Rationalism can be justified if any logic of beliefs has been debated for a certain period of time and the next thing people will know there's a conclusion to cross by days or weeks later - or if ever, for months. So we may as well put out any methods of thought can be used as long there is logic in that.
@shanedk I think these discussions are rarely for naught. What is rare, though, is you getting to see the fruits of your efforts. But just imagine all the people who are too proud to admit their mind has changed even though it has.
If atheism is the rejection of god then how can a rejection come before an assertion? Define something you have rejected before it has been asserted. Defining is an assertion in itself. The assertion necessarily comes before the rejection.
We live in a cause and effect universe and cause necessarily comes before effect.
Because atheism is NOT the rejection of gods. It is the lack of belief in gods. That does come before the assertion. When you make the assertion and fail to prove it with evidence, it is rejected, and lack of belief continues.
@rkyeun shanedk argued atheism IS rejecting god. For a god has to be defined before you can lack a belief in it. How can you lack a belief in something that is undefined?
@rkyeun You guys are right. I hold my hands up. I have found the error in my logic.
I thought definitions were the root of logic and therefore came first in an argument.
But I now realise unbiased argument goes: Information (evidence), then definitions based on that information, then logical argument based on those definitions.
The information we can gather with our senses is where it all starts.
From another video where you told me to watch this one. Let's look at the possibility of God scientificlly then.
1) Start with God doesn't exist
2) Take evolution with no God: Can evolution end with God as the ultimate evolved being?
3) Take God without evolution: Can God create everything via evolution?
Make certain you eliminate YOUR dogma. Just as the theories of bacteria and dark matter didn't start with science, but observation and guesses. (Note Mormans' and Buddhists' positions)
@shanedk "The point is, there are an infinite number of things that it COULD BE, but only ONE way that it actually is." And my point is dismissing a possibility with no proof is as closed minded as those who believe in God as the end al be all, 6 day guy.
But you said you can't prove something doesn't exist... and you are happy to not try to prove any existence.
@bsabruzzo Because of the very reason I just mentioned, the ONLY way to have ANY useful model of the universe is to dismiss EVERYTHING that hasn't been proven. That DOESN'T mean that this can't or won't change if the evidence changes, but you can't just go bringing unproven things in arbitrarily just because it feels good to do so.
2) The main flaw here is to think evolution has an end. Perfection is a direction and not a conclusion. You can always improve on things. Because perfection is ultimately unknown, you don't have to think of the unknown as just being scary. Balance scary unknown with perfect unknown and realise that the unknown is not ALWAYS your enemy.
@shanedk "Since NO ONE thinks that evolution has an end, then whatever point you thought you were making is just more of your irrelevant bullshit" I didn't bring up that point. I just said that a being can evolve beyond what humans thing as human and into what humans think of a a god. My arguement was to keep evolving.
2Jax said it it was wrong to think that and I agreed, as I used "end" to mean a point where we would stop the infinite changes and a being we call "god" is recognizable
You know that evolution isn't totally random, as total randomness is logically impossible, right?
Something that stopped evolving would be perfectly adapted (literally) and would never die under any circumstances. Evolution has no end and perfection is unachievable (direction, not conclusion). So god is imperfect and evolving if there is one or more. If it is evolving then why call it god? What was your point? Aliens could exist???
@2Jax "Infinte changes? what is that about? You know that evolution isn't totally random, as total randomness is logically impossible, right?"
I'm not certain I am clear on your point. Is evolution to a state (not an end) where a being rhat could be mistaken for a god by current humans be possible? Could a person's lack of trying to seek scientific evidence of such beings due to a dogma that they "aboludely do/don't exist" be the fault in the lack of evidence?
@2Jax "If it is evolving then why call it god?" Arguing the label of something is a valid discussion. But it comes after you agree to the debate of existance.
"What was your point? Aliens could exist???" Life of other planets? Yes. Superior life on other (or this) planets? Possible.
Is it wrong to ask the question based on current scientific theory? If so, then I appologize for opening my mind to something other tham my personal beliefs.
@2Jax "If god evolved them it wouldn't be what most people would define as god as it wouldn't have made the universe" Again, a matter of perception (was it this video or another where I brought that into this with Shanedk?).
If the Mormons are to be believed, we all eventually become god of our own "universe" and start the process anew. Evolution and religion together.
I merely suggested that science doesn't preclude god nor vice versa.
@shanedk "What atheists think that? This is more of your LIES" Maybe you don't notice the quotation marks I put around "atheist". I do that because of all the people I have seen claim to be "atheist", I never get the same definition from any four of them. I have even asked some point blank do explain and get different answers.
And, again, I didn't bring up the unknown being scary, that was 2Jax saying it isn't always. But when I do bring up the unknow possibilities, I see running away.
@bsabruzzo Buddhists, ok but mormans??? They believe in heaven and god as perfect.
""don't have to think of the unknown as just being scary" Tell that to these "atheists"
"these atheists" suggests you are talking about all atheists. Which atheists? Where can I find them?
My point was that what happens after we die is unknown, obviously. I don't see any reason to pretend that we "know" anything about it. Worrying about death is for children, however old that child may be.
@2Jax "Buddhists, ok but mormans??? They believe in heaven and god as perfect." They also hold the concept that when one dies, if one is saved (not certain how exactly they define it), a person will become the god of their own universe, starting creation new in that plane of existance. It sounds like evolution and explination of creationism in one swing.
""these atheists" suggests you are talking about all atheists" I apologize. It looks like I may have dropped a sentance somewhere.
actually a teratogenic mutation that creates a sirenid-form human could be (and often is) called a mermaid. Icthyosoriasis (sp?) could account for scaling on the lower limb. Still no such thing as a half human half fish though ;3 but a mermaid is more likely than what religions call a god ^_^
@PinkProgram "but a mermaid is more likely than what religions call a god" So you are an evolution denier?
Gods are, by definition, beings that are pore powerful than humans, live longer than humans, have abilities humans done.
I would certainally think Herecles, Thor, Jesus and the like are qualify as humans with evolved powers and lifespans. Much as animals have gained (or lost) certain abilities over time.
If a human can evolve from bacteria, gods could easily be evolved beings.
@shanedk "How the FUCK did you get that?" Hmmm, maybe my comment was cut short. I'll type it again: Gods are, by definition, beings that are pore powerful than humans, live longer than humans, have abilities humans done.
I would certainally think Herecles, Thor, Jesus and the like are qualify as humans with evolved powers and lifespans. Much as animals have gained (or lost) certain abilities over time.
If a human can evolve from bacteria, gods could easily be evolved beings.
@shanedk "Then Jack Lelane was a god to most of us" How evolved are you. He'd be at beast "superhuman", not even in the demi-god range of the concept. Evolution take longer than 100 years in more complex beings. The more complex, the longer the span of time.
@bsabruzzo "Jack Lelane lived to the possible extent of a human, was as strong as a human and didn't have any non-human powers."
And your super-evolved humans would be THE EXACT SAME WAY. Living as long as he did would have been unheard of in the Pleistocene, so "possible extent of a human" is already a relative thing. Whatever we evolve into, however long we live, would STILL be living to the "possible extent of a human."
@shanedk "And your super-evolved humans would be THE EXACT SAME WAY" Except you are orders of magnatude off, if we are talking about the beings called gods. It's like lighting a campfire and saying "behold a star".
At this current stage in human evolution, if Jack Lelane able to rise from the dead or create/transmogrify mater? He may have been a god-like being to the first evolution of what would be modern man, but he isn't at the level of a god.
Obviously SO, since my comment was a DIRECT result of the logic of YOUR post and you are apparently unable to do anything to correct it logically--which you most certainly would if that were true.
"One of us is lying... and it wasn't me."
Oh, it is, it ABSOLUTELY is! You're not fooling anyone any longer.
@TychoCelchu "His definition would also make trees gods... Now get worshipping those trees"
If you say so. Wow, we evoled from trees. possibly. Ask the religions that DO worship plants and nature and trees.
But taking my point of evolved beings that, to humans, appear as gods and trying to twist it doesn't actually change the idea that humans could evolve to be gods or that God of the Bible wasn't already a being highly evolved.
@bsabruzzo No, but we and trees have a common ancestor. We went one way, and they went another. So, are they god-like versions of our common ancestor then?
@shanedk "No, but we and trees have a common ancestor. We went one way, and they went another. So, are they god-like versions of our common ancestor then?"
I believe somebody mentioned evolution as not being "X is greater than Y". It was vspqbd in our other discussion. If you want to debate that with him, be my guest.
@shanedk "I'm debating with YOU, the idea that things like being stronger and living longer make you a god."
My claims are the claims of the definition of a god and I always stated it was perception as much as actual existence. A human with gills would be a "fish god". I croutched my position (the intent of your video, as far as I can tell) in the debate of the christian god, a being who can walk on water, rise from the dead, heal with a touch, tranform objects and create matter.
@bsabruzzo "I croutched my position (the intent of your video, as far as I can tell) in the debate of the christian god, a being who can walk on water, rise from the dead, heal with a touch, tranform objects and create matter."
Since the actual claim in the bible is drive out the demons that cause illness, and Pasteur proved that it was actually very small organisms that cause these diseases doesn't that make it more likely these were fictitious stories?
@johnrainrules "actual claim in the bible is drive out the demons that cause illness, and Pasteur proved that it was actually very small organisms that cause these diseases... more likely these were fictitious stories"
And aren't bacteria an invading creature into a person's body? Think of it not in 2012 ACE terms but in 20 ACE terms. Giant metal birds that roared, fire from a stick, boxes that talk.
All stories. And we haven't even gotten to evolution yet.
@shanedk "I'm debating with YOU, the idea that things like being stronger and living longer make you a god"
If we take your Jack Lalane example, we violate your video on fuzzy logic. You place the distinction of that man as a go or god-like being. I said he was an intermediate step.
Please try to attack me without violating your own rules. I'm maintaining a single position: that what man calls god could be a hughly evolved being, perceved to be superior.
@johnrainrules "Why not a fictional character?" Why not.
But at least you ask the question rather than starting from the common "god can never exist in any form, so sayeth the book of I Dom't Believe In God"
And what of the fictional character based on a real person? Or the biography that fictionalizes the subject? Or a news report from 500 ACE trying to report on an event from 20 ACE describing things from 10,000 ACE in understandable ideas?
@bsabruzzo "And what of the fictional character based on a real person?"
Indeed, maybe we should make a creation myth based on Dolamite, the Human Tornado.He could have created the Earth by building it really fast with hand tools. "Or a news report from 500 ACE trying to report on an event from 20 ACE describing things from 10,000 ACE in understandable ideas?"
And getting everything about it wrong in every way possible making the account useless.
@johnrainrules "maybe we should make a creation myth based on Dolamite, the Human Tornado.He could have created the Earth by building it really fast with hand tools" Not that far off of previous theories of the gods (we weren't talking about creation, BTW, but the possibility that a being can have evolved into a "god").
"And getting everything about it wrong in every way possible making the account useless" Did they get it wrong or not understand? Verbal histories are unreliable
@johnrainrules "No it isn't since Dolamite is sad to say fictional" As I said (love how you like to dodge the actual statement here), your fiction (because you created it as one) isn't far from a number of descriptions of gods (and a couple of creation myths/theories, but that wasn't the topic).
"unlike your God" Now, now, to which god are you referring? I mentioned gods (plural) and included christian, olympian and a couple oa Aztek (unnamed) fo far.
@johnrainrules "They didn't understand, so they got it wrong" Point taken.
But from their perspective, what could they do to explain these events? If they said a person walked on water, but knew nothing of how he did it, what can that observer say? If they observe a halfman-half horse creature, how do they explain it that would make you or others understand... without you calling them a liar or crazy?
Somebody mentioned mermaids earlier, often Manatees explained away as best as
@bsabruzzo "But from their perspective, what could they do to explain these events?"
Not make up stories, we'd be far more advanced if people didn't see something inexplicable, make up some bull shit, and then kill people for pointing out their stories are fictions.
@johnrainrules "we'd be far more advanced if people didn't see something inexplicable, make up some bull shit, and then kill people for pointing out their stories are fictions." Most christians don't "kill people" for pointing to a parable (a fictional story used to teach) as saying it was a fictional story used to teach.
But I think because this proves nothing of the evolutionary possibility of gods, I'll let you have this and move on.
@bsabruzzo "If they observe a halfman-half horse creature, how do they explain it that would make you or others understand... without you calling them a liar or crazy?"
Easy, observe closer. Pay attention and realize they are men riding horses. Then you can replicate their advantage. Making up mythological bull shit instead of paying attention to reality put the people who made up centaurs at a huge disadvantage.
@bsabruzzo "Somebody mentioned mermaids earlier, often Manatees explained away as best as"
Since mermaids supposedly look like hot women above the waist and fish below, and manatees don't look anything like either I'm going to say just calling mermaids fictitious is more likely.
@johnrainrules "Since mermaids supposedly look like hot women above the waist and fish below, and manatees don't look anything like either I'm going to say just calling mermaids fictitious is more likely"
Well, your fiction. Fact is, sea-weary sailors, often tired and lost, would see seals and, more often, manatees and hallucinate. The animal varies by location, but the facts remain. The sailors told what they saw.
@bsabruzzo "Well, your fiction" Fiction is fiction, having seen a manatee there is no way to claim they look human.
"but the facts remain. The sailors told what they saw."
That's not a fact, that is nonsense made up without evidence.
"Still this is off topic, but fun"
Your digression, not mine, and I'm glad you like having all of your points shown to be wrong. That's a good thing since you like to talk about things you know nothing about while using logical fallacies.
@johnrainrules "I'm glad you like having all of your points shown to be wrong" Well, as not one person took the time to even justify their attacks on my original comment, just to attack and, when a person starts off "being logical and scientific", they quickly turn to the dogma of "God can't exist because I say so" and attack christianity (even when christianity is one of 100s).
You say I use"logical fallacies" then use your own. I ask for info and you say it's fiction.
@johnrainrules "And getting everything about it wrong in every way possible"
Of course, you know that they got it wrong because you lived back... uh, nope not falling for that one. But you are looking in hindsight, not with contemporary vision.
"making the account useless" Depends on what the intent of the account is. It was to teach "be good" and "not lie" and such. It worked (to a point), so it was far from useless.
@bsabruzzo ". But you are looking in hindsight, not with contemporary vision."
Yes, they made statements that were fictitious, and we can now verify that they were fictitious by knowing they were actually impossible given our current state of scientific knowledge. If the bible says Jesus saw every kingdom on Earth from a tall mountain and we know the Earth is spherical and that's impossible then we know the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were wrong.
@johnrainrules "we can now verify that they were fictitious by knowing they were actually impossible given our current state of scientific knowledge"
But that's the mistake. They were fictitious, but not understood, so they described them as truthfully as possible. Our current "scientific knowledge" can soon be fiction too, if we see something we can't explain by anything other than 2012 ACE science.
@johnrainrules "If the bible says Jesus saw every kingdom on Earth from a tall mountain and we know the Earth is spherical and that's impossible then we know the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were wrong"
Having to keep going back to christian beliefs because that's all others seem to understand...
I can see the entire Earth from my living room. Impossible you say?
@bsabruzzo Since we know the Gospel of Matthew was lying , your Google Earth argument is weak. If you want I can name other religions stories that are obviously fictitious.
But since you seem to think that lying is a good thing, that won't bother you.
@johnrainrules "Since we know the Gospel of Matthew was lying " Um, we never established a lie. You assumed there was one. Somebody in this argument (over two videos) said a lie is for the intent to deceive.
Still who's Johnny and does he really only have two apples and why is Susie (whoever she is) taking one? Is this a lie? A fiction? Is it good or bad?
And what does this have to do with evolution and the possibility that a being (population) could evolve to a god-like level?
@johnrainrules We have gone WAY of path of my point of this discussion. It interests my that "atheists" are always so consumed by christianity and ignore all else.
"since it actually encouraged atrocities"
Not to defend the teachings of christianity more than it needs, but where in the TEACHINGS of christianity does it "encouraged atrocities". Please, make certain you don't include the religious structure of the various churches and their political agendas... just the teachings.
@bsabruzzo "We have gone WAY of path of my point of this discussion."
You didn't have a point. You made up a bunch of nonsense about Evolution, were shown why it was pseudoscience and retreated to your arguments that myths are true in some vague sense while being wrong in every way possible.
@johnrainrules "Since the churches wouldn't exist without these retarded flat earth myths you can't really separate the two"
So, to teach that a being not of this Earth will always be here and we should be good is a flat Earth myth (Speilberg used it with M&Ms)? Or is that how you think the Spanish Inqusition was supported (didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition? Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.)?
I can't see the connection between love thy neighbor and "rack up Jose".
@johnrainrules "Since it teaches a vicious immorality " I'll grant you I have yet to read the entire Bible cover to cover, However, I still have trouble finding these commands of immorality (at least from the faith... the dictates of man abound in the book).
@bsabruzzo "I'll grant you I have yet to read the entire Bible cover to cover, "
Then like evolution you have an opinion on something you don't understand. Since you seem to think lying is a good thing I guess you don't mind not knowing the facts.
"the dictates of man abound in the book)."
And only that since only humans wrote this fiction.
@shanedk "being stronger and living longer make you a god"
And while I ignored technology as adding to the myth (though touching on it when PinkProgram brought it up), I will certainally concede that technology can mimic "magic" and can grant the illusion of god-powers. But even so, adding that to this debate and saying the "universe was created via and alien machine" is not what I brought up at the start.
And even then, a being of superior abilities to primordial soup is suggested.
@johnrainrules "Will you concede that people can make up fictional stories and believing myths that are physically impossible is silly?"
I can't really. It is the basis of an number of industries such as novels, TV, film and theater. And even as a religion or way of life, teachings and rationalizations for what a society knows is a valid undertaking.
And we haven't actually determined anything is or is not "physically impossible" but merely a misinterpretation.
@johnrainrules "Not when you are using fiction to deceive people" But isn't that the difference. Does Johnny really have only two apples? And who is Johnny? Where are these glass houses in ancient Israel? Did somebody really try to put a camel through the eye of a needle? Was it a volcanic eruption that turned the sky dark and the Nile red in Egypt that day?
What you call deception isn't deception at all.
This is not the topic of the possibility of gods, just the writings of man
@bsabruzzo "And we haven't actually determined anything is or is not "physically impossible" but merely a misinterpretation."
Really, Matthew 4:8 is physically impossible. Even if Jesus was on Everest he couldn't see more than 260 miles with a telescope before running into the curve of the Earth.
@johnrainrules "Same problem as a God, you would then need to explain the machine" Which is why I don't state for a fact that there was nothing, then something OR that there was always something. Both thories, in science AND religion have the same flaws.
My discussion started with an existing universe, but before man or even life on Earth, and contunued through to a point in the far distant future that may or may not come to pass.
@bsabruzzo so when my prosthetics are all finished would you call me a god? Stronger, faster and more agile than a human, nearly impervious to damage, and no natural lifespan. Plus I fit the description of the goddess Athena. Hi I'm a god by your definition bow down and grovel primate ^_^ or don't, I don't really care ;3
The thing I would refer to as a God is an 11 dimensional construct that makes the gods of religion look like an amoeba ;D
@PinkProgram "so when my prosthetics are all finished would you call me a god?" Did you mutate and grow those by means of evolution? Or were they constructed?
It is a possibility that you are more like a god in ways. Go back to homo errectus and see if he agrees.
"The thing I would refer to as a God is an 11 dimensional construct that makes the gods of religion look like an amoeba" At least you're open to thinking and not closed minded to the possibility.
I was expecting a definition of god to be something like: immortal, all powerful, creator of the universe, etc.
When I said "Should be straightforward enough." I wasn't being sarcastic.
This is based on me trying to explain "assertions" and "default positions" to theists and the way I have explained has worked best and quickest in my experience.
@2Jax No, because "no god" isn't an assertion at all--it's a default position. Just like "no frazmolizers" is a default position. You don't know what a frazmolizer is, but in your model of the universe you don't have anything referred to as a frazmolizer, and won't until someone presents one to you.
@shanedk When did I say "no god" was an assurtion of any kind???
It's a REACTION to something else. That something else is the assurtion.
It is also a default position, true enough.
"no frazmolizers" is a pointless default position unless someone tries to define what a "frazmolizer" is, and then "no frazmolizers" is a reaction to that assurtion.
Don't know how you got me wrong. But then I like your rebellious nature.
No, the reaction to the God assertion is just rejection of that assertion. Back to the default.
I would completely reword your sentence: "frazmolizers" is a pointless position unless someone tries to define what a "frazmolizer" is, and as such "no frazmolizers" MUST be the default!
Your model either has a god or it doesn't. If god hasn't been defined, and thus doesn't belong in the model, then it doesn't have a god, because a god isn't there.
@shanedk "No, the reaction to the God assertion is just rejection of that assertion. Back to the default."
Seriously, what are you disagreeing with? "No, the reaction to the God assertion is just a rejection to that assertion." Hence "no god" is the reaction to the assertion. What do you think I'm trying to say?
Are you annoyed that I'm not using the phrase "default position" enough???
I'm not saying the "reaction to an assertion" and the "default position" are different things.
@2Jax "I would completely reword your sentence: "frazmolizers" is a pointless position unless someone tries to define what a "frazmolizer" is, and as such "no frazmolizers" MUST be the default!"
But people DO define god as the likes of: immotal, all powerful, creator of the universe, etc. That's my point and the difference between "god" and "frazmolizers".
Then I ask for the definition of "no god" without referring to the definition of "god", if they say that's also an assertion.
The default position is "No things not in evidence are assumed."
No frazmolizers is one specific example. You can make up anything you want, as theists have done, and assert it, and find that specific thing covered by the pre-existing general default position against all unevidenced claims.
@rkyeun Yes and in the course of an argument, the assertion if followed by a reaction to that assertion. The default position manifests itself in specific ways AFTER an assertion. Hense, the reaction comes after the assertion.
I understand the default position it there before the assertion. I'm talking practically, in an argument, the SPECIFIC default position is PRESENTED after an assertion. Try to have an argument where a SPECIFIC default position is PRESENTED before an assertion.
> the assertion if followed by a reaction to that assertion.
The default position is atheism, aunicornism, subsets of the null hypothesis on every topic simultaneously, even topics not raised. The assertion is theism. The response is "Prove it." And then you can't, and so your idea is rejected. And because you can't prove it, you have to try to reverse the burden of proof. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. I don't need proof to not believe you. The null hypothesis is not a response.
It isn't. Do you mean Yahweh, Kim Il-Sung, Emperor Hirohito, Brahma, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Azathoth, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Xenu, or some other ill-defined entity which you will redefine as needed with apologetics?
> Now, define "no god".
No effect is in evidence which suggests any causes but natural ones.
> Did you have to refer to the definition of "god"?
@rkyeun "It isn't. Do you mean Yahweh, Kim Il-Sung, etc..."
I was after A definition of god not THE definition of god. People define god or gods all the time. It is straightforward. I'm not saying the definitions are good, ask a theist and they will give a straightforward answer MOTT.
"No effect is in evidence which suggests any causes but natural ones."
Is the definition of "naturalism", not "no god". There is a big difference.
I don't know who flagged you as spam but it wasn't me.
@2Jax "No effect is in evidence which suggests any causes but natural ones."
I think you have a definition of god in your head (be it vague) and it has to do with the supernatural. Hense, your statement refers to that supernatural definition when you talk about nothing but natural causes. It would be pointless to talk about natural causes without the supernatural being brought up first. Without supernatural, natural would define nothing because that's all there would be.
@rkyeun Your statement about natural causes is obviously a reaction to the suggestion of the supernatural. You said you didn't refer to a definition of god when you defined "no god" when almost all definitions of gods has something to do with the supernatural.
Tell me the point in your definition of "no god" unless it's a reaction to a supernatural claim? Imagine that no-one had ever contemplated the supernatural. Why call anything natural?
I'm the one that understands the null hypothesis, and you're the one who's trying to find a semantic workaround to shift the burden of proof. That makes you the troll and not me.
@rkyeun Then you obviously have me totally and utterly wrong. But then I have met many trolls and have seen the "misunderstanding on purpose" tactic many times.
I was saying that many theists claim that "no god" is an assertion. I was saying that this can be shown to be wrong through definitions. The burden of proof is on the assertion NOT the reaction to it.
> Then you obviously have me totally and utterly wrong. But then I have met many trolls and have seen the "misunderstanding on purpose" tactic many times.
And you thought it worked so well for you that you would adopt it as a lifestyle choice.
> many theists claim that "no god" is an assertion.
Many theists also claim that god exists. That doesn't make them right.
> Why so defensive?
Because you're lying. Atheism is not a reaction. I already lack a belief when a theist bullshits me.
@rkyeun > many theists claim that "no god" is an assertion.
Many theists also claim that god exists. That doesn't make them right
I said in the very next sentence that this can be shown to be wrong.
"Because you're lying. Atheism is not a reaction. I already lack a belief when a theist bullshits me.
Why don't we have words for the lack of beliefs in every different made up thing? Obviously because we come up with terms (like atheist) after the assertion is made.
@2Jax We are talking about the concept, not the term we come up with for the concept--or the fact that there even is a term for it. Again, your model of the universe lacks frazmolizers. That aspect of the model predated my mentioning of the word.
@shanedk How can you reject frazmolizers without a definition of them? Unless you define them as "something that doesn't exist" which is a pointless definition.
It's the definition that gets rejected. Definition then rejection.
@rkyeun > Then you obviously have me totally and utterly wrong. But then I have met many trolls and have seen the "misunderstanding on purpose" tactic many times.
And you thought it worked so well for you that you would adopt it as a lifestyle choice.
> many theists claim that "no god" is an assertion.
Many theists also claim that god exists. That doesn't make them right.
I said in the next sentence that they are wrong. YOU are misunderstanding me on purpose obviously.
@rkyeun Were there people that labelled themselves atheists BEFORE anyone came up with the concept of god?
At no point did i say (or do I think) that the conclusion is that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I mean literally and practically the TERM atheism came as a reaction to the suggestion of a god or gods.
@rkyeun What position? You assumed my conclusion without understanding me. And you know what they say about assumptions. You stopped debating. You got abusive. You will not get a rise out of me. You will have to troll someone else to find your fix. I have delt with many a troll in my time and know what they want.
isn't there an assumption saying that the underlying set has to be standard normally distributed? and if yes : how can god be standard normally distributed? just wondering... i think you are using the wrong tool.
After reading and believing for short time in my life on different beliefs and view points I have concluded That out of nothing comes nothings, But for everything I can see in space like astronomy, could have been here for ever and for ever will be a changing universe. GOD, something beyond and more outrageous, just is where??? All god stories are fear, hope, and dreams because the fact that this might just be it sucks and to be a slave to the system sucks in this world that banks run ????
Question for the believers of a GOD do you think he made everything really fast or did he make some laws of nature that are ever changing? Second question can life create life on another planet? 3rd Question do you think a couple different stories out of any book in the world written from someone who could have been taking hallucinogens like DMT in your dreams every night could have played a roll in the knowledge of God??
well then! I have no rules anymore! I can do whatever I want! Sounds better than getting to know a God I never knew existed i suppose. This argument proves nothing to me. You can believe what you want, trust me. I won't beat Jesus down your throat. However,
Just know that He is there. The evidence is all around you.
These videos are the epitome of "videos trying to start a youtube comment section argument". As a believer, could I not reverse this argument right back to you? Say I wanted to find out if there was no god. Well now, I can't find any evidence that proves that there is no god other than "I think that's the truth", so, according to the Null Hypothesis, there has to be a God. Also, say I believe in God (which I do), but one day, we find conclusive evidence that there is in fact, no god.
The Null Hypothesis, "God does not exist," is falsifiable. Just find God and it's falsified!
You CANNOT just turn this around and claim that H0 is "God exists," because how can you falsify that? Everywhere I look and find no God, you can just claim he's somewhere else!
Sorry, it does NOT work the way you claim, and you can't worm your way around your astounding lack of evidence that way. YOU claim the evidence exists. YOU present it.
@shanedk it's being presented everywhere. you just choose not to see it as evidence. You see it as something that happened...just to happen? Most of the time, it seems so hard to me to refuse to believe there is a creator. How else do you explain all of this? Also, what a meaningless existence believing in nothing greater than yourself must be. If you're right, oh well. We both end up in the same place. If I'm right, well, then, we don't. I'm not trying to scare you, but the truth is the truth.
@elijahschhh Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You have to show SPECIFICALLY what the evidence is, HOW it is evidence, and not only how it supports your hypothesis but disproves the Null Hypothesis.
You've done NONE of that. All you have presented is your own incredulity. That is NOT evidence.
And then you resorted to Pascal's Wager, as if that hasn't been debunked a thousand times. Pathetic.
@shanedk you guys make it so hard to discuss something. Making me out to be someone lesser than you. It's okay though.
Your Null Hypothesis is based off assumption. Just because there is "no evidence" yet, you ASSUME that that means there is nothing out there. You believing in nothing requires just as much faith as me believing in something does.
Also, the Bible is evidence. Just because you don't buy into it doesn't mean it's not credible. They're just letters and stories.
@elijahschhh the Bible can be seen as evidence, but you have to ask yourself: would this stand up in court? The oldest gospel is that of Mark who reported on what the apostle Peter claimed he saw when he was preaching in the Romanised world some 50-60 years after the events, none of them are written by eye-witnesses - they are second hand testimonies. Those who did witness events are recounting evidence of their senses, which is always dubitable. I'm sorry, but the bible is very weak evidence.
It's also fictional. Even though Harry Potter is a firsthand witness to Lord Voldemort's actions, I can't present J. K. Rowling books as evidence of Voldemort.
@elijahschhh You should test your argument FOR god, by applying it to the mermiad question in the video. If your argument can also be used to 'prove' the existence of mermaids (or zeus, or thor) then the argument is useless.
I take it he's not familar with the burden of proof resting on the one making the positive claim (the theist), and not the skeptic saying "prove it!".
@elijahschhh That won't work either. Since "no god" is the default position it does not reqiure evidence; it is the "null." You cannot prove a negative. It is a good thing that this logic exists otherwise you would not be looking at a computer monitor right now or healthy from vaccination. It is just unfortunate for the religious that this same logic cannot prove that a god exists, and in fact suggests strongly that there isn't one.
The null hypothesis, stated for laymen, is "No effect is shown."
You can defeat strong (but not weak) atheism with the null hypothesis, where no effect is shown that demonstrates gods don't exist, but that won't help you show one does and people will still correctly reject your god as unproven.
And you need to be careful with what you claim about your god, or you might make it real enough to actually be wrong. There is an effect shown that there was no global flood.
I do get annoyed at the "i know god doesn't exist because there's no evidence" people, absence of evidence =/= evidence of absense.
personally i'm an agnostic atheist, and i do agree it's the rational choice to assume there is no god until evidence to the contrary presents itself, but that doesn't mean you can say with certainty that god does not exist.
I do agree that if it turns out god does exist, it is VERY unlikely he/she/it will be anything like the holy books say.
@khajiit92 "absence of evidence =/= evidence of absense."
BIGTIME fallacy, and religious people can ONLY persist by not seeing the hideous fallacy in this reasoning.
"personally i'm an agnostic atheist,"
BULLSHIT. If you were, you wouldn't have said that incredibly stupid thing. We see this all the time: creationists in "evolutionist" clothing, religious wackos in atheist clothing...we're not buying it.
i'm sorry, are you saying absence of evidence IS evidence of absence? so atoms didn't exist until evidence for them were found?
and yes, i am an agnostic atheist. i don't really care whether a god exists or not (because even if one does exist, he most likely created the universe and doesn't give a shit about insignificant humans on a tiny planet in one out of a billion galaxies)
but since his existence doesn't affect me, i'll assume he doesn't until evidence to the contrary.
the existence of something doesn't depend on how much evidence some humans have managed to gather in their short time on earth (relatively).
and i have wached your video and i agree with most of it. and you yourself said science may one day prove the existence of a god, so thats fine. i was just commenting about some attheists who 'know' there is no god. not all atheists believe the same thing, and i have personally come across those who are certain.
Null Hypothesis - God did not create the universe.
I have no evidence for either, so they are either equally correct statistically or equally incorrect. Since the universe exists, they are both equally statistically correct.
Rationalism can be justified if any logic of beliefs has been debated for a certain period of time and the next thing people will know there's a conclusion to cross by days or weeks later - or if ever, for months. So we may as well put out any methods of thought can be used as long there is logic in that.
Ringvireot 1 week ago
Great video! I was brought up catholic, but now I am older I have learnt to have an open mind and be guided by rationalism :)
smartiex90 1 week ago
I have now seen the error of my logic and realise you are right. You can see this in a comment I have posted not far down the page.
Thanks for your patience with me shanedk.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax No problem! Good to know these discussions aren't always for naught.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk I think these discussions are rarely for naught. What is rare, though, is you getting to see the fruits of your efforts. But just imagine all the people who are too proud to admit their mind has changed even though it has.
2Jax 1 month ago
Good work Shane. Keep em coming. Knowledge is power.
benjamiy831 1 month ago
The foundations of logic are definitions.
If you look at the definition of definition you will find it has much to do with the logic of contradiction: A and not A.
Definitions are the roots of arguments.
2Jax 1 month ago
If atheism is the rejection of god then how can a rejection come before an assertion? Define something you have rejected before it has been asserted. Defining is an assertion in itself. The assertion necessarily comes before the rejection.
We live in a cause and effect universe and cause necessarily comes before effect.
Still the burden of proof is on proving "god".
The burden of proof is NOT on "no god".
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
Because atheism is NOT the rejection of gods. It is the lack of belief in gods. That does come before the assertion. When you make the assertion and fail to prove it with evidence, it is rejected, and lack of belief continues.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun shanedk argued atheism IS rejecting god. For a god has to be defined before you can lack a belief in it. How can you lack a belief in something that is undefined?
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
It's not a trick question.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun You guys are right. I hold my hands up. I have found the error in my logic.
I thought definitions were the root of logic and therefore came first in an argument.
But I now realise unbiased argument goes: Information (evidence), then definitions based on that information, then logical argument based on those definitions.
The information we can gather with our senses is where it all starts.
I have learnt and grown.
2Jax 1 month ago
From another video where you told me to watch this one. Let's look at the possibility of God scientificlly then.
1) Start with God doesn't exist
2) Take evolution with no God: Can evolution end with God as the ultimate evolved being?
3) Take God without evolution: Can God create everything via evolution?
Make certain you eliminate YOUR dogma. Just as the theories of bacteria and dark matter didn't start with science, but observation and guesses. (Note Mormans' and Buddhists' positions)
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo It CAN, and it can also be the Flying Spaghetti Monster doing it all with His noodle appendage. What's your point?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "it can also be the Flying Spaghetti Monster doing it all " If that's sarcasm, then you just prove a closed mind.
If you are seriously considering the evolution of humans are into pasta, then you are at least thinking.
If you maybe think the spaghetti is really tentacles and it might be an animal evolved, go for you.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo The point is, there are an infinite number of things that it COULD BE, but only ONE way that it actually is.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "The point is, there are an infinite number of things that it COULD BE, but only ONE way that it actually is." And my point is dismissing a possibility with no proof is as closed minded as those who believe in God as the end al be all, 6 day guy.
But you said you can't prove something doesn't exist... and you are happy to not try to prove any existence.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo Because of the very reason I just mentioned, the ONLY way to have ANY useful model of the universe is to dismiss EVERYTHING that hasn't been proven. That DOESN'T mean that this can't or won't change if the evidence changes, but you can't just go bringing unproven things in arbitrarily just because it feels good to do so.
Seems to me YOU'RE the closed-minded one!
shanedk 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
2) The main flaw here is to think evolution has an end. Perfection is a direction and not a conclusion. You can always improve on things. Because perfection is ultimately unknown, you don't have to think of the unknown as just being scary. Balance scary unknown with perfect unknown and realise that the unknown is not ALWAYS your enemy.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax "The main flaw here is to think evolution has an end" Thank you for sharing my point, even if it was accidental.
"Perfection is a direction and not a conclusion" Very Buddhist AND Morman of you.
"don't have to think of the unknown as just being scary" Tell that to these "atheists"
"the unknown is not ALWAYS your enemy" Can I sau "amen" to that... or is that too ironic?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo ""The main flaw here is to think evolution has an end" Thank you for sharing my point, even if it was accidental."
Since NO ONE thinks that evolution has an end, then whatever point you thought you were making is just more of your irrelevant bullshit.
""don't have to think of the unknown as just being scary" Tell that to these "atheists""
What atheists think that? This is more of your LIES.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "Since NO ONE thinks that evolution has an end, then whatever point you thought you were making is just more of your irrelevant bullshit" I didn't bring up that point. I just said that a being can evolve beyond what humans thing as human and into what humans think of a a god. My arguement was to keep evolving.
2Jax said it it was wrong to think that and I agreed, as I used "end" to mean a point where we would stop the infinite changes and a being we call "god" is recognizable
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo Infinte changes? what is that about?
You know that evolution isn't totally random, as total randomness is logically impossible, right?
Something that stopped evolving would be perfectly adapted (literally) and would never die under any circumstances. Evolution has no end and perfection is unachievable (direction, not conclusion). So god is imperfect and evolving if there is one or more. If it is evolving then why call it god? What was your point? Aliens could exist???
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax "Infinte changes? what is that about? You know that evolution isn't totally random, as total randomness is logically impossible, right?"
I'm not certain I am clear on your point. Is evolution to a state (not an end) where a being rhat could be mistaken for a god by current humans be possible? Could a person's lack of trying to seek scientific evidence of such beings due to a dogma that they "aboludely do/don't exist" be the fault in the lack of evidence?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@2Jax "If it is evolving then why call it god?" Arguing the label of something is a valid discussion. But it comes after you agree to the debate of existance.
"What was your point? Aliens could exist???" Life of other planets? Yes. Superior life on other (or this) planets? Possible.
Is it wrong to ask the question based on current scientific theory? If so, then I appologize for opening my mind to something other tham my personal beliefs.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo I am just trying to see what point you were making.
If god evolved them it wouldn't be what most people would define as god as it wouldn't have made the universe.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax "If god evolved them it wouldn't be what most people would define as god as it wouldn't have made the universe" Again, a matter of perception (was it this video or another where I brought that into this with Shanedk?).
If the Mormons are to be believed, we all eventually become god of our own "universe" and start the process anew. Evolution and religion together.
I merely suggested that science doesn't preclude god nor vice versa.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Arguing the label of something is a valid discussion. But it comes after you agree to the debate of existance."
No, because you need to specifically define it before we can debate it.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "What atheists think that? This is more of your LIES" Maybe you don't notice the quotation marks I put around "atheist". I do that because of all the people I have seen claim to be "atheist", I never get the same definition from any four of them. I have even asked some point blank do explain and get different answers.
And, again, I didn't bring up the unknown being scary, that was 2Jax saying it isn't always. But when I do bring up the unknow possibilities, I see running away.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo Buddhists, ok but mormans??? They believe in heaven and god as perfect.
""don't have to think of the unknown as just being scary" Tell that to these "atheists"
"these atheists" suggests you are talking about all atheists. Which atheists? Where can I find them?
My point was that what happens after we die is unknown, obviously. I don't see any reason to pretend that we "know" anything about it. Worrying about death is for children, however old that child may be.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax "Buddhists, ok but mormans??? They believe in heaven and god as perfect." They also hold the concept that when one dies, if one is saved (not certain how exactly they define it), a person will become the god of their own universe, starting creation new in that plane of existance. It sounds like evolution and explination of creationism in one swing.
""these atheists" suggests you are talking about all atheists" I apologize. It looks like I may have dropped a sentance somewhere.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
actually a teratogenic mutation that creates a sirenid-form human could be (and often is) called a mermaid. Icthyosoriasis (sp?) could account for scaling on the lower limb. Still no such thing as a half human half fish though ;3 but a mermaid is more likely than what religions call a god ^_^
PinkProgram 1 month ago
@PinkProgram "but a mermaid is more likely than what religions call a god" So you are an evolution denier?
Gods are, by definition, beings that are pore powerful than humans, live longer than humans, have abilities humans done.
I would certainally think Herecles, Thor, Jesus and the like are qualify as humans with evolved powers and lifespans. Much as animals have gained (or lost) certain abilities over time.
If a human can evolve from bacteria, gods could easily be evolved beings.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "So you are an evolution denier?"
How the FUCK did you get that?
Gods by definition have supernatural powers. You don't get to play with the definitions just because things aren't going your way.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "How the FUCK did you get that?" Hmmm, maybe my comment was cut short. I'll type it again: Gods are, by definition, beings that are pore powerful than humans, live longer than humans, have abilities humans done.
I would certainally think Herecles, Thor, Jesus and the like are qualify as humans with evolved powers and lifespans. Much as animals have gained (or lost) certain abilities over time.
If a human can evolve from bacteria, gods could easily be evolved beings.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Gods are, by definition, beings that are pore powerful than humans, live longer than humans, have abilities humans done."
Then Jack Lelane was a god to most of us, because he lived longer than average and was stronger than most people.
I reject your bogus definition.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "Then Jack Lelane was a god to most of us" How evolved are you. He'd be at beast "superhuman", not even in the demi-god range of the concept. Evolution take longer than 100 years in more complex beings. The more complex, the longer the span of time.
I thought you followed evolution.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "He'd be at beast "superhuman", not even in the demi-god range of the concept."
He fits the definition YOU just posted!
"I thought you followed evolution."
More hideously dishonest tactics from you. I was going by YOUR definition, by YOUR claim.
YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "He fits the definition YOU just posted"
"beings that are pore powerful than humans, live longer than humans, have abilities humans done [don't]"
Jack Lelane lived to the possible extent of a human, was as strong as a human and didn't have any non-human powers.
"More hideously dishonest tactics from you. I was going by YOUR definition, by YOUR claim."
Obviously not. One of us is lying... and it wasn't me.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Jack Lelane lived to the possible extent of a human, was as strong as a human and didn't have any non-human powers."
And your super-evolved humans would be THE EXACT SAME WAY. Living as long as he did would have been unheard of in the Pleistocene, so "possible extent of a human" is already a relative thing. Whatever we evolve into, however long we live, would STILL be living to the "possible extent of a human."
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "And your super-evolved humans would be THE EXACT SAME WAY" Except you are orders of magnatude off, if we are talking about the beings called gods. It's like lighting a campfire and saying "behold a star".
At this current stage in human evolution, if Jack Lelane able to rise from the dead or create/transmogrify mater? He may have been a god-like being to the first evolution of what would be modern man, but he isn't at the level of a god.
Remember: "superhuman" and "demigod"?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Obviously not."
Obviously SO, since my comment was a DIRECT result of the logic of YOUR post and you are apparently unable to do anything to correct it logically--which you most certainly would if that were true.
"One of us is lying... and it wasn't me."
Oh, it is, it ABSOLUTELY is! You're not fooling anyone any longer.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk His definition would also make trees gods.
Powerful - try to push a tree over
Lifespan - trees often live for hundreds of years
Abilities - converting sunlight into energy or converting C02 into 02 (enabling humans to breathe)
Now get worshipping those trees. ;-)
TychoCelchu 1 month ago
@TychoCelchu "His definition would also make trees gods... Now get worshipping those trees"
If you say so. Wow, we evoled from trees. possibly. Ask the religions that DO worship plants and nature and trees.
But taking my point of evolved beings that, to humans, appear as gods and trying to twist it doesn't actually change the idea that humans could evolve to be gods or that God of the Bible wasn't already a being highly evolved.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo No, but we and trees have a common ancestor. We went one way, and they went another. So, are they god-like versions of our common ancestor then?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "No, but we and trees have a common ancestor. We went one way, and they went another. So, are they god-like versions of our common ancestor then?"
I believe somebody mentioned evolution as not being "X is greater than Y". It was vspqbd in our other discussion. If you want to debate that with him, be my guest.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo I'm debating with YOU, the idea that things like being stronger and living longer make you a god. YOUR claims.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "I'm debating with YOU, the idea that things like being stronger and living longer make you a god."
My claims are the claims of the definition of a god and I always stated it was perception as much as actual existence. A human with gills would be a "fish god". I croutched my position (the intent of your video, as far as I can tell) in the debate of the christian god, a being who can walk on water, rise from the dead, heal with a touch, tranform objects and create matter.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "I croutched my position (the intent of your video, as far as I can tell) in the debate of the christian god, a being who can walk on water, rise from the dead, heal with a touch, tranform objects and create matter."
Since the actual claim in the bible is drive out the demons that cause illness, and Pasteur proved that it was actually very small organisms that cause these diseases doesn't that make it more likely these were fictitious stories?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnrainrules "actual claim in the bible is drive out the demons that cause illness, and Pasteur proved that it was actually very small organisms that cause these diseases... more likely these were fictitious stories"
And aren't bacteria an invading creature into a person's body? Think of it not in 2012 ACE terms but in 20 ACE terms. Giant metal birds that roared, fire from a stick, boxes that talk.
All stories. And we haven't even gotten to evolution yet.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@shanedk "I'm debating with YOU, the idea that things like being stronger and living longer make you a god"
If we take your Jack Lalane example, we violate your video on fuzzy logic. You place the distinction of that man as a go or god-like being. I said he was an intermediate step.
Please try to attack me without violating your own rules. I'm maintaining a single position: that what man calls god could be a hughly evolved being, perceved to be superior.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "that what man calls god could be a hughly evolved being, perceved to be superior."
Why not a fictional character?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "Why not a fictional character?" Why not.
But at least you ask the question rather than starting from the common "god can never exist in any form, so sayeth the book of I Dom't Believe In God"
And what of the fictional character based on a real person? Or the biography that fictionalizes the subject? Or a news report from 500 ACE trying to report on an event from 20 ACE describing things from 10,000 ACE in understandable ideas?
"Question boldly" etc.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "And what of the fictional character based on a real person?"
Indeed, maybe we should make a creation myth based on Dolamite, the Human Tornado.He could have created the Earth by building it really fast with hand tools. "Or a news report from 500 ACE trying to report on an event from 20 ACE describing things from 10,000 ACE in understandable ideas?"
And getting everything about it wrong in every way possible making the account useless.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "maybe we should make a creation myth based on Dolamite, the Human Tornado.He could have created the Earth by building it really fast with hand tools" Not that far off of previous theories of the gods (we weren't talking about creation, BTW, but the possibility that a being can have evolved into a "god").
"And getting everything about it wrong in every way possible making the account useless" Did they get it wrong or not understand? Verbal histories are unreliable
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Not that far off of previous theories of the gods (we weren't talking about creation)
No it isn't since Dolamite is sad to say fictional.
(, BTW, but the possibility that a being can have evolved into a "god").
Or better than a God, since unlike your God if I knock up a woman she sure as hell won't be a virgin.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnrainrules "No it isn't since Dolamite is sad to say fictional" As I said (love how you like to dodge the actual statement here), your fiction (because you created it as one) isn't far from a number of descriptions of gods (and a couple of creation myths/theories, but that wasn't the topic).
"unlike your God" Now, now, to which god are you referring? I mentioned gods (plural) and included christian, olympian and a couple oa Aztek (unnamed) fo far.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Did they get it wrong or not understand? "
They didn't understand, so they got it wrong.
"Verbal histories are unreliable"
And oftentimes fictional.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "They didn't understand, so they got it wrong" Point taken.
But from their perspective, what could they do to explain these events? If they said a person walked on water, but knew nothing of how he did it, what can that observer say? If they observe a halfman-half horse creature, how do they explain it that would make you or others understand... without you calling them a liar or crazy?
Somebody mentioned mermaids earlier, often Manatees explained away as best as
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "But from their perspective, what could they do to explain these events?"
Not make up stories, we'd be far more advanced if people didn't see something inexplicable, make up some bull shit, and then kill people for pointing out their stories are fictions.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnrainrules "we'd be far more advanced if people didn't see something inexplicable, make up some bull shit, and then kill people for pointing out their stories are fictions." Most christians don't "kill people" for pointing to a parable (a fictional story used to teach) as saying it was a fictional story used to teach.
But I think because this proves nothing of the evolutionary possibility of gods, I'll let you have this and move on.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bsabruzzo "If they observe a halfman-half horse creature, how do they explain it that would make you or others understand... without you calling them a liar or crazy?"
Easy, observe closer. Pay attention and realize they are men riding horses. Then you can replicate their advantage. Making up mythological bull shit instead of paying attention to reality put the people who made up centaurs at a huge disadvantage.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Somebody mentioned mermaids earlier, often Manatees explained away as best as"
Since mermaids supposedly look like hot women above the waist and fish below, and manatees don't look anything like either I'm going to say just calling mermaids fictitious is more likely.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "Since mermaids supposedly look like hot women above the waist and fish below, and manatees don't look anything like either I'm going to say just calling mermaids fictitious is more likely"
Well, your fiction. Fact is, sea-weary sailors, often tired and lost, would see seals and, more often, manatees and hallucinate. The animal varies by location, but the facts remain. The sailors told what they saw.
Still this is off topic, but fun
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Well, your fiction" Fiction is fiction, having seen a manatee there is no way to claim they look human.
"but the facts remain. The sailors told what they saw."
That's not a fact, that is nonsense made up without evidence.
"Still this is off topic, but fun"
Your digression, not mine, and I'm glad you like having all of your points shown to be wrong. That's a good thing since you like to talk about things you know nothing about while using logical fallacies.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "I'm glad you like having all of your points shown to be wrong" Well, as not one person took the time to even justify their attacks on my original comment, just to attack and, when a person starts off "being logical and scientific", they quickly turn to the dogma of "God can't exist because I say so" and attack christianity (even when christianity is one of 100s).
You say I use"logical fallacies" then use your own. I ask for info and you say it's fiction.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Well, as not one person took the time to even justify their attacks on my original comment"
They proved it wrong, and every one thereafter.
"God can't exist because I say so"
No one said that, they just disproved your weird ideology.
"and attack christianity (even when christianity is one of 100s)."
And Mermaids and centaurs. Also you brought up the Christian God and then went on to talk about 1 god and not the Hindu Pantheon.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "You say I use"logical fallacies" then use your own."
I listed yours, you just made vague comments.
"I ask for info and you say it's fiction."
Yes, I showed that centaurs and mermaids were fictitious, sorry if that burst your bubble.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "And getting everything about it wrong in every way possible"
Of course, you know that they got it wrong because you lived back... uh, nope not falling for that one. But you are looking in hindsight, not with contemporary vision.
"making the account useless" Depends on what the intent of the account is. It was to teach "be good" and "not lie" and such. It worked (to a point), so it was far from useless.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo ". But you are looking in hindsight, not with contemporary vision."
Yes, they made statements that were fictitious, and we can now verify that they were fictitious by knowing they were actually impossible given our current state of scientific knowledge. If the bible says Jesus saw every kingdom on Earth from a tall mountain and we know the Earth is spherical and that's impossible then we know the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were wrong.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnrainrules "we can now verify that they were fictitious by knowing they were actually impossible given our current state of scientific knowledge"
But that's the mistake. They were fictitious, but not understood, so they described them as truthfully as possible. Our current "scientific knowledge" can soon be fiction too, if we see something we can't explain by anything other than 2012 ACE science.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "If the bible says Jesus saw every kingdom on Earth from a tall mountain and we know the Earth is spherical and that's impossible then we know the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were wrong"
Having to keep going back to christian beliefs because that's all others seem to understand...
I can see the entire Earth from my living room. Impossible you say?
Google Earth it.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo Since we know the Gospel of Matthew was lying , your Google Earth argument is weak. If you want I can name other religions stories that are obviously fictitious.
But since you seem to think that lying is a good thing, that won't bother you.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnrainrules "Since we know the Gospel of Matthew was lying " Um, we never established a lie. You assumed there was one. Somebody in this argument (over two videos) said a lie is for the intent to deceive.
Still who's Johnny and does he really only have two apples and why is Susie (whoever she is) taking one? Is this a lie? A fiction? Is it good or bad?
And what does this have to do with evolution and the possibility that a being (population) could evolve to a god-like level?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo ""making the account useless" Depends on what the intent of the account is."
If it is false it actually doesn't.
"It was to teach "be good" and "not lie" and such. "
Since it teaches a vicious immorality based on the commands of a non-existent sociopath and it actually does lie then it fails to do that.
"It worked (to a point)"
What point, since it actually encouraged atrocities.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules We have gone WAY of path of my point of this discussion. It interests my that "atheists" are always so consumed by christianity and ignore all else.
"since it actually encouraged atrocities"
Not to defend the teachings of christianity more than it needs, but where in the TEACHINGS of christianity does it "encouraged atrocities". Please, make certain you don't include the religious structure of the various churches and their political agendas... just the teachings.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "We have gone WAY of path of my point of this discussion."
You didn't have a point. You made up a bunch of nonsense about Evolution, were shown why it was pseudoscience and retreated to your arguments that myths are true in some vague sense while being wrong in every way possible.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Please, make certain you don't include the religious structure of the various churches and their political agendas... just the teachings."
Since the churches wouldn't exist without these retarded flat earth myths you can't really separate the two.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnrainrules "Since the churches wouldn't exist without these retarded flat earth myths you can't really separate the two"
So, to teach that a being not of this Earth will always be here and we should be good is a flat Earth myth (Speilberg used it with M&Ms)? Or is that how you think the Spanish Inqusition was supported (didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition? Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.)?
I can't see the connection between love thy neighbor and "rack up Jose".
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "Since it teaches a vicious immorality " I'll grant you I have yet to read the entire Bible cover to cover, However, I still have trouble finding these commands of immorality (at least from the faith... the dictates of man abound in the book).
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bsabruzzo "I'll grant you I have yet to read the entire Bible cover to cover, "
Then like evolution you have an opinion on something you don't understand. Since you seem to think lying is a good thing I guess you don't mind not knowing the facts.
"the dictates of man abound in the book)."
And only that since only humans wrote this fiction.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@shanedk "being stronger and living longer make you a god"
And while I ignored technology as adding to the myth (though touching on it when PinkProgram brought it up), I will certainally concede that technology can mimic "magic" and can grant the illusion of god-powers. But even so, adding that to this debate and saying the "universe was created via and alien machine" is not what I brought up at the start.
And even then, a being of superior abilities to primordial soup is suggested.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "I will certainally concede that technology can mimic "magic" and can grant the illusion of god-powers."
Will you concede that people can make up fictional stories and believing myths that are physically impossible is silly?
"saying the "universe was created via and alien machine" is not what I brought up at the start."
Same problem as a God, you would then need to explain the machine. That's the Cranes versus Skyhooks problem explained by Daniel Dennet.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "Will you concede that people can make up fictional stories and believing myths that are physically impossible is silly?"
I can't really. It is the basis of an number of industries such as novels, TV, film and theater. And even as a religion or way of life, teachings and rationalizations for what a society knows is a valid undertaking.
And we haven't actually determined anything is or is not "physically impossible" but merely a misinterpretation.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo Really, there are literally billions of fictitious stories available to you right now on the internet.
"And even as a religion or way of life, teachings and rationalizations for what a society knows is a valid undertaking."
Not when you are using fiction to deceive people.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "Not when you are using fiction to deceive people" But isn't that the difference. Does Johnny really have only two apples? And who is Johnny? Where are these glass houses in ancient Israel? Did somebody really try to put a camel through the eye of a needle? Was it a volcanic eruption that turned the sky dark and the Nile red in Egypt that day?
What you call deception isn't deception at all.
This is not the topic of the possibility of gods, just the writings of man
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bsabruzzo "And we haven't actually determined anything is or is not "physically impossible" but merely a misinterpretation."
Really, Matthew 4:8 is physically impossible. Even if Jesus was on Everest he couldn't see more than 260 miles with a telescope before running into the curve of the Earth.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnrainrules "Same problem as a God, you would then need to explain the machine" Which is why I don't state for a fact that there was nothing, then something OR that there was always something. Both thories, in science AND religion have the same flaws.
My discussion started with an existing universe, but before man or even life on Earth, and contunued through to a point in the far distant future that may or may not come to pass.
And I'll have to read Daniel Dennet
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@shanedk Trees would also fit all three criteria of his definition.
TychoCelchu 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo so when my prosthetics are all finished would you call me a god? Stronger, faster and more agile than a human, nearly impervious to damage, and no natural lifespan. Plus I fit the description of the goddess Athena. Hi I'm a god by your definition bow down and grovel primate ^_^ or don't, I don't really care ;3
The thing I would refer to as a God is an 11 dimensional construct that makes the gods of religion look like an amoeba ;D
PinkProgram 1 month ago
@PinkProgram "so when my prosthetics are all finished would you call me a god?" Did you mutate and grow those by means of evolution? Or were they constructed?
It is a possibility that you are more like a god in ways. Go back to homo errectus and see if he agrees.
"The thing I would refer to as a God is an 11 dimensional construct that makes the gods of religion look like an amoeba" At least you're open to thinking and not closed minded to the possibility.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
I think you misunderstood my first comment.
I was expecting a definition of god to be something like: immortal, all powerful, creator of the universe, etc.
When I said "Should be straightforward enough." I wasn't being sarcastic.
This is based on me trying to explain "assertions" and "default positions" to theists and the way I have explained has worked best and quickest in my experience.
That is all.
2Jax 1 month ago
The best way to see if something is a positive assurtion or a reaction to a positive assurtion is to look at the definitions.
Define "god". Should be straightforward enough.
Now, define "no god".
Did you have to refer to the definition of "god"?
You didn't have to refer to "no god" when you defined "god", did you?
"god" is a positive assurtion, "no god" is a reaction to a positive assurtion.
Spead the knowledge.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax No, because "no god" isn't an assertion at all--it's a default position. Just like "no frazmolizers" is a default position. You don't know what a frazmolizer is, but in your model of the universe you don't have anything referred to as a frazmolizer, and won't until someone presents one to you.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk When did I say "no god" was an assurtion of any kind???
It's a REACTION to something else. That something else is the assurtion.
It is also a default position, true enough.
"no frazmolizers" is a pointless default position unless someone tries to define what a "frazmolizer" is, and then "no frazmolizers" is a reaction to that assurtion.
Don't know how you got me wrong. But then I like your rebellious nature.
Keep it up.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax *assertion
Damn, my english sucks.
But I am working on it.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax "It's a REACTION to something else."
No, the reaction to the God assertion is just rejection of that assertion. Back to the default.
I would completely reword your sentence: "frazmolizers" is a pointless position unless someone tries to define what a "frazmolizer" is, and as such "no frazmolizers" MUST be the default!
Your model either has a god or it doesn't. If god hasn't been defined, and thus doesn't belong in the model, then it doesn't have a god, because a god isn't there.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "No, the reaction to the God assertion is just rejection of that assertion. Back to the default."
Seriously, what are you disagreeing with? "No, the reaction to the God assertion is just a rejection to that assertion." Hence "no god" is the reaction to the assertion. What do you think I'm trying to say?
Are you annoyed that I'm not using the phrase "default position" enough???
I'm not saying the "reaction to an assertion" and the "default position" are different things.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax "I would completely reword your sentence: "frazmolizers" is a pointless position unless someone tries to define what a "frazmolizer" is, and as such "no frazmolizers" MUST be the default!"
But people DO define god as the likes of: immotal, all powerful, creator of the universe, etc. That's my point and the difference between "god" and "frazmolizers".
Then I ask for the definition of "no god" without referring to the definition of "god", if they say that's also an assertion.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax The default position is there before the assertion, and so cannot itself be the reaction to it.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk It would be pointless to have a SPECIFIC default position like "no frazmolizers" without the assertion "frazmolizers exist" first.
This is the order of argument.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
The default position is "No things not in evidence are assumed."
No frazmolizers is one specific example. You can make up anything you want, as theists have done, and assert it, and find that specific thing covered by the pre-existing general default position against all unevidenced claims.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Yes and in the course of an argument, the assertion if followed by a reaction to that assertion. The default position manifests itself in specific ways AFTER an assertion. Hense, the reaction comes after the assertion.
I understand the default position it there before the assertion. I'm talking practically, in an argument, the SPECIFIC default position is PRESENTED after an assertion. Try to have an argument where a SPECIFIC default position is PRESENTED before an assertion.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
> the assertion if followed by a reaction to that assertion.
The default position is atheism, aunicornism, subsets of the null hypothesis on every topic simultaneously, even topics not raised. The assertion is theism. The response is "Prove it." And then you can't, and so your idea is rejected. And because you can't prove it, you have to try to reverse the burden of proof. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. I don't need proof to not believe you. The null hypothesis is not a response.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@2Jax
> Define "god". Should be straightforward enough.
It isn't. Do you mean Yahweh, Kim Il-Sung, Emperor Hirohito, Brahma, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Azathoth, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Xenu, or some other ill-defined entity which you will redefine as needed with apologetics?
> Now, define "no god".
No effect is in evidence which suggests any causes but natural ones.
> Did you have to refer to the definition of "god"?
Nope.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "It isn't. Do you mean Yahweh, Kim Il-Sung, etc..."
I was after A definition of god not THE definition of god. People define god or gods all the time. It is straightforward. I'm not saying the definitions are good, ask a theist and they will give a straightforward answer MOTT.
"No effect is in evidence which suggests any causes but natural ones."
Is the definition of "naturalism", not "no god". There is a big difference.
I don't know who flagged you as spam but it wasn't me.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax "No effect is in evidence which suggests any causes but natural ones."
I think you have a definition of god in your head (be it vague) and it has to do with the supernatural. Hense, your statement refers to that supernatural definition when you talk about nothing but natural causes. It would be pointless to talk about natural causes without the supernatural being brought up first. Without supernatural, natural would define nothing because that's all there would be.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
Fortunately, what you think is entirely irrelevant.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Your statement about natural causes is obviously a reaction to the suggestion of the supernatural. You said you didn't refer to a definition of god when you defined "no god" when almost all definitions of gods has something to do with the supernatural.
Tell me the point in your definition of "no god" unless it's a reaction to a supernatural claim? Imagine that no-one had ever contemplated the supernatural. Why call anything natural?
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
Your ignorance is not a convincing rebuttal.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun what are you on about? prove your not a troll?
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
I'm the one that understands the null hypothesis, and you're the one who's trying to find a semantic workaround to shift the burden of proof. That makes you the troll and not me.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Then you obviously have me totally and utterly wrong. But then I have met many trolls and have seen the "misunderstanding on purpose" tactic many times.
I was saying that many theists claim that "no god" is an assertion. I was saying that this can be shown to be wrong through definitions. The burden of proof is on the assertion NOT the reaction to it.
Why so defensive?
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
> Then you obviously have me totally and utterly wrong. But then I have met many trolls and have seen the "misunderstanding on purpose" tactic many times.
And you thought it worked so well for you that you would adopt it as a lifestyle choice.
> many theists claim that "no god" is an assertion.
Many theists also claim that god exists. That doesn't make them right.
> Why so defensive?
Because you're lying. Atheism is not a reaction. I already lack a belief when a theist bullshits me.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun > many theists claim that "no god" is an assertion.
Many theists also claim that god exists. That doesn't make them right
I said in the very next sentence that this can be shown to be wrong.
"Because you're lying. Atheism is not a reaction. I already lack a belief when a theist bullshits me.
Why don't we have words for the lack of beliefs in every different made up thing? Obviously because we come up with terms (like atheist) after the assertion is made.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax We are talking about the concept, not the term we come up with for the concept--or the fact that there even is a term for it. Again, your model of the universe lacks frazmolizers. That aspect of the model predated my mentioning of the word.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk How can you reject frazmolizers without a definition of them? Unless you define them as "something that doesn't exist" which is a pointless definition.
It's the definition that gets rejected. Definition then rejection.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax Sorry, that should have been "something that is undefined".
2Jax 1 month ago
@rkyeun > Then you obviously have me totally and utterly wrong. But then I have met many trolls and have seen the "misunderstanding on purpose" tactic many times.
And you thought it worked so well for you that you would adopt it as a lifestyle choice.
> many theists claim that "no god" is an assertion.
Many theists also claim that god exists. That doesn't make them right.
I said in the next sentence that they are wrong. YOU are misunderstanding me on purpose obviously.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax "Then you obviously have me totally and utterly wrong."
Because obviously if we didn't we'd automatically agree with you, right?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk No, you seem to think that I'm saying:
It's a reaction so the burden of proof is on the reaction. I'm not saying this.
I'm trying to say: Even though the reaction comes after the assertion in the course of argument, it is still the default position.
I think this is why theists don't get the burden of proof. Because the specific label (like atheism) comes after the assertion.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
> People define god or gods all the time. It is straightforward.
Oh, great. Then I define gods as any member of non-existent mythology entities.
> Is the definition of "naturalism", not "no god".
You'll find quite an overlap.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun > Is the definition of "naturalism", not "no god".
You'll find quite an overlap.
Naturalism, like atheism, is necessarily a reaction to an assertion. Agnosticism, however, is not necessarily a reaction to anything.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
Ah, so you just don't know the difference between agnosticism and atheism. That explains everything.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. The belief is brought forward and then athiesm is a reaction to it.
Agnosticism is the claim that something is unknown/unknowable. Supposed knowledge doesn't have to be brought forward first. It's not a reaction.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
> The belief is brought forward and then athiesm is a reaction to it.
So you don't know what LACK means now.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Were there people that labelled themselves atheists BEFORE anyone came up with the concept of god?
At no point did i say (or do I think) that the conclusion is that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I mean literally and practically the TERM atheism came as a reaction to the suggestion of a god or gods.
2Jax 1 month ago
@2Jax
You think the label is what matters? People were atheists before that word existed.
And now you're backing down from the position to the word. The full semantic retreat to equivocation has begun.
Fuck off, troll. You've spewed enough nonsense.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun What position? You assumed my conclusion without understanding me. And you know what they say about assumptions. You stopped debating. You got abusive. You will not get a rise out of me. You will have to troll someone else to find your fix. I have delt with many a troll in my time and know what they want.
2Jax 1 month ago
isn't there an assumption saying that the underlying set has to be standard normally distributed? and if yes : how can god be standard normally distributed? just wondering... i think you are using the wrong tool.
MrKkWicked 1 month ago
@MrKkWicked "Not God" is absolutely normally distributed. The rest is up to the theists.
shanedk 1 month ago
Even though I don't believe in mermaids, I was fvucking one in the motel swimming pool last week. And it was good too.
Liozeris 2 months ago
After reading and believing for short time in my life on different beliefs and view points I have concluded That out of nothing comes nothings, But for everything I can see in space like astronomy, could have been here for ever and for ever will be a changing universe. GOD, something beyond and more outrageous, just is where??? All god stories are fear, hope, and dreams because the fact that this might just be it sucks and to be a slave to the system sucks in this world that banks run ????
Txwes12122012 4 months ago
Question for the believers of a GOD do you think he made everything really fast or did he make some laws of nature that are ever changing? Second question can life create life on another planet? 3rd Question do you think a couple different stories out of any book in the world written from someone who could have been taking hallucinogens like DMT in your dreams every night could have played a roll in the knowledge of God??
Txwes12122012 4 months ago
lol
Txwes12122012 4 months ago
It's always interesting seeing people try to disprove science and logic by trying to use science and logic! Love the video, keep up the good work! :D
KamasutraButterfly 5 months ago
(continued from my last comment)
well then! I have no rules anymore! I can do whatever I want! Sounds better than getting to know a God I never knew existed i suppose. This argument proves nothing to me. You can believe what you want, trust me. I won't beat Jesus down your throat. However,
Just know that He is there. The evidence is all around you.
elijahschhh 5 months ago
These videos are the epitome of "videos trying to start a youtube comment section argument". As a believer, could I not reverse this argument right back to you? Say I wanted to find out if there was no god. Well now, I can't find any evidence that proves that there is no god other than "I think that's the truth", so, according to the Null Hypothesis, there has to be a God. Also, say I believe in God (which I do), but one day, we find conclusive evidence that there is in fact, no god.
elijahschhh 5 months ago
@elijahschhh Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
The Null Hypothesis, "God does not exist," is falsifiable. Just find God and it's falsified!
You CANNOT just turn this around and claim that H0 is "God exists," because how can you falsify that? Everywhere I look and find no God, you can just claim he's somewhere else!
Sorry, it does NOT work the way you claim, and you can't worm your way around your astounding lack of evidence that way. YOU claim the evidence exists. YOU present it.
shanedk 5 months ago 14
@shanedk it's being presented everywhere. you just choose not to see it as evidence. You see it as something that happened...just to happen? Most of the time, it seems so hard to me to refuse to believe there is a creator. How else do you explain all of this? Also, what a meaningless existence believing in nothing greater than yourself must be. If you're right, oh well. We both end up in the same place. If I'm right, well, then, we don't. I'm not trying to scare you, but the truth is the truth.
elijahschhh 5 months ago
@elijahschhh Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You have to show SPECIFICALLY what the evidence is, HOW it is evidence, and not only how it supports your hypothesis but disproves the Null Hypothesis.
You've done NONE of that. All you have presented is your own incredulity. That is NOT evidence.
And then you resorted to Pascal's Wager, as if that hasn't been debunked a thousand times. Pathetic.
shanedk 5 months ago 5
@shanedk you guys make it so hard to discuss something. Making me out to be someone lesser than you. It's okay though.
Your Null Hypothesis is based off assumption. Just because there is "no evidence" yet, you ASSUME that that means there is nothing out there. You believing in nothing requires just as much faith as me believing in something does.
Also, the Bible is evidence. Just because you don't buy into it doesn't mean it's not credible. They're just letters and stories.
elijahschhh 5 months ago
@elijahschhh the Bible can be seen as evidence, but you have to ask yourself: would this stand up in court? The oldest gospel is that of Mark who reported on what the apostle Peter claimed he saw when he was preaching in the Romanised world some 50-60 years after the events, none of them are written by eye-witnesses - they are second hand testimonies. Those who did witness events are recounting evidence of their senses, which is always dubitable. I'm sorry, but the bible is very weak evidence.
Eddiespageddie 5 months ago 9
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eddiespageddie
It's also fictional. Even though Harry Potter is a firsthand witness to Lord Voldemort's actions, I can't present J. K. Rowling books as evidence of Voldemort.
rkyeun 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elijahschhh
"Also, the Bible is evidence. Just because you don't buy into it doesn't mean it's not credible. They're just letters and stories."
the bible is as much evidence of a creator as the illiad is evidence of sirens
or harry potter is of wizards and witches or Lotr is of orks and elves.
minderbart1 2 months ago
@elijahschhh You should test your argument FOR god, by applying it to the mermiad question in the video. If your argument can also be used to 'prove' the existence of mermaids (or zeus, or thor) then the argument is useless.
rossini55 1 month ago
@shanedk
I take it he's not familar with the burden of proof resting on the one making the positive claim (the theist), and not the skeptic saying "prove it!".
vspqbd 5 months ago
@shanedk *familiar
damn bogons...
vspqbd 5 months ago
@elijahschhh That won't work either. Since "no god" is the default position it does not reqiure evidence; it is the "null." You cannot prove a negative. It is a good thing that this logic exists otherwise you would not be looking at a computer monitor right now or healthy from vaccination. It is just unfortunate for the religious that this same logic cannot prove that a god exists, and in fact suggests strongly that there isn't one.
atheistphilosopher 5 months ago
@elijahschhh
The null hypothesis, stated for laymen, is "No effect is shown."
You can defeat strong (but not weak) atheism with the null hypothesis, where no effect is shown that demonstrates gods don't exist, but that won't help you show one does and people will still correctly reject your god as unproven.
And you need to be careful with what you claim about your god, or you might make it real enough to actually be wrong. There is an effect shown that there was no global flood.
rkyeun 1 month ago
The word "null" pisses me off LOL
Fadzoo 8 months ago
type II errors...
I do get annoyed at the "i know god doesn't exist because there's no evidence" people, absence of evidence =/= evidence of absense.
personally i'm an agnostic atheist, and i do agree it's the rational choice to assume there is no god until evidence to the contrary presents itself, but that doesn't mean you can say with certainty that god does not exist.
I do agree that if it turns out god does exist, it is VERY unlikely he/she/it will be anything like the holy books say.
khajiit92 8 months ago
@khajiit92 "absence of evidence =/= evidence of absense."
BIGTIME fallacy, and religious people can ONLY persist by not seeing the hideous fallacy in this reasoning.
"personally i'm an agnostic atheist,"
BULLSHIT. If you were, you wouldn't have said that incredibly stupid thing. We see this all the time: creationists in "evolutionist" clothing, religious wackos in atheist clothing...we're not buying it.
Watch the video. Then refute it or STFU.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
i'm sorry, are you saying absence of evidence IS evidence of absence? so atoms didn't exist until evidence for them were found?
and yes, i am an agnostic atheist. i don't really care whether a god exists or not (because even if one does exist, he most likely created the universe and doesn't give a shit about insignificant humans on a tiny planet in one out of a billion galaxies)
but since his existence doesn't affect me, i'll assume he doesn't until evidence to the contrary.
khajiit92 8 months ago
@shanedk
the existence of something doesn't depend on how much evidence some humans have managed to gather in their short time on earth (relatively).
and i have wached your video and i agree with most of it. and you yourself said science may one day prove the existence of a god, so thats fine. i was just commenting about some attheists who 'know' there is no god. not all atheists believe the same thing, and i have personally come across those who are certain.
khajiit92 8 months ago
@shanedk
Hypothesis - God created the universe.
Null Hypothesis - God did not create the universe.
I have no evidence for either, so they are either equally correct statistically or equally incorrect. Since the universe exists, they are both equally statistically correct.
Eat my shorts.
jackandmeg2001 6 months ago
@jackandmeg2001 No, they aren't, and to say they are shows a complete ignorance of statistics.
shanedk 6 months ago