anna 1 month ago
soon everybody will know that "watch?v=qIlXWOnbTlM"
mobiledev 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Give this a thump plz so everybody can see this
Richard Dawkins is a big LIAR , dont listen to him peolpe, he is talking to you as if you are an idiots or an animals, we are not an animals but better than monkeys belive me in this and be careful about this point .
he doesn't say the truth but he dulls you because he is fake , racial and wrong .
Open Minded Christian
konfoshari9 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Give this a thump plz so everybody can see this
Richard Dawkins is a big LIAR , dont listen to him peolpe, he is talking to you as if you are an idiots or an animals, we are not an animals but better than monkeys belive me in this and be careful about this point .
he doesn't say the truth but he dulls you because he is fake , racial and wrong .
Open Minded Christian
konfoshari9 1 month ago
Fuck off!!!
sundayraver 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some werewolf bitches sex-attacked a poor man here a few days ago. They poked him with a sharp 300 times and then ended up in jail.
Werewolf bitches are the true bitches of society. Don't take your pants off around them.
Ariel62073 2 months ago
I found those emails that Richard Dawkins was reading out hilarious...very christian indeed!
Dawkins is my hero.
sleepypoodle 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins, why don't you go park your car on a busy motorway, in the fast lane, in heavy fog for a nap and do natural selection a favor by removing yourself from the gene pool.
Seigu007 2 months ago
Perfectly good bandwith wasted
aletzelente 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 2 months ago
Cute.
mdiem 2 months ago
Some of it is Dawkins reading from aggressive letters he has received.
TrDeadeye 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheMogulmonster 2 months ago
This is hilarious, a wonderful botch-potch of clips. Thanks for posting this.
TheMogulmonster 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Here's a great IRONY with the extremely stupid comment about Satan enjoying torturing Dawkins. If you actually know what the Bible says (and recovered past "believers" like myself often know the Bible better than fundies) you know that the hell described in Matthew 25 was originally created for fallen angels. So Satan, etc. would be too busy screaming in agony themselves to torture anyone else with extra pain. And even if they could, it would be small comfort to them. "God" keeps hell going.
TheBeNimble 3 months ago
Guys this is listed under comedy.....but this is anyway what i would say to these theistic people....they are incapable of understanding Logic........and Dawkins is far beyond them frankly!
NecroNoir1 3 months ago
Watch 'A response to Richard dawkins by Adam Deen" a muslim speaker
kupekake 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is pretty funny.
LondonIrishRover 3 months ago
This is pretty funny.
LondonIrishRover 3 months ago
This video is actually better then most of the christian arguments.
kubilayaktunc 3 months ago
Why would somebody change richard dawkins words. The man is very smart and makes a lot of sense.
phildawe1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
hahaha funny ...dawkins is awesome thou
yoransom 4 months ago
The excerpts of him reading his hate mail are the best. They video is trying to make it seem like Dawkins is saying most of these "fuck off" type comments about believers, when he's just reading hate mail he has received. Shows their ignorance.
ma1achite 4 months ago
It is common for skeptics to sneer at christianity because it makes so much account of faith. They seem to assume that they have no need of faith, in anything. It would be easy to show that of all men, religious skeptics must be most credulous and must have most faith, of some sort.
OtonielRochaSC 4 months ago
The chief peculiarity in their case is, that having rejected the light and the evidence of truth through their radical enmity of heart against it, they are shut up to the necessity of believing things without evidence and against evidence as their only resort. They are compelled to believe that to "leap into the dark" at death is the best ending of human life.
OtonielRochaSC 4 months ago
@OtonielRochaSC The evidence for all the "truth" in all the holy books is zip, zilch, zero, nada. Nothing but self delusion. Period.
Science is what we do to stop us from lying to ourselves.
TomFynn 4 months ago
lol, why does this have so many dislikes? this is awesome!
Crosell 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 4 months ago
Pretty fucking funny! Professor Dawkins FTW!
Al3xX420 4 months ago
Dude, this is a Youtube Poop, not to be taken seriously...
Gretgor666 4 months ago 22
@Gretgor666 Fuck, THANK YOU! Finally someone gets it!
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 4 months ago 24
@ReverendPopeFoxyFox DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 4 months ago
@ReverendPopeFoxyFox Misrepresentation and defamation is not a joke. Just because others do not take law seriously, you shouldn't find solace in that. You've just met someone equally juvenile is all.
OrthodoxAtheist 3 months ago
@OrthodoxAtheist Dude lighten up. It's not misrepresentation or defamation. It's SATIRE! And if you can't understand that then you're a joke. Some Atheists are just as uptight and ridiculous as some theists.
Ender8419 3 months ago
@Ender8419 Sorry if I gave the perception I totally give a shit. That's not the case. I can take a joke as well as Dawkins, which is pretty well from what I hear. :D (You should take note though... it isn't satire. Satire is the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices. Dawkins has no stupidity or vices. Therefore a better description is 'cheap humor'. :)
OrthodoxAtheist 3 months ago
@OrthodoxAtheist Obviously you do give a shit since you have now taken the time to write two comments about the matter. And you have not shown that you can take a joke so take your uppity shit and shove it.
Ender8419 3 months ago
@Ender8419 some???
Expelledable 2 months ago
@ReverendPopeFoxyFox It was hilarious, people are stupid not getting it, really.
Konicava 3 months ago
@ReverendPopeFoxyFox Flagged for fake title bitch
Sm0k4bl3 1 week ago
@Gretgor666 very funny,a dude...
wtf, other atheists can t understand this...
paunocu666 2 months ago
proper funny, i loved this, gonna watch it again.
MrGiovannischiavone 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
@TheServiceWeb lol fuckoff spammer.
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 5 months ago
This is totally rude, slanderous, fake.
KaleRay93 5 months ago
@KaleRay93 You're just another who didn't bother to read the description. It's a satire. Satirical comedy isn't supposed to be nice.
But how absolutely slanderous can it be when the RDF gave this video a positive review?
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 5 months ago
@KaleRay93 This is totally a joke, funny, and yes fake.
Ender8419 3 months ago
i challenge any atheist out there to dismantle this claim :
atheists and theists think alike.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 Many humans think alike. Therefore it is a semi-true statement. However, can YOU dismantle your own claim, friend?
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 5 months ago
@ReverendPopeFoxyFox
i dont want to since i believe in that lol.
butif this is true indeed, then what sets an atheist apart from the rest of us 'simple minded' theists ? wheres the difference when both of our minds function the same way ....... ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 Well, there is no difference in brain function between the mind of a theist and the mind of an atheist. It is a common misconception that both sides fall into. I don't view my theist, polytheist, or deist friends as any less intelligent for believing in a higher power.
Also, it is not a question of simplicity vs complexity of mental qualities as much as it is about universal view. No, my friend, we are all equal! No matter how our beliefs differ. :) So yes, we do think alike.
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 It's not about the structure of the brain, it's about what is put into it.
Theists aren't stupid, they're misinformed, if someone tells you red is blue your whole life, it's not the fault of the student, it's the fault of the teacher.
emikochan13 5 months ago
@emikochan13
i could say the same about atheists, friend. besides, red and blue are simply names to describe colors. if im told red is blue all my life then ill always ideantify the color of dusk, blood, watermelon juice as all blue, meaning i can put them under the same category. the only diff being im using a diff name which is really not a big deal.
but my point is, if both think alike, why are atheists right and theists wrong ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 ok that was a bad analogy, because you're not getting my point. Basically, your question is flawed due to atheism not being a state of mind, it's a rejection of a claim (of there being a god or gods) due to lack of evidence.
Other than that, there is nothing else that a theist and an atheist will automatically disagree on. There are some traits that are quite common among atheists but they aren't required to be one.
emikochan13 5 months ago
@emikochan13
ok so finally we arrive at someplace. so your objection to theistic claim is that there is no evidence of god ..... and that we are smarter than some simpletons to just simply hearken to words in mouldy old book .....
very good, but yet you believe in atoms ,and electrons...... yet you yourself never saw them. your claims are based on whats written on books by people .....
why is your belief in atoms legitimate ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 because I know that I could repeat the experiments done to find said atoms if I so wished. It's all open to the public. I know if I expose iron to oxygen, that it will oxidise due to the reactivity of oxygen atoms and if I don't expose it, it will remain shiny forever. These experiments are not difficult, we did them at primary school!
Also electron microscopes exist, they wouldn't work without electrons...neither would electricity.
emikochan13 5 months ago
Again I'm not saying we're smarter, we just have consistent standards for evidence across all our beliefs, rather than separating one out for lower standards. I've never met a theist that believes everything on the same standard as their chosen god, why believe in any specific god when there are so many with an equal amount of evidence?
I don't believe in anything supernatural, because supernatural claims are constantly conflicting with eachother, with no recourse to evidence to settle it.
emikochan13 5 months ago
@emikochan13
you did not answer my question. no point in swerving off topic..
how is your belief in somethng so bizarre ( an atom) justified despite your absence of personal empirical obsrvation of it, while a religious mans belief in the INTELLIGENT CREATOR is dismissed as fairytale when he actually bases his belief on the indication of GOD by observing nature and its precise order ?
you havent seen touched or felt an atom, yet you believe in it blindly. why ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 How is it off topic, I explained my belief in atoms, because without the knowledge we have of atoms we wouldn't be able to split them in a predictable manner (for example)
Nature is not a precise order, it's convenient chaos. If it was ordered, we wouldn't be here, it's the random fluctuations that allowed for the variation that led to gas collapsing into stars.
Occams razor also comes into effect here, an explanation that makes less assumptions, is more likely to be true.
emikochan13 5 months ago
@emikochan13
oh please dont even start on occams razor. ill tell you what it means. it means when multiple explanations are given on a certain thing, scientists choose the least complex or most simple one, which in time, when studied deeply, actually reveals more complexity than the previous explanation.
meaning, things get more complex and intricate as you look deeper into details. you stand corrected.
and please answer my previous question if you are sincere.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@emikochan13
if these random 'fluctuations' are occuring on a regular basis producing the same things, then it isnt chaos is it? chaos does not repeat itself. repetition is the work of patterns. pattersn in turn indicate intelligent mind.
couldnt it be that what youre calling chaotic is merely an order of a higher configuration not yet detectable by men ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 why are atoms bizarre anyway ? everything is made up of smaller parts, why is it bizarre to look into what those smaller parts are made of. We see atoms with electron microscopes, as I said in my last post. Why is it "blind belief" when we can see atoms?
Detecting things often relies on detecting the effect of them, just as we can't see the wind but we can detect its effects, we can't see subatomic particles but we can detect their electromagnetic fields.
emikochan13 5 months ago
@emikochan13
you have never witnessed an atom yourself, as far as your personal observation is concerned, you havent experienced one yourself. your belief in atoms is based on the benefit of the doubt you give to external sources of info (scientists, books)
so how different are you from theists that believe in angels based on their source of information when they havent seen one themselves ?
please stay on point.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 i've told you twice, I could repeat those experiments and see an atom if I wished, that's the difference. The source for angels is unreliable
You are not understanding the difference between the possibility of any "god" and the possibility of specific gods. God claims tied to anything testable has never stood up to the test. Making something up that can't be disproved, doesn't make it true. Occams does apply, you missed the part where it says "given all other factors are equal"
emikochan13 5 months ago
@emikochan13
perhaps im not being clear enough emikochan. please listen carefully :
you have never seen an atom with your own eyes, nor tested one personally . ys or no ?
if no, then your belief in them must be based on other peoples claim of atoms. am i right ?
if yes, then does it not mean that you are believing in atoms on faith rather than on personal observation ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 No they aren't the same, I believe in the repeatable methodology that led to the discovery of atoms, because I use the same method in daily life
The core of science is to be able to make predictions based off of data. Basically, using observations from the past to predict what will happen in the future.
What do gods explain? Nothing. They just cause more questions.
Atoms could be "faeries" but if they don't do anything else that faeries might do, why call them faeries?
emikochan13 5 months ago
@emikochan13
repeatable methodology of people unconnected to your personal cognitive faculties. you certainly did not repeat those tests, they did, theywho tell you atoms exist. your belief in atoms is a matter of faith than based on personal observation of actual atoms, am i right ?
and as for repeatable, i can easily say that so many prophets received revelations from GOD in the same mnner and experienced the same things, thus establishing a pattern for being conscious of GOD.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000
why do you believe in atoms ?
which idea is more bizarre ? the unseen CREATOR creating order around us ? ( order is always the result of mind and not randomness)
or microscopic spherical bits which have tinier particles playing mery go round composing every known thing in the universe?
i assure you, simple observation makes GOD more clearly visible than it will ever show atoms ......
so why believe in atoms? esp when u havent personally seen one ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 And as I said before, those prophets have added nothing of worth to the human condition.
Results are what matters when you create a method for ascertaining knowledge. When you have knowledge, you can then create predictions based on the knowledge.
As for "prophets" they all received different experiences that they applied to a god. It's very different.
hen you already have a conclusion, you can easily pick and choose the evidence that backs up your position.
emikochan13 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 There is no methodology that leads to divine revelations, people just get them when they say they get them, it's not verifiable. Much like trying to prove someone committed a crime when there is no evidence or witnesses. (Hi witch burning , another religious cognition fail)
I could say I got a message from the flying spaghetti monster, but you couldn't reproduce that. So you would most likely dismiss it - why do you not apply the same scrutiny to your own beliefs?
emikochan13 5 months ago
@emikochan13
i was only trying to strike a similarity between different forms of observation by using the prophets example. they did receive revelations in a similar way and preached the same thing despite having hundreds of years of gaps between them.
but coming back to atoms : have you seen one with your own eyes ? what do you use as proof to believe in atoms ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
well how can a layman such as yourself verify the existence of atoms ? yet you believe in atoms without personal verification.....
why give benefit of the doubt to something as bizarre as atoms ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 Why do you constantly call atoms "bizarre" when everything in the macro scale is also made of smaller pieces?, it only follows that the smaller things are made of small pieces too.
Also I just watched a documentary on the effects of xrays on crystals, and they do detect the shadows of the atoms within the structure, so there's even more proof. You can't personally verify everything but the method that leads to knowledge has been proven. You think all the LHC results are fake?
emikochan13 5 months ago
@emikochan13
atoms are bizarre. they are 99.99999 percent hollow ! did you know this ? meaning we are mostly hollow . if this isnt bizarre, i dunno what is.
look youre telling me the same thing over and over : what you saw others tell you. documentaries and books. i ask you : have u seen an atom yourself ? with your own eyes?
please answer the question.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 I've told you why repeatedly, and it's intriguing you also know the properties of something you don't believe in. It's not bizarre, because it just is. What are you comparing them to? There is nothing else out there like atoms, so what are they bizarre in relation to? Things feel solid because of the electromagnetic forces that hold everything together, the gap between two repelling electromagnets is hollow too, but it's not strange that you can't pass metal through that is it?
emikochan13 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 To add, you believe I exist yes? you believe countries you haven't visited exist? Though you've seen no personal verification that I'm not a Turing machine, or countries are just made up. The fact that I *could* visit you or Australia, is enough for normal claims.
Only extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Things being made of smaller things is not an extraordinary claim. especially when the predictions from the theories based on that hypothesis are accurate.
emikochan13 5 months ago
@emikochan13
i believe . thast it. period. i dont think that i need to verify this exists or not, i believe in the unseen. and i believe in the concept before i can test it.
man learns ideas. we learn dedcutively, not empirically. meaning, we believe in things without being able to test them ourselves.
look, explain why you believe in the claim that atoms exist . ok ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 Hello again. Not to butt into the middle of this debate, but let me answer your question for myself. Belief is a strong thing and can be either positive or negative. Empiricism doesn't touch belief because science cannot touch faith. Vice versa is true as well. My understanding of atoms comes from the empirical evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that atoms exist. The same cannot be said for any creator-being because such beings are outside of the realm of science. :)
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 5 months ago
@ReverendPopeFoxyFox
i beg to differ, but you have no empirical evidence for atoms ! understand that there is no point in debating if we are not being honest with each other.
all you know about atoms so far is from secondary sources and not from your cognition. you have never seen an atom with your own eyes. your acceptance of atoms is similar to a theists acceptance of angels which he read about in his scriptures. neither person has actualy seen the things they believe in.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 Being a University student, I've been given access to an extremely high-powered microscope in the science lab. By using that, I, myself, have seen atoms, thus making my experience of them a little more first-hand than you would like to say, friend.
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 5 months ago
@ReverendPopeFoxyFox
my friend, your insistence of me accepting your claim of seeing atoms also requires belief from me. i have no empirical evidence of you havng empirical evidence of atoms. you see,you cant cut away belief from the equation after all.
lets assume, that you have seen atoms. how do you know theyre atoms?
secondly, how would you expect those not blessed with your faciities to simply believe in atoms when they are mentioned. how much proof do they need to believe you ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 So photos aren't good enough? You sound like a conspiracy theorist...
emikochan13 5 months ago
@ReverendPopeFoxyFox but science can touch faith, whenever faith makes any testable claim.
emikochan13 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 and in addition, i've seen photos of atoms, i've seen the effects of atoms, and i've seen things based off the predicted effects of atoms. The cause of all these evidences, is what we call "atoms"
How much more evidence do you need?
Remember words are labels, in the same way cosmologists could have called "dark matter" and "dark energy" , "steve" and "owen" (watch Neil deGrasse Tyson's lectures) When something that doesn't have an existing label turns up, it gets a new word.
emikochan13 5 months ago
@emikochan13
ahh photos. how about videos ? you mustve seen blue skinned aliens riding pterodactyls on tv. surely you must believe in them as well. ;-)
look stop crying behind your scientists aprons. im asking you, the individual. are yu not liek a theist in giving benefit of the doubt to secondary information sources to believe in atoms ?
wheres the difference here? please speak entirely from your own individual experience. im not interested in otherwise.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 you are being unreasonable. Good day.
emikochan13 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 I should explain that I was once a theist, spiritualist, supernaturalist and I was taught in a Church of england school. I am now Atheist and scholarly and can only speak for myself, but my outlook on life has completely changed. I have alleviated myself of a lot of confusion and negativity since becoming atheist and rational. There is a reason why it is called freethinking and clear minded.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
oh rationality. that pesky thing.
anyways, define rationality. what i rational to you isn rational to lets say a tribesman living in madagascar. its rational for you to believe that cern can produce anti particles in a giant circle under the ground, can one living in a remote village ever find reason in such a claim if it were presented before him ?
would a man whos familiar with mechanisms of a bike ever find the mechanism of a rocket rational when hes never seen a rocket
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 Rational does not mean intuitive, sensible or acceptable. It has a clearly defined definition and code of application. Rationality is discipline of using methodological cognition in deducing truths and making sense of the universe. It encompases logic and reason and is a central part of philosophy. Basically it is the act of reasoning from a known observation or truth to a nescessary truth that is not observed.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
that does not answer my question. so ill help you out a bit. would it be rational for the village guy to outrightly deny the antimatter in a giant circle claim ? something that exits by the way.
and if rationality does not include intuition or sensible, then the greeks were wrong to deduce that atoms existed as building blocks by drawing an analogy between everything that exists ith structures men made : buildings.
they didnt have microscopes, how did they know about atoms
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 How about I help YOU out a bit. I defined what Rationalism is so that you may answer your own question. And, the greeks did not make analogies to buildings when deducing that atoms must exist. Democtritus deduced that for a peach to be able to be cut with a knife, it must contain empty space. he deduced that he could continue cutting the peach into smaller and small segments but not infinitely into nothingness. He deduced rationally that all things contained substance and void.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
whatever democritus did to find out about atoms, he did it using dedcuctive reasoning, intuition and faith. he didnt see the atom to believe in it ! do you get me ?
my point being, rationality isnt about objectivity and if you believe that then you are misrepresenting human intellect. lack of empirical evidence therefore is irrelevant.
so when theists deduce that there must be CREATOR for the ordered existence, isnt it the same as what democritus did to discover atoms ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 No. Because Democritus did not use faith. Faith and reason are poles apart. Reason is working from a known truth and working along steps that necessarily follow from the truth to a conclusion that is True by necessity. That is reason. Faith is hoping that something is true based on your own intuition and wants. When theists "Deduce" they are not using reason or logic. They are basically using intuition based on human failiures of cognition.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
oh so democritus was also being irrational then. wasnt he? since he never actually saw the atom when declaring its existence. his deduction led him to the theory of atoms which he believed.
belief was as much apart of his theory than anything else.
youre simplystating that belief cannot come without cognitive proof. absolutey untrue sir. man learns dedcutivly, never empirically.
so deduction in his case was right, but in my case its wrong ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 sigh. There would be no need for rationalism and reason if to be rational is to observe something to exist. Do you not understand what reason is despite me explaining it to you? Democritus deduced the existence of atoms by following an axiom to its logical conclusion. That is reason. Also, belief has nothing to do with faith. Belief is the conviction that something is true regardless of the actual objective truth. If we can't agree on basic semantics then why continue?
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
exactly what im trying to say ! he used an axiom to fugure out something he could never see with his own eyes. something beyond his empirical verification.
meaning, truth can be found out using reason, and not necessarily direct objective proof of the said thing. now im gonna sigh.
having said all this, is it logical for atheists to use the excuse of no empirical evidence for god to disbelieve in god? do you follow ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 Ok, but you were mixing faith and reason when they are poles apart. Reason is not faith because the conclusion logically follows the premise and as such must be true. The whole point of reason is to construct a framework of reality from epirical observation. Democritus's discovery of atoms HAD to be true because the conclusion of his reason followed naturally from a truthful premise. Faith is not reason. There need be no faith with reason.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
lol faith is based on reason . dont you see the similarity ? i dont think youve really explored the meaning of these words like 'faith' 'reason' 'science' when youve been told them.
theists observe themsevles and the universe and come to the conclusin of GOD , whom they later believe.
1) instinct to worship the UNIQUE REALITY
2)observation showing sgns of design which indicate CREATOR
3)religious scriptures that confirm these observations made before religious belief
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 Don't condescend to me. I have a philosophy degree and I know full well what Faith, reason and science are. Faith is not based on reason. Faith and reason are two seperate and mutually exclusive things. Why have faith in a necessary truth? I am not saying that theologians and apologists do not attempt to use reason. However, in my philosophy classes we examined the Kalam cosmological argument as an example of poor reasoning.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
well the faithful world does not agree with you. i am proof of my claim. GOD occured to me before i learned about religion. youre probably confusing ritual worship with instinct to recognize the CREATOR.
all people that believe in god do so because it makes sense. not because faith has been dictated to them.
the rationale for god is that the orderly universe and its contents have a conscious creator just like a cina vase has a potter. design can come only from mind.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 But I just explained to you that God doesn't make sense. It is irrational. People believe in God because a belief in God makes the world make sense to them. People like to have answers and a belief in the Bible gives them the illusion that they have answers. People fear death, and the belief in an afterlife takes away that fear. I understand WHY people would be drawn to theism, but I argue that truth is always better than a lie. I take the world as it is and love it regardless.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
lol by saying god dosent make sense youre merely pressing your opinion on me. and i explained to you that people believe in god becasue it makes sense: 1) they want to believe in god 2) peoples belief in causality, indicating the god idea further 3) scriptures as confirmation of previous two points.
just as i explained how god makes sense, you must have a logical rationale behind your claim that god dosent make sense. people wont simply take your word for it.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000
and coming back to our understanding of rationality.
if democritus can conceive of atoms based on an observation that led him to believe in their existence, then would it be wrong for us to arrive at the idea of CREATOR by observing the precise design of everything around us including ourselves ?
how can you justify something so little as lack of empirical proof to deny something ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 1) A desire to believe in something is only proof of it's desirablity, not it's truth 2) The God hypothesis does not solve the Infinite regression problem, it merely delays it by one step. Either causality stretches back through infinite or stops. And that is treating causality as a linear and quantitative dimension which it isn't. In the absense of time, there is no causality so the first event must be self caused if it occured at all. Which we know it did.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
desires are a part of human nature and nature always accounts for the characteristics of its constituents. if we are part of nature and have an innate desire to believe in god, it must be legitimate a demand. its instinct.
infinite regression requires us to accept an endless series of one cretaing the next. an endless sequence, a pattern .
it requires faith to believe in this. however, it does not take faith to believe in one uncaused eternal first cause .common sense.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 I think you are arguing for a kierkegaardian notion of subjective truth which I doubt anyone today would take seriously. "It is true for me" is a cop out and an admition of defeat. And Aristotle is the source of the cosmological argument for a first cause and it was as a solution to the infinite past problem. It has since been hijacked by theologeans and rebranded as a the kalam argument. Both versions are equally fallacious, common sense or not.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
in order to call something fallacious, ample counter arguments must be provided that seem plausible. you have none. just your forced statements.
and nothing kierkgaardian here, desire to beleve in the highest conceivable being is inherent in all men. some pay attention to it while others dont. that is why religion is the most powerful institution of people because it addresses something we all relate to.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 We all fear death, nobody wants to die and we would all love to live forever. That does not mean that we should all believe it to be true. It doesn't mean that it is objectively true. Kiekegaard attempted to argue that subjective experience IS truth and that whatever your beliefs are, that is true reality until a time as you change them. That is similar to your stance it seems.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
kiergaard knew that our intuition was proportional to the things present in REALTY.. he was a smart man who know it was too intricate not to include our subjective awareness of things. intuition, dedution and inductive reasoning have shown man more truths than empirical evidence ever has.
isnt that why democritus figured out atoms even when he lacked the tools to do so ?
or do you argue that atoms began to exist only when our ability to detect them started to exist ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 What has intuition ever shown? You say that deduction and induction are more valuble than empiricle evidence... How so? Just like kierkegaard you are attempting to elevate the status of those things because doing so adds value to your a-priori position. Kierkegaard is regarded as an example of someone who was desperate to justify his religious beliefs and resorted to silly semantic tricks to do so.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
intuition has shown us things that advanced tools have confirmed. atoms. cells. the solar system, the star system spoken of ncient civilizations, which they could never have known using gadgets.
are you cancellin out your own admission of the fact that democritus used intuittion and dedcutive reasoning to prove atoms ?
youve lost me there.
and as for kierkgaard, youre missing the point. his argument was that subjectivity often mirrors what exists objectively.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 We are having problems with definitions again. Democritus used reason. Not intuition. Intuition and reason are seperate things and mutually exclusive. In fact Intuition be definition is the acquisition of knowledge without the use of reason. Intuition is what made natural philosophers assume that lighter objects fall slower than faster objects. An intuitive assumption that even modern minds fall for. Ans Kierkegaard was not arguing that. Not by a long way.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
reasoning isnt confined to using empirical proofs alone. empirical proof itself depends on a level of belief or giving of benefit of the doubt.
philosophers were right to assume that lighter objects do fall slower than heavier ones. it is seen . it does not have to apply to all light objects.
light objects and heavy ones both react to gravity, that much is certain.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 "philosophers were right to assume that lighter objects do fall slower than heavier ones." Are you saying that they were correct to make that assumption? It is wrong. It was an intuition based assumption. Copernicus however, actually tested it. Put aside his bias and intuitive thinking and looked at it empirically and found that objects actually fall at the same speed regardless of mass given that friction is the same for all masses of object. Intuition is useless and hinders.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
look, stop evading the issue. youre just wasting my time here.
what did democritus have to come to the conclusion that atoms existed ? atoms which he could never verify with his empirical reasoning ?
did he arrive at the conclusion by actually seeing the atom ? or did he do so by following repeating patterns in nature ?
forget everything else, just answer this.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 I haven't evaded any question.. The answer to your question is neither. He used Reason. Reason.. Reason is following a known truth along premises that must logically follow to a conclusion that is necessarily true. what is so hard to understand? If the Initial premise is true, and every following premise must follow from that truth, then the conclusion to the proposal MUST be true. That is what Democritus used. Learn some logic and argumentation mate.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
believing that ordered symmetrical things have a designer is follwoing a known truth as well. strangely, you dont seem to grasp that.
it is not known for complex things to arise out of their own, which you believe they do, meaning thus that it is you that lacks reasoning. i suggest you take your own advice, mate.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000
(contd)
and i think uve conveninetly escaped the main theme of our discussion.
the relevance of empirical evidence in man's reasoning. weve both seen how democritus used reason to believe in atoms, and not by actually seeing them, so is it justified to disbelieve in god due to lack of empirical evidence ?
and if it is empirical evidence youre looking for, what is proof of god according to you ? surely u need to at least know what the the evidence is .......
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
both follow patterns already recognized by them. the grek cut a fruit and realised everything must be consituted of orderly smaller parts without actually seeing those parts (atoms)
a theist sees the precisely mechanical universe and thus concludes it is made by the MAKER, as they know from their own engineering of intricate devices that they need intelligence to build.
where exactly do you not see reason in the theists deduction here ? please point out.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 We design orderly and intricate things = correct Therefore all things orderly and intricate are designed = False. Where is the reason there? it ignores the many instances of orderly structures arising from chaos and also infers design when no purpose is known. There is no design without purpose. You see. The funny little thing about reason is that the conclusion has to follow the initial premise along logical steps.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
Comment removed
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
is it or is it not reasonable to conclude that symmetrical patterns are result of precision ? as we learn from our own observations with our own gadgets and utensils ..........
so democritus was right to assume that atoms existed based on his observation of recurring patterns, but i am wrong to assume GOD made all by observing recurring patterns around me ?
where does the difference lie ?
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 "where does the difference lie ? " Can you seriously see no difference between Democritus's infallible logic and your assumption? Where is this order? Name something orderly in the universe. Planets orbit the sun due to gravitation. it looks like clockwork right? But what about the materials that were sucked into the sun? What about planets destroyed & absorbed during the early solar system? What about failed solar systems? What about exploding stars & inhospitable conditions?
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
democritus infalible logic ? he was folowing an assumption coupled wth a prior abstract understanding. thats all. his form of logic isnt similar to the logic todays scientists use. it was deductive reasning at best.
i think you're simply evading the issue.
and im not about t dignify your embarassing inquiry on the orderof the unierse. youd have to be blind for that to have escaped you.
we cant continue ou discusson if you refuse to recognize the obvious things.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
furthermore, how are you sure its chaos ? example in a lab : complex chemical reactions, when observed, at first impression look like chaotic motion of forces. when its anyhting but.
we really use the the word chaos too liberally when in reality it simply does not exist.
calculus looks like chaos to the untrained mathmatician. its not chaos.
what ur calling chaos is simply undetected, more sophisticated order.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 You mean using chaos liberally as you just did? I mean chaos to mean a system that has no order or decipherable causality. Chaos does not mean cacophanous or confusing. It means without order and therefore calculus is extremely non-chaotic even if someone percieves it as indecipharable. Again you are giving too much credence to human perception. There exists many chaotic systems that create orderly structure. Crystals, snowflakes etc. How do they fit into your initial premise
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
were not concerned with your understanding of chaos, which isnt really chaos at all, but what laymen understand it to be.
my friend, there are branches of science and math explaining chaos, saying chaos is actually order. again, refusing to see the obvious established truths.
you claimed we see order rising from chaos. if orer repeatedly rises from chaos, it is a predictable phenomenon. meaning its not chaos at all. chaos isnt predictable.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 My layman understanding of chaos is in line with the actual definition and how physicists and mathematicians use it. You were the one who gave a false definition of chaos which I had to correct. If you have to deny that there is exists such a thing as chaos, then you are lost. The fact is that the more you explore the quantum world, the more chaotic it becomes. Particles can me in multiple places simultaneously and perform every possible action in any situation.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
lol nothing in the quantum world becomes chaotic, just undetectable after a point. it is not chaotic since no matter how unexplicably the super microscopic particles behave, they always yield the same result.
thats order, not randomness.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 This exchange never evolved beyond pointless. You don't know what reason is and how it is used. You deny the usefulness of its application and you give credence to things like intuition and personal account. You don't know what chaos is (It is not randomness, only lack of order) You deny it's very existence eve though there is a whole branch of science dedicated to Chaos in the universe. Then you deny that Quantum physics is massively chaotic. Read a book. Thanks 4 ur time.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 What you essentially are postulating with the kalam argument is that all things must be caused except god which must by nescessity break a universal law. It is a small minded special plead and is based on a misunderstanding of causality and time. It is more likely that the universe is self caused, as your "Eternal first cause" must be. Either God must be uncaused or self caused which is the very thing you are against the universe being.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
lol, ask this to yourself, GOD (the highest conceivable reality) having to obey universal laws? if HE did, would HE be god ? there is a reason why we call HIM ALLAH.
he is god since he isnt subjet to laws. you are required to look at the rationale behind our acceptance of HIM as god almighty.
if the unverse is self causes, then the watch on your hand is also self caused.
i think is time you reconsidered your doctorate in philosophy.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 Actually no. It is my education in philosophy that allows me better clarity when spotting logical fallacies such as false dichotomy, false continuum, genetic fallacy, all of which you have commited in our exchange. Because the universe may be self caused does not mean that all things are self caused or that componants of a self caused system are themselves self caused. If you want to say that god is able to do anything then what use is that as an explanation?
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
your education is also based on a premise, a rationale. it isnt something unarguably true, but is subject to changes as time moves on.
the universe cannot be self caused, since that is not logical since it isnt logical to asusme patterns form on their own.
it is logical to believe in the PRIME MOVER , who acts as a casue thus satisfying the rationale of causality.
the cause need not be explained.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 And the Kalam argument AND the original cosmological argument are used as examples of fallacious logic, at least in my college because they are both examples of the breaking of two fundemental rules of logic. 1) That the initial premise be a self evident, verifiable or observable truth as it must be accepted in order for the proposition to follow. 2) The proposition must not add any new information that did not logically follow in prior premises. Both arguments break these.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
the kalam argument is in line with th ratonality of causality. period. that satisfies our observational knowledge that patterns have a creator. just because the creator does not fall within the rules he created does not deem the argument as moot.
we may know how tornadoes are formed, with the intricate motion of wind, without actually knowing why the winds start to behave that way suddenly. its a mystery till now..
it does not cancel out the fact that tornadoes have a cause
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 That is the problem with the Kalam argument. It is extremely oversimplified as well as being fallacious. 1) Everything that begins to exist is caused to exist. This is an unacceptable premise because nothing is ever observed to begin to exist from a state of non-existence. And it is very monist in its tackling of causality. What is a cause? and what is a thing? When a table is caused to exist by a carpenter, exactly what is the cause? And when does it begin to exist?
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
here let me use an earthly example : a man who knows nothing about how to build a fire, and sees an outdoorsman making fire from sticks and stones, does he know the cause exactly ? no .
but doubtless, he registers the fact that there is a cause. period. he may not be aware of it, but it is there.
i think youre disfavouring the kalam argument on grounds of not being able to comprehend with your limited mind how the CREATOR created from nothingness .
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 That is a version of the blind watchmaker which is an alegory for the teleological argument. But you fall into a lot of shakey philosophical ground when making such an argument. It is a false analogy. You are talking of mechanisms within the universe and within a quanitative, linear space time. The analogy can not apply to the totality of all things or to matter and energy. Also in the example you are aware of a functional purpose for a fire, or watch.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
neither did we understand the full purposes of a fire all at once , but realised it slowly with our realisation of its needs gradually.
similarly, the universe has a purpose that ultimately is recognized by mans inner being. man is also a subjective faithful creature and nature accounted for it. meaning the universe has room for spirituality in it.
the purpose of the universe is to express the glory of the CREATOR.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kingspider1000 What you essentially are postulating with the kalam argument is that all things must be caused except god which must by nescessity break a universal law. It is a small minded special plead and is based on a misunderstanding of causality and time. It is more likely that the universe is self caused, as your "Eternal first cause" must be. Either God must be uncaused or self caused which is the very thing you are against the universe being.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 3) Scriptures from the Bible which go contrary to many other creation accounts and metaphysical dogmas. Mythology is not proof of anything, especially when it has claimed many falsified things.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
@TacticalHub
chrsitianity is roman paganism rebuilt on an abrahamic template. it is not telling of the message of christ at all.
in the quran we are given signs that it is indeed the word of ALLAH , since we have clear information of expanding universe, existence of many universes, the solar apex and the ostrich shaped earth 1400 years ago in the quran .
to name a few of course.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 What you essentially are postulating with the kalam argument is that all things must be caused except god which must by nescessity break a universal law. It is a small minded special plead and is based on a misunderstanding of causality and time. It is more likely that the universe is self caused, as your "Eternal first cause" must be. Either God must be uncaused or self caused which is the very thing you are against the universe being.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TacticalHub
lol, ask this to yourself, GOD (the highest conceivable reality) having to obey universal laws? if HE did, would HE be god ? there is a reason why we call HIM ALLAH.
he is god since he isnt subjet to laws. you are required to look at the rationale behind our acceptance of HIM as god almighty.
if the unverse is self causes, then the watch on your hand is also self caused.
i think is time you reconsidered your doctorate in philosophy.
kingspider1000 5 months ago
@kingspider1000 That claim is false by definition. You are saying 'Atheist' and 'theist' and by using those labels you are refering to those specific beliefs. Atheism being the lack of belief in a personal God, and Theism being the belief that a personal god objectively exists and intervenes in the universe. These two positions are mutually exclusive. However, many atheists like fishing as do many theists. But you did not define them by their attracttion to fishing.
TacticalHub 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is a disgrace to the human species.
Benes911 6 months ago
the ratings speak for themselves. your video sucks
hikermanwa 6 months ago
@hikermanwa I care?
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 6 months ago
Yeah he's a cool guy.
SnakesPotatoe 6 months ago
lol next time someone asks me of my belief in a deity I'll act like a scientist and tell them to fuck off!
darkling9109 7 months ago 3
@darkling9109 Hells yeah!
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 6 months ago 2
An incredibly skewed version of Richard Dawkins. In fact this is tantamount to slander. Richard Dawkins is a renowned well known rational person who has the courage to stand up against fundamental religious idiocy. Only a fundamental Christian or Jew or Islamist would copy patch and paste and remake a video putting him in a bad light. Your morals depict just how your bible prescribes you to be, Morally corrupt. Practise what you preach wanker.
derrickvanzyl 7 months ago
@derrickvanzyl Sir, don't be an ass. I'm an Atheist who wanted to release some sort of parody. Did you not read the description? Quote... "In all honesty, if you haven't noticed, this IS a satire. I support and completely respect Professor Dawkins."
Watch my other videos if you don't entirely believe me... And yes, I AM a wanker at times, but this time was rather insulting.
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 7 months ago
Dawkins was reading aloud insults he had received from people.
lewars1912 7 months ago
This sounds like copy + paste from Dawkin's Hate Emails videos on YouTube.
KimmehCharmeleon 7 months ago
@KimmehCharmeleon Some of it is, yes.
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 7 months ago
@TheFg1980 "Darwin's daughter Henrietta Litchfield stated in The Xtian for 23 February 1922 in an article titled: Charles Darwin's Death-Bed: Story of Conversion Denied by Mrs. R.B. Litchfield:
I was present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. The whole story has no truth what-so-ever." Facts: Get to know. Slandering Darwin's name like that. kmt.
a7xdude87 8 months ago