Holy cow... That is some serious gobbledygook you got going there.
The argument of whether there is a god, or not... Is the wrong argument.... How many angels can dance on the head of a pin is the direction this argument always takes us.. The question should be. Now what?... How do we use the rules of whatever universe we live in to create value in our lives, happiness in our families, prosperity in our nations and peace on this Earth. All the droning is just pretentious and sophomoric.
"...unfounded optimism on my part..." You've been on YouTube for a while, you should know better by now :) Remember, when making YouTube videos that require any amount of thinking whatsoever on the part of an "adult" audience you have to imagine that you're talking to 10 year old kids...I know, you'll be accused of insulting their intelligence, but I say...how could you, when there's none to insult?
Will somebody call me when its finally pointed out that the questions "Can the existence of the Divine be proven;" and "Does the Divine Exist?" are two seperate questions.
Good observations on fallacious arguments for the existence of God, based on complexities of language. Having read medieval philosophy, I find that most of the great thinkers avoid fallacious generalizations, and the aim of their reflection is only to show that faith in God does not contradict reason, or we would say, does not destroy brain cells (cigarettes do, though). Seeing an amputated limb regrow, I do not conclude to God, but rather question the standard physicalist paradigm of medicine.
Why do you insist on making a point that the Occurrence or non occurrence of Healed Amputees will not disprove god; when then intention of the video is to attack Christians who DO believe exeptions Are make in their favor.
And Since No Such exception has occurred.
How can a Christian account for this particular class of exceptions Never Occurring?
Put all this aside. Let's talk abour REAL issues. I saw that pixelation. - It's pretty obvious to about half the people on you tube that you are a Reptillian.
You find the questions contemptible, but that does NOT render them invalid. Sorry, you fail.
You're going to have to resort to Kierkgaard before I get done listening to this video. Yep, just did.
You're trying to make simple beliefs of animistic Bronze Age tribesmen sophisticated. That is why your labors are destined to fail. You're conflating old superstitions into something that it is not.
It's like hearing a brilliant astrophysicist suddenly start talking about how the sun is powered by leprechauns. It doesn't matter how great of an astrophysicist you are, bullshit is bullshit, and the sun isn't powered by leprechauns.
Deists confusing themselves with Christians is a source of endless amusement. Sorry but you can't fucking talk your way around the fact that the Scriptures contend that a man was born of a virgin, changed water into wine, cursed fig trees, and cast "demons" into swine. Confabulate all you like, but at the end of the day you still have to deal with the miracle claims of the New Testament. Want to be a Deist? Fine, say you're a Deist. Make that argument. Just don't piss on my leg and say it's rain
You have to wonder why someone would use the word "God" considering that it's a biblical reference with all sorts of bullshit associations. If you believe in something other than the biblical character named "God", than why would you borrow that particular name? Wouldn't that be really confusing for people? Wouldn't that just "poison the well" and serve only to irrevocably cloud the issue? Of course it would.
There's absolutely no legitimate reason to use the word "God" to refer to something other than the Biblical character.
So why do they do it then? Well... if they didn't, they'd have to come up with their own word (like "Blorg"). If they did that, people would start asking, "What's a Blorg?" When a meaningful/valid definition did not follow, people would immediately realize that they were being bullshitted by the person talking about "Blorg".
That's why people use the word "God" instead. People just assume it has meaning, and this allows the bullshitters to sound as if they're being profound (or whatever), when all they're doing is talking shit. "God" is a word that allows bullshit to go unquestioned.
Since the Carruths is not responding to comments are you going to give him a video reply?
To tell the truth, I'm getting a bit annoyed with these pretentious post modernists. They use language to deliberately obscure and conflate their arguments instead of communicating clearly and concisely.
OK, I looked over the video again. The only thing he mentions as beyond the scope of language is the proof or disproof of the existence of God, not the definition of God itself.
His backup tactic would be to use the word existence to conflate things like "real" and "imaginary" (to put you and me in the same category as comic book characters).
The subject of existence (what it means to exist) is certainly an interesting one, but it does not become relevant in this instance because we can't even define the subject "God".
We need to know WHAT we are asking about before we can determine HOW it exists.
"Existence" is set up as a red herring here (I suspect).
You're just defining "God" as ineffable? I have a hard time understanding why you would try to define "God" using an opposition concept. Surely, you can't consider that valid.
Then, you go on to explain how you witnessed an "occurrence" involving the ineffable. That is the same thing as saying you had an experience you did not understand. In this context, I see no difference between "ineffable" and "not understood".
Then you take some experience you did not understand and claim it to be the basis for a "top down understanding of the universe" (or whatever you called it).
That's the argument from ignorance (I don't know or understand X, therefor Y & Z).
How could you not be aware of the two most ubiquitous theist fallacies evar (defining "God" negatively and the argument from ignorance).
Are you simply using big terms and concepts to conceal simple fallacies? Is that what you do?
He's taking apart the original question (#1 on the "10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer"). He's not providing the answer specifically because the question is leading. The question assumes that the healing of amputees has anything to do with the existence of God. A may be wrong, but I believe that TheCarruths is agreeing with you in that he doesn't believe that anyone should rest belief in God based on "miracles," and that to do such a thing defies reason.
That's not what I'm referring to. For the most part, I'm referring to the following:
"The question of the existence or non-existence of God is of sufficient complexity that the language with which we discuss the question imposes a false clarity of terminology. It is a question of complexity greater than, the framework of the language with which we could possibly express it."
That statement is absolute bullshit for no less than three important reasons. Ben is blowing smoke (sadly).
I think that TheCarruths is referring to the idea that by imposing language on God, one would be limiting Him simply because language isn't pure and concise enough to discuss the existence or non-existence of such a Being. Perhaps he's implying that one use a more apophatic approach?
Speaking of which, I haven't seen much discussion on the transcendental argument for the existence of God. Is it that easy to tear down?
Well... "God" is a word. The reason there are so many "hard atheists" is because that word is completely meaningless (does not correspond to a thing). It's as meaningful as "snorg", or "jazzlesnazzle". So, there is no existing "thing" (other than a word) to "impose language on", and what would it even mean to "impose language" on a word? Words ARE language. The reason we know the word "God" is utterly meaningless, is because people can never provide a valid definition for that word.
Usually (almost always), people try to get away with defining "God" negatively (using oppositional concepts). That is not even remotely valid. If I told you that my name was "not Frank", that would in no way tell you what my name WAS. That is easy to prove. I'm sure TheCarruths could not determine my favorite YouTube if I told him it was "not renetto". Oppositional concepts are hardly informative and certainly don't represent valid definitions.
If you read TheCarruths' statement carefully, you will see that he is defining God as "ineffable" (language could not possibly express it). That's another way of saying that the word is "meaningless". What bothers me, is that TheCarruths is using fancy terms and concepts to conceal a simple (and very common) fallacy. To me, this makes him a politician, not a philosopher.
Marty, I'd settle for a software enforced comprehension check prior to the "post comment" button being available. I'm about ready to call this whole shebang a data mining operation to help design "Inane stock response Bingo - in 3D!"
Ben absolutely loved the forward movement half way and the inverse movement from half way to the end. !st view I didn't understand the reason for, what appeared to be, an appendage to your initial thought. The negative inscription of miracle seeking confounds the gravity of miracle claims.
Of course in the noting of the absence of an event would make any occurance the exception, the positive exceptions would be the presence and no-longer would the context be the exception. I speak to the choir
I've narrowed down the monotheism to what all who are believers in monotheism have in common. From what is left, I've realized that meaning isn't static, and that God is meaningless without a creation. With that in mind, I know that if the creator exist, he wants to be our friend, not be superior. So if most believe God is a law giver, most are by all means lost in an inconsistent belief of the creator... if he exist.
Why is god meaningless without one? Why is god capable of having meaning? Can god desire meaning? Why does creation give god meaning? If we were all atheists, would god have meaning?
God just is. There is no reason for him being in that sense, and so he is meaningless without making himself useful according to someone else. God must be an existensialist. I guess believers give the burden to him, who never have problems which such ideas, like we do ;)
By expected, I really meant about sure as hell... Therefore a miracle must be rare.
TheCarruths, you speak a lot in this video, but you miss the entire point of the "why doesn't god heal amputees?" question. The point is that miracles are said to occur as a result of the goodwill of the Christian god, so why has it never been documented that he's healed a physical abnormality, not a sickness, in the modern world. The entire video seems like a philosopher goose stepping a question be throwing out red herrings.
Let me see if I can simplify this correctly. If amputees are somehow healed, god may not be involved. If they aren't healed, god may still be guiding the universe. People can believe as they wish either way.
I have to laugh at the fact that you rated down my comment before even waiting to think out what I said to its full extent. Think about what you just said for a moment and then put it into the context of the question. If god always, or even often, healed amputees, it wouldn't be outside of normal events. It wouldn't me miraculous, and thus we may assume it has a natural cause that we have yet to discover.
I disagree. A miracle is something for which there is no natural cause. If amputees were spontaneously growing their limbs back, but scientists couldn't discover why, then these would become COMMON miracles, but they're still miraculous. If they disobey the laws of physics (which all miracles must do), then we would be left with the inescapable conclusion that there was some supernatural force acting.
Well, besides quantum effects, we haven't yet seen anything that defies the laws. And even quantum theory yields predictions, so although it's strange, it's predictable.
Would your default assumption be "Things work as expected until shown otherwise" or "Things work unpredictably"?
Besides, we don't know *anything* for a FACT. We just have evidence in support of some proposition.
I don't think we can ever know anything 100% - just closer and closer TO that 100%. And of course, there is always the possibility that new evidence could show up to change our understanding.
That's exactly the point. Science has paradigmatic shifts and we can only guess as to what the ideas and beliefs going around would be if what We Now would call miracles had always happened.
What are you talking about? Just because I'm using a name, doesn't mean I share everything about the person. My real life name is the same as a celebrity, yet I do not share his opinions.
I'm not saying I *am* Kant. I respected some of his ideas, and so adopted the name. Same with occam.
Andrew, I'd suggest, first, that "goose stepping" doesn't mean what you think. Second, "the point" of the original video is right on its face. It was NOT concerned with the metaphysical complexities of recorded miracle, no more than it regarded its audience as intelligent ("you're educated. you might even be in middle management")
Tone of the video aside, I don't find your answer satisfactory. You seem to everything EXCEPT offer an answer. I'm not attacking your intelligence because I've watched your videos for awhile and I know you are far from an average man, but you're using your intelligence to avoid the question entirely because it's predicated on an attack that you don't see as valid.
But that's not what most rationalists say -- we say that the default assumption is that nature is as it appears, and that supernatural entities have not yet been required to explain anything, so no reason to assume they exist.
If someone wants to make a claim that they know of a supernatural entity, it's only reasonable that they should provide some kind of evidence of it. If no evidence is forthcoming, we disregard their claim. What's wrong with that?
"some kind of evidence of it." Yes it would be reasonable if it could be agreed upon by all parties what exactly would constitute evidence and what would be considered a fair and accurate interpretation of that evidence. Theists, myself included, cite numerous experiences, sensations, providences, and historical documents, and yet the evidence and or the interpretation of that evidence is immediately dismissed by the party that requested it.
There is fundamentally a disconnect in how the two camps understand what constitutes evidence and what is a valid interpretation of that evidence within this context.
Perhaps the reality is that both camps are to some extent guilty of interpreting the world around them to fit their respective ideologies, rather than radically reshaping their ideology to include the new evidence/interpretation.
In the end, the 100 lb gorilla in the room is the question, what ultimately determines truth?
Experience is never accepted as evidence to any but the one who experiences. How do we know you're not lying? Or dreaming? Or on drugs? Or deluded? Insufficient basis.
Historical documents? I've read plenty of documentation that shows how the bible is materially in error when it tries to discuss historical places or events.
Or are you referring to extra-biblical "evidences"?
I'd also like to point out that I think TheCarruths is making an unfounded allegation - that we for some reason believe we can draw absolute conclusions about the nature of the universe from a single observation.
I would like to say that we can *falsify* certain understandings of the universe from a single observation, or maybe add a fact to a stack of facts.
But it sounds like he's saying that we can't draw the conclusion that God isn't here simply because we don't see him. (cont)
I don't understand why Carruths differentiates belief in God with belief in Santa. Why is belief in God complex, and belief in Santa something you can dismiss out of hand?
Sure, lots of people believe in God. So what? Lots of people believe in astrology, gems, dowsing, homeopathy too. All have been *PROVEN* false. But people still believe them.
I also understand that you don't want to answer questions that are asked with contempt.
But don't pretend that belief in God is somehow logical.
Do you really not understand what I was talking about? In the context of dowsing, astrology, etc?
When I was talking about gems, I was talking about gem "therapy", where you're supposed to wear an amethyst, or topaz, if you have some kind of spiritual or health condition.
"Do you really not understand what I was talking about? In the context of dowsing, astrology, etc?" yes completely. All of which can be logically proven given the right premises. That was my point.
joness105639: "All of which can be logically proven given the right premises. That was my point."
Um, really? So if someone, say, has kidney stones, and a gemologist (or whatever they call themselves) prescribes amethyst therapy, and the stones don't go away, you will still argue that the gems work?
"you will still argue that the gems work?" Yes because the evidence you provided has no bearing on my logical proof that I provided. The question as to weather the claim that the "gemologist" makes is a coherent one given the outcome is another one, of course not all surgeries conducted by surgeons are sucessful either.
You are conflating two separate issues: Logical deduction and physical observation.
The fact that we need to measure or observe something to accept it is a foundational axiom. It is the basis of all science, and reality.
If you are honest, and sane, you will agree.
If, on the other hand, you are insane, then by all means believe every single claim that people throw your way without any kind of support. See how far that gets you in life.
"The fact that we need to measure or observe something to accept it is a foundational axiom. It is the basis of all science, and reality." and yet it is unsupportable by science. Thus it departs from reality and is as you say "void".
"believe every single claim that people throw your way without any kind of support."
1.Science is not the only way to support a claim
2. you are asking me to accept an unsupportable claim
"Unsupportable by science? It's the FOUNDATION of science. That's like saying the house doesn't support the foundation" This statement is completely irrelevent and it is not the same. The demand you make does not fit its own demands. It fails its own test. Either you admit that scientific testing is not essential for something to be true, or you reject the law of non contradiction and along with it any need to be self consistant or coherant.
Asked the wrong question? What are you talking about? I can ask any question you want. There is no such thing as a wrong question.
You are being so dishonest it's beginning to really piss me off.
I brought up gems in the context of mumbo-jumbo new-age "therapies", none of which worked. You went on a red-herring about industrial applications. Then you mentioned something about peer-reviewed documentation, but didn't follow it up.
I neither lie nor deceive. My "red herring" I honestly think was valid given it's purpose. You never qualified what you meant by "proven" as for the documentation, I offered to spend time in the library and reserceh the efficacy of industrial application of gems. Or if you like I could to a video test of diamond coated sawblades.
""Proven", in the case of the gem therapy is FUCKING OBVIOUS" no, There is scientific proof, logical proof etc.
But I can already tell you that premise #3 is false. at best you could say that the rate of the change of condition is no better than that with a plecibo. and 4 only partly follows from its premises.
I already demonstrated your hypocracy OccamKant with your assertion, "f someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
Listen - I know that you know that I'm right. I know that you're being intentionally deceptive and dishonest.
I would have expected better out of you. I thought menonites (sp?) were supposed to be honest, forthright people. You're certainly giving them a bad name.
"Listen - I know that you know that I'm right. I know that you're being intentionally deceptive and dishonest." How do you "know" this? I thought you said, "I don't understand what you're talking about, I'm afraid.
If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void."
So what measurement or observation allows you to make this claim without it being slander?
Indeed, I assure you that I am not lying or intending to decieve anyone. I am however trying to illustrate some flaws in your reasoning that I find here and there much as you are doing with me. Thus I can only conclude that whatever "measurement or observation" you are making, they are in error, which futher confirms that your assertion about "observation or measurement" is itself void.
jonesy: Indeed, I assure you that I am not lying or intending to decieve anyone.
Bullshit. You live your life by the same principles that underly science.
You are so full of shit it's ridiculous. You apply a double standard to everything - you give your stupid bible a pass with the ridiculous statements in it, yet you hold science to an impossible standard.
I'm agitated because I actually wanted a real debate, but all you're willing to do is bullshit. I'm tired of that.
"Bullshit" what measurements or observation have you made that allows you to conclude this?
"You live your life by the same principles that underly science." same question. Science btw is good at discovering ways to describe the world, It generally does not provide a philosophy or set of principles by which we should live.
"You are so full of shit it's ridiculous" more unsubstantiated claims.
"You apply a double standard to everything" not so. I demand logical self consistansy.
"You apply a double standard to everything" not so. I demand logical self consistansy. As such I question that which is not self consistant. As for the bible you asked me for axioms. In otherwords you let me off the hook for having to prove them. My beliefs can be shown to logically follow from those two axioms I provided.
I too wished to have a rational reasoned and respectful discussion, however it would seem that when you OccamKant are faced with questions you have never before considered or an opponant who wont yeild to your arguments, you call him a liar, a deciever, full of shit or their aruments bullshit without applying the same test for truth that you apply to everything else to demonstrate exactly why these ad hominems are not slander. Resorting to ad hominems is admitting defeat.
"You are unwilling to admit certain things that must be true, and you behave in a hypocritical manner." lol and IM THE HYPOCRATE? nice try. don't be the pot calling the kettle black.
"
I can't stand hypocrisy or dishonesty, and you display both tendencies." again please demonstrate this using your own test for truth here (i.e. science and empiricism, the ones that you claim without things must be rejected). and yes you have yet to prove I am being dishonest or lying. go read a book.
I already told you how you are being hypocritical (at least one of the ways) not that you read it. I reject science and even empiricism as the one and only or even the "best" test for what is true because of the hypocracy in saying "
If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality." How many times do I have to remind you that it fails its own test?
"I'm not going to get into an epistimemological discussion with you. That's useless." LOL what bullshit comming from one who just said a few hours ago "
If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality." THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF EMPIRICISM ALREADY DUH!
"Epistemology is the study of "knowlege", not empiricism." too late to get out of that one too. ever since you asserted, "If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality.", we have been discussing epistemology. In fact you yourself already asked, "What "test of truth" DO you accept?"
What "test of truth" DO you accept? If your car or computer isn't working, do you try to track down the problem, or do you do something else? Cast lots? Pray? Do a blood sacrifice?
"What "test of truth" DO you accept? If your car or computer isn't working, do you try to track down the problem, or do you do something else? Cast lots? Pray? Do a blood sacrifice?" I accept science/empiricism as one of many tests for truth. It does have its place, but it is not king nor should it be.
Well, what other tests of truth do you accept? What do you do when your car doesn't work, besides using the scientific method? Do you pray? Cast lots? Do a blood sacrifice?
"There is no logical self consistancy to the bible. Defend that." Now why on earth would I want to defend such a position? Especially one you have yet to convince me of?
"Show you? Ok...Hmm. Where to begin." ok those verses you cited do not conflict with each other within their respective contexts. take for example the first two verses. ARE YOU ACTUALLY CLAIMING THTA CATS OF RIGHTIOSNESS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO "SHINE LIGHT BEFORE MEN"? Geez.
The bible supports slavery, genocide, murder, rape, adultery, alcohol abuse, incest, lying, theft, looting, infanticide, polygamy, lying and pretty much every other vice.
Presumably you don't practice these things. Why not? They're in the bible.
"The bible supports slavery, genocide, murder, rape, adultery, alcohol abuse, incest, lying, theft, looting, infanticide, polygamy, lying and pretty much every other vice." I don't know what bible you've been reading but it wasn't a very good translation. Look you're going to have to prove that.
The ten commandments already strikes most of those off your list. Of course you are lible to scream "but you're using the bible to prove the bible" even though you are doing the same to disprove it.
Abraham sleeps with sarah's maid (adultery). Lot sleeps with his daughters (alcohol abuse and incest). Moses murders the egyptian. Elisha summons bears to eat children because they teased him. Numerous chapters where God commands the isrealites to kill all the men and women who have known men, but take the virgins for themselves. Rules for selling your daughter into sexual slavery.
"Abraham sleeps with sarah's maid (adultery)." Look ,The ten commandments prohibits murder etc, Look it up theyre easy to find. The other thing is that sarah told abram to take Hagar to wife. If you marry somone its not adultery. the old testiment is full of polygamy. Its important to understand that the bible is full of stories of sinners. Doesnt mean that it condones their actions. God himself picked Isaac instead of ishmael becuase
"Elisha magically summoned the bears to eat the children." Yes that was God's doing, but lets look at this in context. Please give me chapter and verse. and let go of your condicesntion. SO far you have failed to grasp basic biblical principles. You might as well have asked if my mother was a whore.
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
Look, I am getting tired of this pathetic mode of communication. By now too many threads are getting lost and convoluted. i could best address these on stickam if you are interested we can set up a room.
"I would FAR prefer a civil discussion than an angry argument, by the way. Just so you know." as would I. Again it is easier to conduct such a discussion on stickam. Especially because with the way youtube structures their comments ithinders such discussion after a point. I cant easily respond in limited amounts of time and space reply to everything the way I would like. PM me here if you are interested.
Their actions. God himself picked Isaac instead of ishmael becuase of their disobedians]ce.
Balaam huh? I know lots about him but you'll have to prove that claim with chapter and verse. I can tell you that he used God's blessing for profit and in so doing incured gods anger but then he repented.
9 Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." 10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."
The angel of the Lord doesn't say "Go back to your HUSBAND". He says go back to your mistress and SUBMIT.
Or at best, the claim is unfounded and therefore not accepted. The counter is not necessarily true - ie the lack of proof of gems working doesn't prove that they CAN'T work, just that they've never been shown to work.
Someone could come along with a working example and prove that they do work. No-one has yet, so the default assumption is that until proven to work, they do nothing.
"at best, the claim is unfounded and therefore not accepted" and yet you accept the unfounded claim that "If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality." I say it is unfounded because it is not supported in the manner that this claim requires.
I need a bit of clarification. I don't see how that proves gems work. Just because something has an industrial application doesn't mean it works. And the term works also has to be defined.
"don't see how that proves gems work" with extra steps I could have included peer reviewed journal articles expounding upon exactly how these gems work and how well etc, not enough space for that.
"the term works also has to be defined." Indeed, but so does the word "proven" I just "proved" that gems work, in the context of the sentence that OK wrote, it is adequite.
I am confident that I could provide peer reviewed scholarly papers that discuss the efficacy of gems in industrial applications, if I had still access to the Ebsco Host but I am not currently a student so It would be a bit challenging. If you like I could go to my library and have a look.
joness105639. I think you are missing my question. We know how we can USE gems such as a quartz in say... keeping time or a diamond to split light or aid in drilling. But using a word like work is like using the word stuff or thing, it's too vague. Please elaborate what you mean because with out that, nothing is proven. In other words, I really don't understand what you attempting to prove and I'm looking for you to clarify it. That's all.
"But using a word like work is like using the word stuff or thing, it's too vague." my point is that using the word "proven" is also too vague. I showed a logical proof that gems "work" however you may reject it as being irrelevant. I find that unless we qualifiy what exactly we mean when we say "its been proven" it means absolutly nothing.
joness105639. You are correct, if you want to get pedantic then yes you would have to describe 'proven' by means of publish journals etc. I'll assume 'proven' means 'evidence for'.
I can't make that same leap with 'work' because that can ONLY be defined by YOU. You are really saying NOTHING without at least slightly more elaboration. I'm not rejecting it as irrelevant, I'm asking for a definition so I can understand what you are attempting to claim. Nothing more.
By work I mean the effacacy of gems in a specific application. Come to think og it I think I can find a peer reviewed jorunal article that shows that gems can be used effectivly for healing.
joness105639: "By work I mean the effacacy of gems in a specific application"
My original claim was that gems don't work as healing therapy. To measure efficacy, we just need to see if the "treated" condition remained after the treatment.
Seems pretty simple.
I guess personally I look at evidence the same way a court of law would look at evidence, and something that would convince me is the same as would convince a court.
Joness105639. Thanks.. now I understand that you are attempting to prove that, 'gems can be used effectivly for healing', I can follow the conversation.
Jones some of your comments are absolutely retarded! Its quite simple what you and thecarruth do. Instead of reading something for what it is you totally insert some high degree of flexible understanding ,and in the end you have a big mess you some how clean up with stupid shit. i think its ridiculous until you have faith enough to take the words of the bible literally and test them you will never understand
Am I to believe that revelation 12 insists that women can wear the sun as an article of clothing while standing on the moon(she'd have to be at least 1 AU tall)? Wear a crown of stars? That it is literally speaking about a literal dragon which wishes to eat this gigantic fireproof pregnant ladies' baby?
Am I to believe that Jesus parables were true historical incidencts and not mere stories to illustrate a point? That the writer of psalm 23 believed himself to be a sheep?
Also, with God, I can believe in God and defend that belief with logic. I suppose what you are objecting to is not weather a belief in God's existence is logical, but rather, you are objecting to the fact that the belief is not scientific or empirical, nor is it scientifically or empirically falsifiable.
When one accepts certain premises as truth, the conclusion of God's existence does in fact logically follow.
"I haven't heard any axioms or premises that are convincing." However, others are convinced by the truth of those axioms/premises, so it cannot be said that a belief in God is completely illogical, unless it can be shown that the conclusion of God's existence do not logically stem from the stated axioms/premises. May i suggest a book by Richard Swinburne titles "the coherance of theism"?
I have little interest in going into a discussion on them yet, but essentially as axioms they do not require proof and since you have asked me to provide my own, then I I should be able to submit any without being compelled to prove them but they will show how a belief in God could logically stem form them.
1. The Bible is True
2. My sensory data gives me accurate information of the world around me.
They are both axioms. Hence they need not be proven. If the first is accepted to be true then all of what it says within it is true. Genesis 1:1 establishes God's existence, the rest of the compendium of books establishes his nature and charicter. 2 is neccesary because without it, one could not know the contents of the Bible.
"I don't understand why Carruths differentiates belief in God with belief in Santa. Why is belief in God complex, and belief in Santa something you can dismiss out of hand?"
Because the nature and function of "god" is infinitely more complex than the nature and function of "santa."
Well...no, but that's because you can't prove a negative.
Let me rephrase more pedantically:
Astrology has zero supporting evidence. It is a claim that makes no sense, according to laws of physics and also of reason. Without supporting evidence or reason, it is disregarded.
If someone DOES show up with evidence, we will of course re-evaluate our position.
Holy cow... That is some serious gobbledygook you got going there.
The argument of whether there is a god, or not... Is the wrong argument.... How many angels can dance on the head of a pin is the direction this argument always takes us.. The question should be. Now what?... How do we use the rules of whatever universe we live in to create value in our lives, happiness in our families, prosperity in our nations and peace on this Earth. All the droning is just pretentious and sophomoric.
bosatsu76 1 year ago
Before any question, Who am I? That question must be answered first. Namaste
291006058 3 years ago
This would be so good on acid. I hate/love introspection.
debstef 3 years ago
honestly I hate that Santa, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Spaghetti Monster thing that you brought up really irritates me! I see far too often, ugh!
pixelatedxdeath 3 years ago
bcarruth: So, does it bother you that your mother a whore?
LimpLoser 3 years ago
No I'm not.
MoMcarruth 3 years ago
Its interesting seeing an incredibly intelligent man with a vocabulary beyond any other man get mad.
Person009 3 years ago
"...unfounded optimism on my part..." You've been on YouTube for a while, you should know better by now :) Remember, when making YouTube videos that require any amount of thinking whatsoever on the part of an "adult" audience you have to imagine that you're talking to 10 year old kids...I know, you'll be accused of insulting their intelligence, but I say...how could you, when there's none to insult?
lookagain77 3 years ago
Will somebody call me when its finally pointed out that the questions "Can the existence of the Divine be proven;" and "Does the Divine Exist?" are two seperate questions.
rebyoshi 3 years ago
Good observations on fallacious arguments for the existence of God, based on complexities of language. Having read medieval philosophy, I find that most of the great thinkers avoid fallacious generalizations, and the aim of their reflection is only to show that faith in God does not contradict reason, or we would say, does not destroy brain cells (cigarettes do, though). Seeing an amputated limb regrow, I do not conclude to God, but rather question the standard physicalist paradigm of medicine.
thomasmatus 3 years ago
The video was not intended to disprove god.
Why do you insist on making a point that the Occurrence or non occurrence of Healed Amputees will not disprove god; when then intention of the video is to attack Christians who DO believe exeptions Are make in their favor.
And Since No Such exception has occurred.
How can a Christian account for this particular class of exceptions Never Occurring?
gusb232 3 years ago
So even if miracle could be proven - it does not serve as proof as God. Right?
armando3210 3 years ago
Put all this aside. Let's talk abour REAL issues. I saw that pixelation. - It's pretty obvious to about half the people on you tube that you are a Reptillian.
rebyoshi 3 years ago
Utter nonsense. We supplanted their pitiful shadow empire eons ago. Reptilians are inferior. *end transmission*
TheCarruths 3 years ago 2
Nice video. So, whether someones limb grows back or not, really doest prove anything either way for the big picture of the Universe. Got it. :-)
Evershear 3 years ago
*lulz*
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
You find the questions contemptible, but that does NOT render them invalid. Sorry, you fail.
You're going to have to resort to Kierkgaard before I get done listening to this video. Yep, just did.
You're trying to make simple beliefs of animistic Bronze Age tribesmen sophisticated. That is why your labors are destined to fail. You're conflating old superstitions into something that it is not.
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
It's like hearing a brilliant astrophysicist suddenly start talking about how the sun is powered by leprechauns. It doesn't matter how great of an astrophysicist you are, bullshit is bullshit, and the sun isn't powered by leprechauns.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
Deists confusing themselves with Christians is a source of endless amusement. Sorry but you can't fucking talk your way around the fact that the Scriptures contend that a man was born of a virgin, changed water into wine, cursed fig trees, and cast "demons" into swine. Confabulate all you like, but at the end of the day you still have to deal with the miracle claims of the New Testament. Want to be a Deist? Fine, say you're a Deist. Make that argument. Just don't piss on my leg and say it's rain
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
You have to wonder why someone would use the word "God" considering that it's a biblical reference with all sorts of bullshit associations. If you believe in something other than the biblical character named "God", than why would you borrow that particular name? Wouldn't that be really confusing for people? Wouldn't that just "poison the well" and serve only to irrevocably cloud the issue? Of course it would.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
There's absolutely no legitimate reason to use the word "God" to refer to something other than the Biblical character.
So why do they do it then? Well... if they didn't, they'd have to come up with their own word (like "Blorg"). If they did that, people would start asking, "What's a Blorg?" When a meaningful/valid definition did not follow, people would immediately realize that they were being bullshitted by the person talking about "Blorg".
D4Shawn 3 years ago
That's why people use the word "God" instead. People just assume it has meaning, and this allows the bullshitters to sound as if they're being profound (or whatever), when all they're doing is talking shit. "God" is a word that allows bullshit to go unquestioned.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
Since the Carruths is not responding to comments are you going to give him a video reply?
To tell the truth, I'm getting a bit annoyed with these pretentious post modernists. They use language to deliberately obscure and conflate their arguments instead of communicating clearly and concisely.
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago 2
They're more like politicians than philosophers.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
OK, I looked over the video again. The only thing he mentions as beyond the scope of language is the proof or disproof of the existence of God, not the definition of God itself.
sonoftheright 3 years ago
He's being very tricky, but watch... you can see past it:
There's no linguistic problems with the follow question:
Does X exist?
The following questions are perfectly valid:
Does a dog exist?
Does a square circle exist?
Do people exist?
The question makes perfect sense. So, the only thing that could be "beyond the scope of language" is the variable 'X' (which in this case is "God").
Thus, he is defining "God" as "beyond the scope of language" (ineffable).
D4Shawn 3 years ago
His backup tactic would be to use the word existence to conflate things like "real" and "imaginary" (to put you and me in the same category as comic book characters).
The subject of existence (what it means to exist) is certainly an interesting one, but it does not become relevant in this instance because we can't even define the subject "God".
We need to know WHAT we are asking about before we can determine HOW it exists.
"Existence" is set up as a red herring here (I suspect).
D4Shawn 3 years ago
You're just defining "God" as ineffable? I have a hard time understanding why you would try to define "God" using an opposition concept. Surely, you can't consider that valid.
Then, you go on to explain how you witnessed an "occurrence" involving the ineffable. That is the same thing as saying you had an experience you did not understand. In this context, I see no difference between "ineffable" and "not understood".
D4Shawn 3 years ago
Then you take some experience you did not understand and claim it to be the basis for a "top down understanding of the universe" (or whatever you called it).
That's the argument from ignorance (I don't know or understand X, therefor Y & Z).
How could you not be aware of the two most ubiquitous theist fallacies evar (defining "God" negatively and the argument from ignorance).
Are you simply using big terms and concepts to conceal simple fallacies? Is that what you do?
D4Shawn 3 years ago
He's taking apart the original question (#1 on the "10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer"). He's not providing the answer specifically because the question is leading. The question assumes that the healing of amputees has anything to do with the existence of God. A may be wrong, but I believe that TheCarruths is agreeing with you in that he doesn't believe that anyone should rest belief in God based on "miracles," and that to do such a thing defies reason.
sonoftheright 3 years ago
That's not what I'm referring to. For the most part, I'm referring to the following:
"The question of the existence or non-existence of God is of sufficient complexity that the language with which we discuss the question imposes a false clarity of terminology. It is a question of complexity greater than, the framework of the language with which we could possibly express it."
That statement is absolute bullshit for no less than three important reasons. Ben is blowing smoke (sadly).
ReIgNoFrAdNeSs 3 years ago
*This is D4Shawn BTW (sorry, I'm logged into the wrong account).
ReIgNoFrAdNeSs 3 years ago
I think that TheCarruths is referring to the idea that by imposing language on God, one would be limiting Him simply because language isn't pure and concise enough to discuss the existence or non-existence of such a Being. Perhaps he's implying that one use a more apophatic approach?
Speaking of which, I haven't seen much discussion on the transcendental argument for the existence of God. Is it that easy to tear down?
sonoftheright 3 years ago
Well... "God" is a word. The reason there are so many "hard atheists" is because that word is completely meaningless (does not correspond to a thing). It's as meaningful as "snorg", or "jazzlesnazzle". So, there is no existing "thing" (other than a word) to "impose language on", and what would it even mean to "impose language" on a word? Words ARE language. The reason we know the word "God" is utterly meaningless, is because people can never provide a valid definition for that word.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
Usually (almost always), people try to get away with defining "God" negatively (using oppositional concepts). That is not even remotely valid. If I told you that my name was "not Frank", that would in no way tell you what my name WAS. That is easy to prove. I'm sure TheCarruths could not determine my favorite YouTube if I told him it was "not renetto". Oppositional concepts are hardly informative and certainly don't represent valid definitions.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
If you read TheCarruths' statement carefully, you will see that he is defining God as "ineffable" (language could not possibly express it). That's another way of saying that the word is "meaningless". What bothers me, is that TheCarruths is using fancy terms and concepts to conceal a simple (and very common) fallacy. To me, this makes him a politician, not a philosopher.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
*oppositional concept
D4Shawn 3 years ago
Ever hope that people would ask questions so that they could learn something?
That question includes itself with its set.
mistawulf 3 years ago
Marty, I'd settle for a software enforced comprehension check prior to the "post comment" button being available. I'm about ready to call this whole shebang a data mining operation to help design "Inane stock response Bingo - in 3D!"
TheCarruths 3 years ago 3
Ben absolutely loved the forward movement half way and the inverse movement from half way to the end. !st view I didn't understand the reason for, what appeared to be, an appendage to your initial thought. The negative inscription of miracle seeking confounds the gravity of miracle claims.
Of course in the noting of the absence of an event would make any occurance the exception, the positive exceptions would be the presence and no-longer would the context be the exception. I speak to the choir
dospook 3 years ago
I agree.
Hamandchees3 3 years ago
I've narrowed down the monotheism to what all who are believers in monotheism have in common. From what is left, I've realized that meaning isn't static, and that God is meaningless without a creation. With that in mind, I know that if the creator exist, he wants to be our friend, not be superior. So if most believe God is a law giver, most are by all means lost in an inconsistent belief of the creator... if he exist.
Censeo 3 years ago
About prayer. If x is expected, and x is prayed to not happen, and x not happen, then we have a prayer miracle right?
Censeo 3 years ago
If that's how you define a prayer miracle, sure. It doesn't hold the typical allure of the idea of a miracle, though.
JSResponds 3 years ago
Why is god meaningless without one? Why is god capable of having meaning? Can god desire meaning? Why does creation give god meaning? If we were all atheists, would god have meaning?
JSResponds 3 years ago
God just is. There is no reason for him being in that sense, and so he is meaningless without making himself useful according to someone else. God must be an existensialist. I guess believers give the burden to him, who never have problems which such ideas, like we do ;)
By expected, I really meant about sure as hell... Therefore a miracle must be rare.
Censeo 3 years ago
TheCarruths, you speak a lot in this video, but you miss the entire point of the "why doesn't god heal amputees?" question. The point is that miracles are said to occur as a result of the goodwill of the Christian god, so why has it never been documented that he's healed a physical abnormality, not a sickness, in the modern world. The entire video seems like a philosopher goose stepping a question be throwing out red herrings.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
Let me see if I can simplify this correctly. If amputees are somehow healed, god may not be involved. If they aren't healed, god may still be guiding the universe. People can believe as they wish either way.
JSResponds 3 years ago
There are no known cases of amputees being healed. There is no known process for the regeneration of a limb.
So if someone regrows their limb, with our current understanding, that would count as a real miracle.
If the patient was examined and there was no detectable cause for this, it would be strong evidence for some kind of supernatural intervention.
In itself, not evidence for any one god. Just a supernatural force. It could be allah for all we know. Or Zeus. Unless the limb was signed...
OccamKant 3 years ago
I have to laugh at the fact that you rated down my comment before even waiting to think out what I said to its full extent. Think about what you just said for a moment and then put it into the context of the question. If god always, or even often, healed amputees, it wouldn't be outside of normal events. It wouldn't me miraculous, and thus we may assume it has a natural cause that we have yet to discover.
JSResponds 3 years ago
I disagree. A miracle is something for which there is no natural cause. If amputees were spontaneously growing their limbs back, but scientists couldn't discover why, then these would become COMMON miracles, but they're still miraculous. If they disobey the laws of physics (which all miracles must do), then we would be left with the inescapable conclusion that there was some supernatural force acting.
OccamKant 3 years ago
I'm curious as to how you know for a fact that there is nothing in existence that defies our typically held laws of the universe.
JSResponds 3 years ago
Well, besides quantum effects, we haven't yet seen anything that defies the laws. And even quantum theory yields predictions, so although it's strange, it's predictable.
Would your default assumption be "Things work as expected until shown otherwise" or "Things work unpredictably"?
OccamKant 3 years ago
Besides, we don't know *anything* for a FACT. We just have evidence in support of some proposition.
I don't think we can ever know anything 100% - just closer and closer TO that 100%. And of course, there is always the possibility that new evidence could show up to change our understanding.
OccamKant 3 years ago
That's exactly the point. Science has paradigmatic shifts and we can only guess as to what the ideas and beliefs going around would be if what We Now would call miracles had always happened.
JSResponds 3 years ago
A miracle isn't an uncommon occurrence - it's an impossible one.
OccamKant 3 years ago
You are a disgrace. How dare you take the name Kant and then go contrary to his position. You're no better than any other sock account now.
joness105639 3 years ago
What are you talking about? Just because I'm using a name, doesn't mean I share everything about the person. My real life name is the same as a celebrity, yet I do not share his opinions.
I'm not saying I *am* Kant. I respected some of his ideas, and so adopted the name. Same with occam.
I certainly don't claim to be brilliant.
OccamKant 3 years ago
I'm also obviously not a sock puppet account, since I actually have videos.
OccamKant 3 years ago
That doesn't even make sense.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
Andrew, I'd suggest, first, that "goose stepping" doesn't mean what you think. Second, "the point" of the original video is right on its face. It was NOT concerned with the metaphysical complexities of recorded miracle, no more than it regarded its audience as intelligent ("you're educated. you might even be in middle management")
TheCarruths 3 years ago
Tone of the video aside, I don't find your answer satisfactory. You seem to everything EXCEPT offer an answer. I'm not attacking your intelligence because I've watched your videos for awhile and I know you are far from an average man, but you're using your intelligence to avoid the question entirely because it's predicated on an attack that you don't see as valid.
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
Hawt, Ben.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Hey Ben, what do you think abotu the Augustinian "proof for the existence of God"?
Agila1 3 years ago
But that's not what most rationalists say -- we say that the default assumption is that nature is as it appears, and that supernatural entities have not yet been required to explain anything, so no reason to assume they exist.
If someone wants to make a claim that they know of a supernatural entity, it's only reasonable that they should provide some kind of evidence of it. If no evidence is forthcoming, we disregard their claim. What's wrong with that?
OccamKant 3 years ago
"some kind of evidence of it." Yes it would be reasonable if it could be agreed upon by all parties what exactly would constitute evidence and what would be considered a fair and accurate interpretation of that evidence. Theists, myself included, cite numerous experiences, sensations, providences, and historical documents, and yet the evidence and or the interpretation of that evidence is immediately dismissed by the party that requested it.
joness105639 3 years ago
There is fundamentally a disconnect in how the two camps understand what constitutes evidence and what is a valid interpretation of that evidence within this context.
Perhaps the reality is that both camps are to some extent guilty of interpreting the world around them to fit their respective ideologies, rather than radically reshaping their ideology to include the new evidence/interpretation.
In the end, the 100 lb gorilla in the room is the question, what ultimately determines truth?
joness105639 3 years ago
Experience is never accepted as evidence to any but the one who experiences. How do we know you're not lying? Or dreaming? Or on drugs? Or deluded? Insufficient basis.
Historical documents? I've read plenty of documentation that shows how the bible is materially in error when it tries to discuss historical places or events.
Or are you referring to extra-biblical "evidences"?
OccamKant 3 years ago
I'd also like to point out that I think TheCarruths is making an unfounded allegation - that we for some reason believe we can draw absolute conclusions about the nature of the universe from a single observation.
I would like to say that we can *falsify* certain understandings of the universe from a single observation, or maybe add a fact to a stack of facts.
But it sounds like he's saying that we can't draw the conclusion that God isn't here simply because we don't see him. (cont)
OccamKant 3 years ago
I don't understand why Carruths differentiates belief in God with belief in Santa. Why is belief in God complex, and belief in Santa something you can dismiss out of hand?
Sure, lots of people believe in God. So what? Lots of people believe in astrology, gems, dowsing, homeopathy too. All have been *PROVEN* false. But people still believe them.
I also understand that you don't want to answer questions that are asked with contempt.
But don't pretend that belief in God is somehow logical.
OccamKant 3 years ago
depends on what you mean by proven. Given the following premises I will logically prove that gems work.
1. All Diamonds are gems
2. All Rubies are gems
3. All Quartz are gems
4. Diamonds , rubies, and quartz all have industrial applications.
5. given 1,2,3, and 4, gems have industrial applications.
6. Given 5, Gems do work.
Q.E.D.
joness105639 3 years ago
Do you really not understand what I was talking about? In the context of dowsing, astrology, etc?
When I was talking about gems, I was talking about gem "therapy", where you're supposed to wear an amethyst, or topaz, if you have some kind of spiritual or health condition.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"Do you really not understand what I was talking about? In the context of dowsing, astrology, etc?" yes completely. All of which can be logically proven given the right premises. That was my point.
joness105639 3 years ago
joness105639: "All of which can be logically proven given the right premises. That was my point."
Um, really? So if someone, say, has kidney stones, and a gemologist (or whatever they call themselves) prescribes amethyst therapy, and the stones don't go away, you will still argue that the gems work?
OccamKant 3 years ago
"you will still argue that the gems work?" Yes because the evidence you provided has no bearing on my logical proof that I provided. The question as to weather the claim that the "gemologist" makes is a coherent one given the outcome is another one, of course not all surgeries conducted by surgeons are sucessful either.
joness105639 3 years ago
I don't understand what you're talking about, I'm afraid.
If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality."
Answer me this, how is the above claim supported by any observation, or measurement?
joness105639 3 years ago
You are conflating two separate issues: Logical deduction and physical observation.
The fact that we need to measure or observe something to accept it is a foundational axiom. It is the basis of all science, and reality.
If you are honest, and sane, you will agree.
If, on the other hand, you are insane, then by all means believe every single claim that people throw your way without any kind of support. See how far that gets you in life.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"The fact that we need to measure or observe something to accept it is a foundational axiom. It is the basis of all science, and reality." and yet it is unsupportable by science. Thus it departs from reality and is as you say "void".
"believe every single claim that people throw your way without any kind of support."
1.Science is not the only way to support a claim
2. you are asking me to accept an unsupportable claim
joness105639 3 years ago
Unsupportable by science? It's the FOUNDATION of science. That's like saying the house doesn't support the foundation. So no, it's not void.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"Unsupportable by science? It's the FOUNDATION of science. That's like saying the house doesn't support the foundation" This statement is completely irrelevent and it is not the same. The demand you make does not fit its own demands. It fails its own test. Either you admit that scientific testing is not essential for something to be true, or you reject the law of non contradiction and along with it any need to be self consistant or coherant.
joness105639 3 years ago
You have also not answered an earlier question: Do you have peer reviewed journals demonstrating the efficacy of gem therapy?
OccamKant 3 years ago
I answered it, but you asked the wrong question. Remember that the context of my proof was industrial applications.
joness105639 3 years ago
Asked the wrong question? What are you talking about? I can ask any question you want. There is no such thing as a wrong question.
You are being so dishonest it's beginning to really piss me off.
I brought up gems in the context of mumbo-jumbo new-age "therapies", none of which worked. You went on a red-herring about industrial applications. Then you mentioned something about peer-reviewed documentation, but didn't follow it up.
I'm tired of this. I hate liars and deceivers.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Doh. I meant "I can ask any question *I* want".
OccamKant 3 years ago
I neither lie nor deceive. My "red herring" I honestly think was valid given it's purpose. You never qualified what you meant by "proven" as for the documentation, I offered to spend time in the library and reserceh the efficacy of industrial application of gems. Or if you like I could to a video test of diamond coated sawblades.
joness105639 3 years ago
Sigh.
This will be my last response to you, Jonesy. I'm tired of your ridiculous dishonesty.
"Proven", in the case of the gem therapy is FUCKING OBVIOUS.
1. You have some condition.
2. Gemologist claims gem therapy will fix your condition.
3. Condition does not change. EVER.
4. Gem therapy does nothing. Has never been shown to do anything. It's as much bullshit as your religion. End of story.
OccamKant 3 years ago
""Proven", in the case of the gem therapy is FUCKING OBVIOUS" no, There is scientific proof, logical proof etc.
But I can already tell you that premise #3 is false. at best you could say that the rate of the change of condition is no better than that with a plecibo. and 4 only partly follows from its premises.
joness105639 3 years ago
You are a hypocrite, Jones.
OccamKant 3 years ago
I already demonstrated your hypocracy OccamKant with your assertion, "f someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality."
joness105639 3 years ago
Do you understand what falsification is?
OccamKant 3 years ago
yes, the demand for falsification cannot be falsified, therefore it fails its own test and must be rejected.
joness105639 3 years ago
Listen - I know that you know that I'm right. I know that you're being intentionally deceptive and dishonest.
I would have expected better out of you. I thought menonites (sp?) were supposed to be honest, forthright people. You're certainly giving them a bad name.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"Listen - I know that you know that I'm right. I know that you're being intentionally deceptive and dishonest." How do you "know" this? I thought you said, "I don't understand what you're talking about, I'm afraid.
If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void."
So what measurement or observation allows you to make this claim without it being slander?
joness105639 3 years ago
Indeed, I assure you that I am not lying or intending to decieve anyone. I am however trying to illustrate some flaws in your reasoning that I find here and there much as you are doing with me. Thus I can only conclude that whatever "measurement or observation" you are making, they are in error, which futher confirms that your assertion about "observation or measurement" is itself void.
joness105639 3 years ago
jonesy: Indeed, I assure you that I am not lying or intending to decieve anyone.
Bullshit. You live your life by the same principles that underly science.
You are so full of shit it's ridiculous. You apply a double standard to everything - you give your stupid bible a pass with the ridiculous statements in it, yet you hold science to an impossible standard.
I'm agitated because I actually wanted a real debate, but all you're willing to do is bullshit. I'm tired of that.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"Bullshit" what measurements or observation have you made that allows you to conclude this?
"You live your life by the same principles that underly science." same question. Science btw is good at discovering ways to describe the world, It generally does not provide a philosophy or set of principles by which we should live.
"You are so full of shit it's ridiculous" more unsubstantiated claims.
"You apply a double standard to everything" not so. I demand logical self consistansy.
joness105639 3 years ago
"You apply a double standard to everything" not so. I demand logical self consistansy. As such I question that which is not self consistant. As for the bible you asked me for axioms. In otherwords you let me off the hook for having to prove them. My beliefs can be shown to logically follow from those two axioms I provided.
joness105639 3 years ago
I too wished to have a rational reasoned and respectful discussion, however it would seem that when you OccamKant are faced with questions you have never before considered or an opponant who wont yeild to your arguments, you call him a liar, a deciever, full of shit or their aruments bullshit without applying the same test for truth that you apply to everything else to demonstrate exactly why these ad hominems are not slander. Resorting to ad hominems is admitting defeat.
joness105639 3 years ago
No - I get angry when I am faced with dishonest people, not difficult questions.
You are unwilling to admit certain things that must be true, and you behave in a hypocritical manner.
I can't stand hypocrisy or dishonesty, and you display both tendencies.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"You are unwilling to admit certain things that must be true, and you behave in a hypocritical manner." lol and IM THE HYPOCRATE? nice try. don't be the pot calling the kettle black.
"
I can't stand hypocrisy or dishonesty, and you display both tendencies." again please demonstrate this using your own test for truth here (i.e. science and empiricism, the ones that you claim without things must be rejected). and yes you have yet to prove I am being dishonest or lying. go read a book.
joness105639 3 years ago
How am I being hypocritical?
I say that you are being hypocritical because you hold science to a standard that you definitely don't hold your bible to.
What am I doing that is hypocritical?
OccamKant 3 years ago
I already told you how you are being hypocritical (at least one of the ways) not that you read it. I reject science and even empiricism as the one and only or even the "best" test for what is true because of the hypocracy in saying "
If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality." How many times do I have to remind you that it fails its own test?
joness105639 3 years ago
I'm not going to get into an epistimemological discussion with you. That's useless.
If you lived your life that way, you wouldn't even be able to use a computer.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"I'm not going to get into an epistimemological discussion with you. That's useless." LOL what bullshit comming from one who just said a few hours ago "
If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality." THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF EMPIRICISM ALREADY DUH!
joness105639 3 years ago
You've lost me. Your statements make no sense.
Perhaps you're just way smarter than I am. I'm far too stupid to carry on with this, apparently.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Epistemology is the study of "knowlege", not empiricism.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"Epistemology is the study of "knowlege", not empiricism." too late to get out of that one too. ever since you asserted, "If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality.", we have been discussing epistemology. In fact you yourself already asked, "What "test of truth" DO you accept?"
joness105639 3 years ago
As I said - perhaps I'm too stupid for your dizzying intellect.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"If you lived your life that way, you wouldn't even be able to use a computer." also fails to satisfy "
If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality."
joness105639 3 years ago
What "test of truth" DO you accept? If your car or computer isn't working, do you try to track down the problem, or do you do something else? Cast lots? Pray? Do a blood sacrifice?
OccamKant 3 years ago
"What "test of truth" DO you accept? If your car or computer isn't working, do you try to track down the problem, or do you do something else? Cast lots? Pray? Do a blood sacrifice?" I accept science/empiricism as one of many tests for truth. It does have its place, but it is not king nor should it be.
joness105639 3 years ago
Well, what other tests of truth do you accept? What do you do when your car doesn't work, besides using the scientific method? Do you pray? Cast lots? Do a blood sacrifice?
OccamKant 3 years ago
There is no logical self consistancy to the bible. Defend that.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"There is no logical self consistancy to the bible. Defend that." Now why on earth would I want to defend such a position? Especially one you have yet to convince me of?
joness105639 3 years ago
What?
You said you demand logical self consistency.
There is a ton of contradiction within the bible. Where are your demands when they come to your precious book?
OccamKant 3 years ago
"There is a ton of contradiction within the bible. Where are your demands when they come to your precious book?" show me
joness105639 3 years ago
Show you? Ok...Hmm. Where to begin.
How about Matt 5:16 vs Matt 6:1
or Exodus 21:17 vs Luke 14:26
or Numbers 22:20 vs 22:22
or Genesis 1:27 vs 2:19-22
Got lots more.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"Show you? Ok...Hmm. Where to begin." ok those verses you cited do not conflict with each other within their respective contexts. take for example the first two verses. ARE YOU ACTUALLY CLAIMING THTA CATS OF RIGHTIOSNESS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO "SHINE LIGHT BEFORE MEN"? Geez.
joness105639 3 years ago
Um, Jones? Are you ok man? You're kind of gibbering now.
And I haven't read anything out of context. That is the lamest excuse you guys pull.
Show me ONE example of those quotes I mentioned and the correct context that renders my interpretation incorrect.
OccamKant 3 years ago
And no - I was pointing out that one verse says "do your acts in private" and the other says "do them in public".
That is a contradiction. I've read the verses many times, and I can't see how it would be interpreted any other way.
OccamKant 3 years ago
And the one about balaam leaving with the princes: One verse tells him to go, the next says the Lord is pissed at him going.
How is that NOT a contradiction? Seriously, I'd like to know.
OccamKant 3 years ago
The bible supports slavery, genocide, murder, rape, adultery, alcohol abuse, incest, lying, theft, looting, infanticide, polygamy, lying and pretty much every other vice.
Presumably you don't practice these things. Why not? They're in the bible.
At least I HOPE you don't practice them.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"The bible supports slavery, genocide, murder, rape, adultery, alcohol abuse, incest, lying, theft, looting, infanticide, polygamy, lying and pretty much every other vice." I don't know what bible you've been reading but it wasn't a very good translation. Look you're going to have to prove that.
The ten commandments already strikes most of those off your list. Of course you are lible to scream "but you're using the bible to prove the bible" even though you are doing the same to disprove it.
joness105639 3 years ago
The 10 commandments do strike them, but these acts are done by supposedly "holy" and "righteous" men anyway.
Just look at murder. Then look at how many "crimes" warrent the death penalty in leviticus & deuteronomy.
If you see a man carrying sticks on the sabbath, you murder him.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Abraham sleeps with sarah's maid (adultery). Lot sleeps with his daughters (alcohol abuse and incest). Moses murders the egyptian. Elisha summons bears to eat children because they teased him. Numerous chapters where God commands the isrealites to kill all the men and women who have known men, but take the virgins for themselves. Rules for selling your daughter into sexual slavery.
I could go on and on...
OccamKant 3 years ago
"Abraham sleeps with sarah's maid (adultery)." Look ,The ten commandments prohibits murder etc, Look it up theyre easy to find. The other thing is that sarah told abram to take Hagar to wife. If you marry somone its not adultery. the old testiment is full of polygamy. Its important to understand that the bible is full of stories of sinners. Doesnt mean that it condones their actions. God himself picked Isaac instead of ishmael becuase
joness105639 3 years ago
Elisha magically summoned the bears to eat the children.
That was supported by God. Either that, or Elisha has godlike powers that are more powerful than God, so God couldn't override him.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"Elisha magically summoned the bears to eat the children." Yes that was God's doing, but lets look at this in context. Please give me chapter and verse. and let go of your condicesntion. SO far you have failed to grasp basic biblical principles. You might as well have asked if my mother was a whore.
joness105639 3 years ago
I'm not being condescending.
2 Kings 2:23-24
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
I don't know what principles you're referring to.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Look, I am getting tired of this pathetic mode of communication. By now too many threads are getting lost and convoluted. i could best address these on stickam if you are interested we can set up a room.
joness105639 3 years ago
Actually, I have to go for a bit. I probably won't be able to be on until next week anyway.
I would FAR prefer a civil discussion than an angry argument, by the way. Just so you know.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"I would FAR prefer a civil discussion than an angry argument, by the way. Just so you know." as would I. Again it is easier to conduct such a discussion on stickam. Especially because with the way youtube structures their comments ithinders such discussion after a point. I cant easily respond in limited amounts of time and space reply to everything the way I would like. PM me here if you are interested.
joness105639 3 years ago
Their actions. God himself picked Isaac instead of ishmael becuase of their disobedians]ce.
Balaam huh? I know lots about him but you'll have to prove that claim with chapter and verse. I can tell you that he used God's blessing for profit and in so doing incured gods anger but then he repented.
joness105639 3 years ago
It sounds like the original text may have used a different word for "wife":
Gen 16:6 "Your servant is in your hands," Abram said. "Do with her whatever you think best." Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.
Abraham is not speaking about hagar as though she is his wife. She is still the servant.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"It sounds like the original text may have used a different word for "wife":
Gen 16:6 "Your servant is in your hands," Abram said. "Do with her whatever you think best." Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.
" No it doesnt. We are both using the same translation. Look a little earlier at verse 16:3
joness105639 3 years ago
Yes, I saw that. But he doesn't treat her at all as a wife. He sleeps with her, but she remains his wife's servant.
OccamKant 3 years ago
9 Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." 10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."
The angel of the Lord doesn't say "Go back to your HUSBAND". He says go back to your mistress and SUBMIT.
That's a servant, not a co-wife.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Or at best, the claim is unfounded and therefore not accepted. The counter is not necessarily true - ie the lack of proof of gems working doesn't prove that they CAN'T work, just that they've never been shown to work.
Someone could come along with a working example and prove that they do work. No-one has yet, so the default assumption is that until proven to work, they do nothing.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"at best, the claim is unfounded and therefore not accepted" and yet you accept the unfounded claim that "If someone makes a claim for something, and that claim is not supported by any observation or measurement, that claim is void.
To believe otherwise is to depart from reality." I say it is unfounded because it is not supported in the manner that this claim requires.
joness105639 3 years ago
I need a bit of clarification. I don't see how that proves gems work. Just because something has an industrial application doesn't mean it works. And the term works also has to be defined.
RosieDesire 3 years ago
"don't see how that proves gems work" with extra steps I could have included peer reviewed journal articles expounding upon exactly how these gems work and how well etc, not enough space for that.
"the term works also has to be defined." Indeed, but so does the word "proven" I just "proved" that gems work, in the context of the sentence that OK wrote, it is adequite.
joness105639 3 years ago
Do you actually HAVE peer reviewed articles that discuss the efficacy of gem therapy?
OccamKant 3 years ago
I am confident that I could provide peer reviewed scholarly papers that discuss the efficacy of gems in industrial applications, if I had still access to the Ebsco Host but I am not currently a student so It would be a bit challenging. If you like I could go to my library and have a look.
joness105639 3 years ago
joness105639. I think you are missing my question. We know how we can USE gems such as a quartz in say... keeping time or a diamond to split light or aid in drilling. But using a word like work is like using the word stuff or thing, it's too vague. Please elaborate what you mean because with out that, nothing is proven. In other words, I really don't understand what you attempting to prove and I'm looking for you to clarify it. That's all.
RosieDesire 3 years ago
"But using a word like work is like using the word stuff or thing, it's too vague." my point is that using the word "proven" is also too vague. I showed a logical proof that gems "work" however you may reject it as being irrelevant. I find that unless we qualifiy what exactly we mean when we say "its been proven" it means absolutly nothing.
joness105639 3 years ago
joness105639. You are correct, if you want to get pedantic then yes you would have to describe 'proven' by means of publish journals etc. I'll assume 'proven' means 'evidence for'.
I can't make that same leap with 'work' because that can ONLY be defined by YOU. You are really saying NOTHING without at least slightly more elaboration. I'm not rejecting it as irrelevant, I'm asking for a definition so I can understand what you are attempting to claim. Nothing more.
RosieDesire 3 years ago
By work I mean the effacacy of gems in a specific application. Come to think og it I think I can find a peer reviewed jorunal article that shows that gems can be used effectivly for healing.
joness105639 3 years ago
joness105639: "By work I mean the effacacy of gems in a specific application"
My original claim was that gems don't work as healing therapy. To measure efficacy, we just need to see if the "treated" condition remained after the treatment.
Seems pretty simple.
I guess personally I look at evidence the same way a court of law would look at evidence, and something that would convince me is the same as would convince a court.
Or something in that ballpark.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Joness105639. Thanks.. now I understand that you are attempting to prove that, 'gems can be used effectivly for healing', I can follow the conversation.
RosieDesire 3 years ago
Jones some of your comments are absolutely retarded! Its quite simple what you and thecarruth do. Instead of reading something for what it is you totally insert some high degree of flexible understanding ,and in the end you have a big mess you some how clean up with stupid shit. i think its ridiculous until you have faith enough to take the words of the bible literally and test them you will never understand
qzetu 3 years ago
"Instead of reading something for what it is you totally insert some high degree of flexible understanding" Not quite. I don't think you understand.
"until you have faith enough to take the words of the bible literally and test them you will never understand"
Huh? You mean I am to believe that because of song of solomon 4:1 that there really was a woman with doves for eyes?
joness105639 3 years ago
Am I to believe that revelation 12 insists that women can wear the sun as an article of clothing while standing on the moon(she'd have to be at least 1 AU tall)? Wear a crown of stars? That it is literally speaking about a literal dragon which wishes to eat this gigantic fireproof pregnant ladies' baby?
Am I to believe that Jesus parables were true historical incidencts and not mere stories to illustrate a point? That the writer of psalm 23 believed himself to be a sheep?
joness105639 3 years ago
Also, with God, I can believe in God and defend that belief with logic. I suppose what you are objecting to is not weather a belief in God's existence is logical, but rather, you are objecting to the fact that the belief is not scientific or empirical, nor is it scientifically or empirically falsifiable.
When one accepts certain premises as truth, the conclusion of God's existence does in fact logically follow.
joness105639 3 years ago
You can only defend "god" as logical if you accept certain axioms as true.
I haven't heard any axioms or premises that are convincing.
OccamKant 3 years ago
"I haven't heard any axioms or premises that are convincing." However, others are convinced by the truth of those axioms/premises, so it cannot be said that a belief in God is completely illogical, unless it can be shown that the conclusion of God's existence do not logically stem from the stated axioms/premises. May i suggest a book by Richard Swinburne titles "the coherance of theism"?
joness105639 3 years ago
Give me your foundational axioms which make belief in God logical. Let's discuss them.
OccamKant 3 years ago
I have little interest in going into a discussion on them yet, but essentially as axioms they do not require proof and since you have asked me to provide my own, then I I should be able to submit any without being compelled to prove them but they will show how a belief in God could logically stem form them.
1. The Bible is True
2. My sensory data gives me accurate information of the world around me.
joness105639 3 years ago
Why should "The Bible is True" be acceptable as an axiom?
How do you know your sensory data gives you accurate information of the world around you?
OccamKant 3 years ago
They are both axioms. Hence they need not be proven. If the first is accepted to be true then all of what it says within it is true. Genesis 1:1 establishes God's existence, the rest of the compendium of books establishes his nature and charicter. 2 is neccesary because without it, one could not know the contents of the Bible.
joness105639 3 years ago
"The bible is true" is a lie. How can a lie be axiomatic?
OccamKant 3 years ago
""The bible is true" is a lie" really? An axiom is an unprovible assumption made to derrive systems from. In this case a theology.
Your assertion, ""The bible is true" is a lie" is your opinion and unsupportible by the very test for truth you demand.
joness105639 3 years ago
"I don't understand why Carruths differentiates belief in God with belief in Santa. Why is belief in God complex, and belief in Santa something you can dismiss out of hand?"
Because the nature and function of "god" is infinitely more complex than the nature and function of "santa."
And anyway, Santa is real.
brouhajoe 3 years ago
Astrology has been proven false?
msa1985 3 years ago
msa1985: "Astrology has been proven false? "
Well...no, but that's because you can't prove a negative.
Let me rephrase more pedantically:
Astrology has zero supporting evidence. It is a claim that makes no sense, according to laws of physics and also of reason. Without supporting evidence or reason, it is disregarded.
If someone DOES show up with evidence, we will of course re-evaluate our position.
And everyone lived happily ever after. The End.
OccamKant 3 years ago