Energy can be empirically demonstrated; regardless of whether or not you feel it has been properly defined. You cannot demonstrate your god any more than you can demonstrate any other imaginary construct.
I posit a hypothetical imaginary "Scauro" that might possibly be capable of granting wishes that only I can perceive. Can your god exceed the degree of reality achieved by my admittedly imaginary, purely hypothetical undefined thing?
"The ability to do work" is what energy does? Completely incoherent.
The definition does not state that energy is the doing of the work. Energy is that which makes the doing possible. Nobody doubts that someone makes the doing happen. We freely accept that the exact nature of this motivator is unknown. Which is why nobody would suggest that any definition of energy's nature is an extant thing.
If only religious folk would walk this kind of walk rather than just talk this talk.
If God is indefinable, unknowable..etc.etc. Human ideas about God are necessarily wrong. Whatever you imagine God to be is guaranteed to be wrong as you can't know God.
Everything you think about God must therefore be wrong of hopelessly inaccurate.
Please don't bother to tell us anything about God ever. You are by your own reasoning guaranteed to be wrong. God doesn't like false prophets... or does he? :P
@TheCelticChimp Yes, this guy should be like Kant, who believed in God, but said little or nothing about his nature, and didn't press for any particular religion despite the influence of his Protestant society. Instead, he begged the question by using Scripture as authority, and he told us what God does, says, wants from us, etc. Everybody and his brother has a different conception of God, so without any definitions, any and all criticism or even positive claims about God are nullified.
ProfMTH didn't argue in "What is God?" that God must not exist, for reasons of ignorance or any other. Far from it. What he argued is that God can't be meaningfully talked about, and we therefore can't say whether God does or does not exist.
Science is in a very different position, since it's capable of starting out with ostensive definitions. "That thing over there" and "the action that took place" work as starting points in science. There is no such ostensive definition of God.
this video is an epic fail and ends with a simple appeal to emotion and does not answer the questions what is god? Appeals to faith and emotion tells you nothing. You haven't thoought this through simply because you don't want to. I am guessing your belief in god is simply a security blanket against the reality that one day you will die.
The point that ProfMTH was making wasn't that the definition of a thing must necessarily be exhaustive, only that it must be internally consistent and logically coherent.
Even given a definition that is both, we may find new cases that test our definitions, because terms don't derive meaning from their *definitions* but their *referents* -- from the existent things in the universe to which they apply.
cont'd (2) If you have the word "potato" you don't have to go to a dictionary, you can actually go to actual potatoes to demonstrate exactly what you mean. There, Idaho potatoes, white potatoes, red potatoes, sweet potatoes. That's what the word means.
I can even do that with quarks - I can point to the set of experimental results that led to the development of the term - the *referents* to which the term applies.
But "God" has a peculiar characteristic. He is supposed to exist like a potato.
(cont'd) (3) That is, he's not just an idea, or a thought, or an emotion, or an abstraction, or a process, which have to be demonstrated indirectly. He is an *existent being.*
But he has been *defined* as lacking all of the aspects that existent beings possess. He is outside of space - yet omnipresent. Outside of time, yet acts, thinks, etc. Changeless - yet changes his mind, repents, etc.
This has nothing to do with the "mystery of God" -- it is simply the incoherence of a human definition.
So what. Question everything you cannot see, feel, or hear. Big words again, make me sound like philosopher. Energy is heat, light, movement - anything that can be used to fuel any process related to movement or action. You could find Santa Claus making you feel all warm and toasty inside, but it doesn't change the fact that he isn't there. Seek the answers, find that man is good and bad without god or satan. Man created god in his image, god is a myth just as Zeus and every other god.
your whole logic for this video is circular. How do you know that god calls the shots? because it's in the bible. And how do you know the bible is his word? because it says so. How do you know you can't please god without faith? and so on.
Regular christian fail.
Even if god existed and created the universe, the bible and all the holy books could still simply be made up. Maybe god didn't even show himself yet, even if he exists. How do you know? by faith? that's not impressive at all!
you have not defined what we are to believe or dis believe in. That is not a argument of ignorance any more then you denieing apostopsyonisis is out of ignorance if I do not define it. As I created the word you can not define it, nor do you have to. I created the word and I need to define it. If I say apostopsyonisis is superphysicilogic and then just say that means it is beyond physic I have told you nothing.
"My answer is: so what? An incomplete definition...."
You are wrong, there is no "incomplete definition". Profmth argues there is *no* coherent definition of what God is. The only way you could properly refute his argument is by providing a definition of God, which you obviously haven't. He also did not assert that God is false or non-existant, anywhere in his video. In short, your video is a complete mess.
ProfMTH did not use an argument from ignorance. As you said yourself, that fallacy is to claim "because something is not properly understood, it is not true". However, he claimed that god was not adequately *defined*. Definition is not the same as understanding. The point was that it is meaningless to discuss whether you understand something or not if you have not explained what it is you seek to understand.
PS: by the way, the analogy you seek to draw with energy is pretty facetious, since physics is about providing a description of processes. No one is asking for a positive ontology of god; an equivalent to the definition of "that which does work" with mathematical descriptions of what that entails would be quite adequate for discussing god.
"God is the combination of the focus of all Its parts coalesced into the composite of all. Awareness -personality- is blocked from being a part of that composite until it realizes that it IS a part of this composite. Being told that it is, means nothing. It is in the realization that one's self is a viable part of that composite that encompases the totality of the being.. "
Energy has a very definite definition. "The ability to do work" where work is also defined (the acceleration of matter over time). The ability to do work is not what energy does, it is what it is.
you are assuming that energy has a "reason" for being, which ProfMTH (nor I) is willing to grant. Things don't require a reason, unless you assume God (also an unnecessary assumption)
0:45 : So don't pretend like you "know" what God wants. The words of the Bible are words (of men) and are just constructs (of men). They do not portray God's will. They cannot. God cannot "reveal" himself as we mere mortals are not capable of understanding "infinite wisdom". Revelation is also a construct of men
The Bible is no more a representation or "word of God" than is the Q'uran, Baghavadgita, or other writing of mankind.
What you are asserting is utterly circular, though you don't seem to realize it -- he who comes to God *must believe that he is* -- that is, in order to "come to God* one must first believe in God.
Well, isn't that convenient? I don't know of any argument that couldn't be one by the application of that paradigm?
In order to come to the accept the idea that the earth's core is stuffed with fairies you must first believe that it is.
(cont'd) Not unless you're seeking something that is so obscure and unverifiable that it's existence is fundamentally untestable and its *confirmation* is purely emotional and internal.
And "energy" like any other term -- like "dog" is exactly that -- it is a "defined" term - its meaning consists of a set of qualities that refer to something else -- in the case of energy or dog -- to a set a qualities possessed by entities found in nature.
(cont'd) If a referent fits the definition of energy, then it *is* energy. It's possible that we may discover some new thing that we hadn't found before to which the definition applies - but that just means we've discovered something new in the natural world. It doesn't mean that we've somehow discovered something new *in the definition."
On the other hand, sometimes we can, for a given reason, change a definition. We used to define Pluto as a planet.
(cont'd) Then we realized there were literally hundreds of bodies of approximately the same size as Pluto out beyond its orbit. To maintain the same definition of "planet" would mean that all of them would also be planets and we'd suddenly be in a solar system with dozens and dozens of planets.
So we changed the definitions to make the definitions more descriptively useful.
But in all these cases, terms have *referents* -- things. processes, concepts, ideas that we can point to.
(cont'd) When we talk of "gods" we have many "concepts" of god and so we can certainly speak of gods in terms of "god concepts" -- but if one asserts that the term "god" has an existent referent as something other than a series of overlapping (and often mutually exclusive) concepts -- then the burden is upon the claimant to demonstrate the existence of the referent, not in vague, metaphorical or obscure terms but as something that's really *there.*
I can invent a god better than yours simply by defining a god as better than yours. I shall name him Scruffy. So why should I pray to your god? Scruffy is just as valid, and better than yours by definition. Scruffy also personally told me that your full of shit.
id rather not pray to someone who is willing to send me to hell for eternity because he made me (an evil being of sin) a part of this world somehow also evil and of sin. Id rather just go to hell even if i believed in his existence.
energy is a quantity that can be assigned to every particle, object, and system of objects as a consequence of the state of that particle, object or system of objects. I think that pretty well sums up what energy is.
I speak from my current level of ignorance, so please take pity on me but as I see it just because we do not know at the moment does not mean that the subject is unknowable. If we said well what does electricity do and then said GOD donnit and left it at that then theists could not reply with the computer that they are using to comment. We as atheists and scientists strive to understand and further knowledge. We do not give up and take the easy way out=GOD we learn and teach from that truth!
Your energy analogy is flawed from the beginning. Energy by itself does not do work. Therefore, saying energy is the capacity to do work does sufficiently answer the question.
You not only seem to fail to understand the point of the video you respond to, you present a baseless case.
What sense does it make to talk about what a god wants, reveals, says, etc... when you have no even merely accurrate concept of its nature. We can attribute anything to him.
I could claim god is evil incarnate and you have NO possibility of refuting it other than hiding behind your NON-arguments of authority, from personal experience and biblical circular reasoning. GL.
Please explain how profMTH's point was an argument of ignorance.
The only ignorance I see here is the one you revel in by smugly admitting you dont understand god, and arent supposed to understand, so it is ok.
Your analogy with energy is flawed from conception in substance and method.
Energy is definable, observable and quantifiable.
Furthermore, science doesnt work with a: "Oh I THINK that X(=energy) exists, so Im going to go look for it and define it !". That would be scientifical fail.
thing is god can't be demonstrated to exist like energy, sorry bigwhammyfails, god never manifests except in the minds of men, quite delusional ones at that, peace!
"I was speaking on the futility of trying to explain something to someone who has already made up their mind due to a known agenda."
Just how did you determine that this is the case with him?
As I mentioned in the 1st post, I was a Xian for most of my life before deconverting. My change came about bcuz of my personal experience & research over the years. Example; "god does not answer prayer." This is a fact. & can be proven. I've never see intercessory prayer answered...ever!
Demonstrate your analogy of energy to god. We can apply energy, see it's attributes work. Can you at least demonstrate god to this level?
All of these proclamations in the video...can you show them to be true? Your claims are open ended, as you leave it up to the "us" to prove god exists. I have found that the Xian god does not!
Btw, I was a Xian most of my life, before I became an atheist, so I've done, and been thru, all that you've suggested.
for you to prove to me that this thing you call energy exists you need to define it for me, was it there in existence before you defined it, of course, but I had no good reason to believe it did. So maybe god dose exist, but you have no good reason to believe in any such thing until you can define it and show evidence of its existence. We are not arguing what might exists, we are arguing what is reasonable to believe exists and with out a definition and evidence god is not reasonable to believe.
sorry your wrong in order to discover or prove something exists it needs to be defined, your also creating a straw man argument, because atheists don't say you need to explain or understand everything about god, just like we don't need to explain or understand what caused the big bang in order to prove it happened. what we are asking is for you to explain your understanding of god and what are your good reasons for believing he exists.
Wow, I totally agree. I run into this all the time. Nobody knows what shmarklings are, but they are real. They are whatever you imagine them to be. Some people think that shmarklings are chairs made of circles. Some people claim that shmarklings are just giant invisible robotic tortoises. It's up to you. The bottom line is that nobody can agree on what shmarklings are, but those who think they are made up, are just too ignorant to know what shmarklings are.
i lvoe how, at the end, it simply states that we should stop all our thinking and jsut start believe for no reason, it's really great, religion makes for some fine comedie
I think the title of this video is inaccurate. within the Bible, there is a claim that there will be false claims to being or knowing some other god, but without the bias of previous belief in the statements within the Bible, you would be unjustified in disagreeing that I, myself, am a god. I suppose my point is this: your citing passages from a book, a book that is obviously inaccurate and which relies on circular logic, does not prove the validity of or verify claims found within it.
You say that God must be defined before he is disproved, right? Well, you obviously believe in the Christian God, given all the scripture you quote.
The Bible gives us PLENTY of characteristics of this god, so he can easily be defined. The god depicted in the Bible cannot exist for the same reason that cubic spheres cannot exist. The characteristics are contradictory. God cannot be the essence of love, and yet still be able to drown all the people on earth.
Scientists believe they can investigate the world in order to build theories that can explain certain caracteristics of nature, or properties. but the ontological being of everything in this universe is OUT OF OUR REACH. even in mathematics itself there is this limit and was clearly demonstrated too! SO SCIENTIFIC KNOLEDGE WILL BE ALWAYS INCOPLETE! No scientistic can deny that. So for what you do not have evidence for, you can only say nothing, unless you make theology.
@barefootID You are absolutely right. While science is the best way we have discovered to understand the universe around us, it is not perfect. But as we have all seen, nothing is perfect.
That does not mean that we have to openly accept every retarded claim out there until it is proven wrong. This is what skepticism is all about. Disregard stupid or outlandish claims until they are proven.
Theology is made up of nothing but stupid and outlandish claims.
"God is an infinite being" yeah, I've heard that one before and it's self contradictory. A "being" has boudries, thus it cannot be infinite. Is god just some mist which permeates the universe? Anyway, the question "what is god" is valid. If you take a poll maybe 95% will respond yes to the question "do you believe in god?" But ask a hundred people what is god, or please describe god you'll get 100 different answers - even if it's two folks from the same church.
So... some ancient tent dweller ghost writes for god: "So are My ways higher than your ways" and mindlessly go along with him? These preachers are lying to you and taking your money. Don't let them do that to you.
I agree with you, the problem is that every theist has a different concept for their god. How can you "love" someone which you do not know? that has not "revealed" him/herself in a way that every human in the world can recognize that revelation objectively and impossible of arbitrary explanations.
Can you define your god? will that definition be the same for a hindu? for someone in your own church? I think not.
god is as varied concept as is "my favorite food" every head has a definition....
your analogy with energy is flawed, since you're forgetting that the concept of "energy" is a human construct to serve as a currency for how much work can be preformed with a given force.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@VicTheVicar All words are human constructs - the word "God" is a human construct - the idea here is that you don't have to have an exhaustive ontology to know that something exists. In science things are often discovered first and then we figure out what it is later. ProMTHs argument is a classic fallacy. So you really don't have a point with this.
You do not seem to grasp the fact that scientistic experiment the presence of energy THROUGH FACTS indipendant of our own opinion. Later it was developed the theory. Sometimes they do exactly the other way round, they PREDICT without never having seen things. In the case of god NO EVIDENCE is given. Not only that, but every single group of people on this earth disagree on the same concept of god everytime creating a god differing from one another!
@bigwhammyRocks I went with the black magic rebuttal for which no reply can logically be made. The magician's feats establish the existence of an unseen (evil) force. I can't remember the last time a magician described in detail this unseen force followed by "oohs"and "aaws" from the audience and neither does anyone ever ask the magician to describe it. It's utter pomp and ingratitude to even consider the question "What is God?" relevant. BTW, I am a Muslim and my way of life is Islam.
actually we didn't create god at all, god is part of our mental evolution of the bicameral mind, voices heard from one sphere of the brain to the other were thought to be voices of the gods, when in reality it was only hallucinations. Evidence; schizophrenia. Schizophrenics report hearing voices, ancient men were devoid of reason, primitive minds were devoid of metaphor, logic and consciousness as we know of it today. The gods were mental disorders in the process of evolution of the mind.
jesus christ... If there is a hell, that guy is there... talking untill you gouge out your ear drums. That could not have been more ridiculous or juvenile. AND BORING>
Actually, as a Christian I didn't buy this video's message one bit. You do not have to know what God is to ask if God exists. Logically you cannot know what God is, so how can you ask if God exists ? This approach reduces God to a word, (as it was in the beginning ? lol) but a word has no meaning in isolation from a language and is only an animal vocalizing without context. What is snurp ? Does snurp exist ? What defines snurp ontologically ? God is not meaningless.
I don't get this sense of creationist arrogance.The real answer is that no one knows how life came to exist.Even if a designer was behind the universe, what created the designer?I mean who can prove to me that Brahma isn't god?And again I'll specify that since extraterrestrials have no ontology either, we can't disprove their existence.Once again, I'm getting no intelligent answers.
There seems to be a thread of monotheism in Hinduism that all the deities are just masks of the true god who lies beyond. Of course they are just ignorant, so rather than look for the real God, they worship the masks. Perhaps God appeared to them and they just failed to understand the message ?
What a stupid video. This can never answer any questions either. How does this prove christianity right? How can one ignore the thousands of other religious and/or extraterrestrial possibilities?
"How can one ignore the thousands of other religious and/or extraterrestial possabilities?"
On the religious argument. Christianity for example..You pick it apart seperating Biblical Fact from the Traditions that found itsway into the mainstream churches that they NOW follow. then you can narrow the field down to just a handful.
On the ET concept. eyedunno, ask Richard Dawkins that question he seams to be the one who has a fasination with "Alien seed."
Your point is a valid one and this is a stupid video. As a Christian I apologize for it. There are a lot of religions, and folks say there are aliens too. The point is, that there is a thread of truth in all the religions which you can follow, but the religion which best condenses that thread is Christianity. You know Christianity is true because it led to science and spread via European dominance as predicted in the Bible. God has a plan, even killing cats was a valid expression of faith.
Hahaha~! Looking over my comment, I used "like", instead of "lie". That would not be grammar, so much as a spelling mistake.
You can't even get that right Matt. To show how much of a joke you are, you arrogantly tried to point out my grammatical mistake, when you made the grammatical mistake of not using proper punctuation at the end of your sentence.
Does anyone have to deal with a person who lies as much as you do? And that's just for starters, as you know only too well.
And your debate idea is silly. Why would you ask me to debate, and yet you get to set all the parameters to your advantage, and if I decline, I'm supposed to admit you're smarter than me? What's wrong with you Gut mouth?
So you're a Logic rapist ? How is that working out for you Dhorpatan ? Poor Logic, I know she's a whore, but as a series of abstract concepts, she can't call the police. Is that why you do it ?
RedBeetle not only implies you are WRONG in thinking Knowntje has destroyed Calvinism, but even worse, said Knowntje is guilty of a fallacy, and implies he's a redneck atheist.
Why don't you let knowntje know about Montys smack talk, so he can come here and defend himself.
"The Impossibility of Calvinism Part 1: The Feasibility of Heaven - Part A"
In his first premise (8 minute mark) he claims God created for the creature. If he had read his Bible, then he might have seen Revelation 4:11. His first syllogism is based on his own ignorance of Scripture. His first premise logically contradicts Revelation 4:11.
Today's redneck atheists are easily dispatched, for they don't even know the basics.
How does this prove the existence of the christian god? Don't you have to disprove the existence of all the other deites?Even if the universe had to be created by a designer, many questions still arise.
This is nonsense. An *ASSERTION* of the question "Does god exist?" *DOES* require a definition of terms (both 'exist' and 'god' in this case).
Scientific investigation, does not proceed in that manner. It is purely investigative and characterizes observation without assumptions. Even hypotheses must be posed on top of universal premises.
If you operate on assumptions without definitional grounding everything you do is suspect.
His request for a definition of God is just an excuse. He isn't demanding a definition either. He wants exhaustive detail about God including those things God has chosen NOT to reveal to us. Does a person, for example, need to know the chemical breakdown or composition of a deadly poison to know not to take it? How much knowledge is required to obey and serve God.
Although logically God can neither be proved or disproved, the heavens DO declare His glory for those who bother to look at them!
A person needs to know the chemical breakdown of a composition if she wants to *KNOW* why they should or should not take a deadly poison. There is a difference between action and knowledge.
Without definitions, you can apply any logic you like, right or wrong, and simply mutate the definition to fix the logic after the fact to seem correct. This makes all such logic superfluous and thus not a justification for your definitionless premises.
I agree there are good definitions. But in this case that would be playing his game. ProfMTH is not suffering from a lack of information - he is defending his homosexual agenda by attacking the existence of God. This is a case where I think Matthew 7:6 applies.
I do have a video on the The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) v=dfttQ24L-fY
but I felt it would be wasted in reply to this piece of sophistry.
The argument was already dismissed - it is a textbook logical fallacy. It was not an attack - I was speaking on the futility of trying to explain something to someone who has already made up their mind due to a known agenda.
ProfMTH wrote: "Best to educate yourself before you speak." Take your own medicine, Prof. You based your entire ethical theory on a formal logical fallacy: "ought" implies "can." Such an amateur mistake reminds me of an old Latin maxim: A DEBITO AD POSSE NON VALET CONSEQUENTIA. See my video: ProfMTH's Irrational Ethics. ProfMTH, you're simply one of many redneck atheists here on youtube. If you need clarification, see my video "What Is A Redneck Atheist?" Got Logic?
Quit crying about being blocked for rejecting the basic laws of logic. When you reject the Law of Non-contradiction, then the conversation necessarily comes to an end. If you don't like it, then go make a video explaining how logic is illogical. I'm sure all your fellow redneck atheists will cheer for you. Make sure you put it in the comedy section--lol.
Well actually, your claim that I reject the basic Laws of Logic, was a fallacious bare assertion fallacy.
Furthermore, it is your worldview of God belief, that rejects the laws of logic, since your worldview entails Metaphysical Subjectivism, and the primacy of consciousness, both of which violate the Laws of Logic.
The fact that John Robbins thinks that consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, lies at the foundation of Rands epistemology, strongly indicates he does not know much about Objectivism, or has straw-manned it up the wazoo.
This is not a response to the contradiction Dr. Robbins pointed out in Ayn Rand's writings. And, tabula rasa is, as Rand herself teaches, a critical part of objectivist epistemology.
I think you are simply having trouble coming to terms with the fact that all of Ayn Rand's writings belong in the fiction section of the book store.
Your cowardly blocking of me, strongly indicates the bankruptcy of your epistemology and worldview.
Your craven banning of me speaks for itself. If you were correct, or had any proper epistemology, there would be no need for such craven censorship. It's that simple.
To be frankly honest. your criticisms of Objectivism in the fashion you have attacked it, are so absurd, it doesn't warrant a serious response. I know you only parroted John Robbins, but geez, it's off. Just a huge strawman.
Your last PM to me, failed to show in that scripture, where it stated "consciousness must have an object".
You also failed to render where this epistemology is identified ANYWHERE in the Bible. Therefore, you have failed to back up your claims in this regard, and have failed overall in this regard.
And your fascist blocking of me confirms your failure in this manner.
Wrong. Genesis 1:27-28 clearly asserts a-priori knowledge. You simply denied deductive logic and committed intellectual suicide. Just as you simply chose to ignore the obvious contradiction in Ayn Rand's writings, so you now choose to ignore the basic laws of logic. When you adopt misology as your foundation, then the conversation necessarily comes to a halt. Your messages become spam.
By the way, Dr. Robbins' book on Ayn Rand has never been answered by any objectivist.
The Christian God is not logical in any way, shape, or form. The Chrisitan God is a gaggle of incoherencies, fallacies, and strikes at the very core of all logic and reason.
Actually Red Beetle Rand is right. A child's mind IS tabula rasa as it has not yet developed the language necessary to manipulate ideas, and consciousness without perception is an absurdity, we are not conscious in a coma.
Also Objectivism is impossible as humans are subjective beings, and objectivity while an ideal is unreachable. Who IS the objective human ? Thus theism makes its appeal to an attainable human subjectivity.
No where in your video did you actually say what God is, but you put forward several statements about what energy is. From your video all we know about God is that if you seek him you will find him. Putting aside the fact that it is literally impossible have faith in a God that you don't believe in, how would you know when you found him/her/it. If your God doesn't leave physical evidence of his/her/it's existence than how would I differentiate a message from him from a hallucination.
No physical evidence? God has left us MOUNTAINS of physical evidences. Look up archaeological discoveries that verify the Bible's accounts of things. If you can prove the Bible is true, you can prove it's claim that God exists.
Mountains of evidence you say? Is this evidence like the fact that there was a kingdom of Israel before the first century BCE or are you talking about the rock that people are saying is Noah's Ark? Can I prove that Harry Potter is real because London exists?
If you are curious about what archaeology says about the bible I can tell you. It says that the story of the exodus from Egypt was almost entirely fictitious, and shows that the four gospels were written well after the death of Jesus.
Egyptian records show a large group leaving Egypt around 1500 BC - there's debate over who is who - but there's nothing that proves anything either way on the exodus.
archaeology doesn't even attempt to address the dates the gospels were written
What I know is that there are no contemporary extra biblical references to Jesus. Now here's the thing. If Jesus was preforming amazing feats like, walking on water, and turning water into wine, and healing the sick, don't you think the contemporary historians would have noticed this guy. Don't you think one of the 500 witnesses that were said to have seen it would have written something about it?
lol. Of course they were written after Jesus died. Do you think they would write about His death before He died?
If you're implying they were written very long periods of time apart from the death of Jesus, then you're mistaken. Look up the Magdalene Papyrus, 7Q5, and the Rylands Papyrus P52.
I am a newer subscriber to your channel and have not had a comprehensive look at everything yet. However this video and the one other that I've seen are quite good. Be encouraged and keep up the good work. Prof MTH is one of my favorite people to engage in discussion as he is quite challenging!
1st, why haven't you submitted this as a video response? 2nd, with respect to the bit about energy, does it seem to you that anyone trying to answer the question "What is energy?" is less than certain that it's an aspect of the physical, material universe? Third, Proverbs 8:17 is a fascinating passage in light of, e.g., 1 John 4:10, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us...." Proverbs 8:17 says exactly the opposite. In any case, don't be afraid: submit this as a response.
You're avoiding the question, BigwhammyRocks. That's never a good sign. Does it seem to you that anyone trying to answer the question "What is energy?" is less than certain that it's an aspect of the physical, material universe?
Actually it's more correct that you are avoiding the fact that your entire 3 video series is founded on a logical fallacy - whether energy is a fully satisfactory analogy or not.
Energy seems to be a conceptual reality more than a material or physical one. Atheists are acknowledging that the concept of God is real by arguing against it. So in that sense it seems you acknowledge that God exists within the physical material universe in the same way as energy.
And if there is immaterial energy, BigwhammyRocks, can you let us all in on how you came to this tremendous finding and whether this immaterial energy is kinetic energy, potential energy, or both? Thanks.
did i say i was putting it aside for religious beliefs?
there is no scientific explanation, there is no answer explaining what it is. if you are so intelligent and have an answer, then please educate us all!
if you have no answer, then you're just as ignorant as everyone, and it's best you just keep quiet, unless you have the answer!
Yes, there is. I have neither the time nor the inclination to remediate the deficiencies in your scientific education. I encourage you to pick up a good science textbook that talks about energy. Heck, you could even Google the topic if you like. Educate yourself.
I didn't talk about my being intelligent, Diuryl. Rather, I pointed out the gap in your science education and noted my lack of interest in filling it. As I said, get yourself a good science textbook or even just Google "energy." Be assured you'll quickly discover that humankind has figured out what it is *and* it's very much part of the material universe. Good luck to you.
let me see. you come at me first swinging, wanting to prove something, you say i'm ignorant when it comes to some scientific matters, and when i ask you to flex your muscles of scientific knowledge for us, you decide to head for the hills. you pick a fight and then run away.
if human kind has figured it out and i assume you know, a quick explanation would do. the moment you claim to know something, and refuse to explain what you know, but decide to run instead, people think you're ignorant..
amen, my brother. scared another one off, huh? i've watched your videos and seen your comments. you fight a good fight, man. when are you going to approve my friend request on yahoo messenger? i'd love to speak with my brother in real time.
No the fact that your argument is a textbook logical fallacy is what I used to prove you wrong. I don't even need an analogy at all. But it is an interesting one.
Your claim was that you were showing how human beings "discover" things. The example you used was energy, which you've now abandoned, even though you're not man enough to admit it. In fact, we know the ontology for energy, which is why we can talk about it in meaningful ways. By contrast -- and by your own admission in the video -- we do not know the ontology of what you call "God" and, therefore, we cannot talk about that in meaningful ways.
The fact that scientists often discover things before they define them is obvious. Often there is fierce debate over how to classify discoveries. Yet we know they exist.
Actually there is a plethora of meaningful terms and attributes that you list in your video describing God. But you find them incredulous so you dismiss his existence. This is a textbook logical fallacy - see the side bar. You have no valid argument sir.
"The fact that scientists often discover things before they define them is obvious. Often there is fierce debate about how to classify discoveries. Yet we know they exist."
Once again, is it your understanding that any of this "fierce debate" among scientists is about whether the "discovery" is part of the material universe?
"Actually there is a plethora of meaningful terms and attributes that you list in your video describing God."
...ontologically significant only when there is a positive and coherent primary attribute. I can say "X is yellow and generous," but unless you know what X is, those attribute lack significance and do not tell you what X is.
"is it your understanding that any of this "fierce debate" among scientists is about whether the "discovery" is part of the material universe?"
Absolutely, ProfMTH there is much meaningful discussion in physics about black holes, strings, strings and branes. Black holes were doubted for a long time but are now generally accepted. D-Branes are still very tenuous yet there is fierce debate and conjecture.
My question, BigwhammyRocks, was whether it is your understanding that any of this "fierce debate" among scientists is about whether any of these "discoveries" are part of the material universe? Once again, you have steered around the question, this time merely repeating that there is debate and "much meaningful discussion." I'll ask again: does ANY of that meaningful discussion go to whether, e.g., black holes or strings are anything other than aspects of the material universe?
Energy can be empirically demonstrated; regardless of whether or not you feel it has been properly defined. You cannot demonstrate your god any more than you can demonstrate any other imaginary construct.
I posit a hypothetical imaginary "Scauro" that might possibly be capable of granting wishes that only I can perceive. Can your god exceed the degree of reality achieved by my admittedly imaginary, purely hypothetical undefined thing?
I think we all know the answer.
chilimaan 6 months ago
"The ability to do work" is what energy does? Completely incoherent.
The definition does not state that energy is the doing of the work. Energy is that which makes the doing possible. Nobody doubts that someone makes the doing happen. We freely accept that the exact nature of this motivator is unknown. Which is why nobody would suggest that any definition of energy's nature is an extant thing.
A: Does X exist?
B: Yes X does exist!!!
A: What is X?
B: I don't know!
A: .... okaaaaaay.
TheCelticChimp 7 months ago
If only religious folk would walk this kind of walk rather than just talk this talk.
If God is indefinable, unknowable..etc.etc. Human ideas about God are necessarily wrong. Whatever you imagine God to be is guaranteed to be wrong as you can't know God.
Everything you think about God must therefore be wrong of hopelessly inaccurate.
Please don't bother to tell us anything about God ever. You are by your own reasoning guaranteed to be wrong. God doesn't like false prophets... or does he? :P
TheCelticChimp 7 months ago
@TheCelticChimp Yes, this guy should be like Kant, who believed in God, but said little or nothing about his nature, and didn't press for any particular religion despite the influence of his Protestant society. Instead, he begged the question by using Scripture as authority, and he told us what God does, says, wants from us, etc. Everybody and his brother has a different conception of God, so without any definitions, any and all criticism or even positive claims about God are nullified.
markviman 5 months ago
ProfMTH didn't argue in "What is God?" that God must not exist, for reasons of ignorance or any other. Far from it. What he argued is that God can't be meaningfully talked about, and we therefore can't say whether God does or does not exist.
Science is in a very different position, since it's capable of starting out with ostensive definitions. "That thing over there" and "the action that took place" work as starting points in science. There is no such ostensive definition of God.
AtSwimTwoBricks 8 months ago 2
this video is an epic fail and ends with a simple appeal to emotion and does not answer the questions what is god? Appeals to faith and emotion tells you nothing. You haven't thoought this through simply because you don't want to. I am guessing your belief in god is simply a security blanket against the reality that one day you will die.
ingodidoubt 8 months ago
Skepticism is what leads people to test and investigate claims to see if they hold up under scientific testing.
ingodidoubt 8 months ago
Sad and useless video.
ingodidoubt 8 months ago
That was extremely pathetic.
alianchild 11 months ago
"Only the Fools are Fooled into mass Religion"
GOD
M1ST3RHYDE 1 year ago
so your ideea is that, I can't define god but he exists (he doesn't exist)? lack of a complete definition isn't proof of existance or non-existance
Davidutz91 1 year ago
so your ideea is that I can't define god but he exists (he doesn't exist)? lack of a complete definition isn't proof of existance or non-existance
Davidutz91 1 year ago
The point that ProfMTH was making wasn't that the definition of a thing must necessarily be exhaustive, only that it must be internally consistent and logically coherent.
Even given a definition that is both, we may find new cases that test our definitions, because terms don't derive meaning from their *definitions* but their *referents* -- from the existent things in the universe to which they apply.
And that is the problem with the word "God."
prodprod 1 year ago
cont'd (2) If you have the word "potato" you don't have to go to a dictionary, you can actually go to actual potatoes to demonstrate exactly what you mean. There, Idaho potatoes, white potatoes, red potatoes, sweet potatoes. That's what the word means.
I can even do that with quarks - I can point to the set of experimental results that led to the development of the term - the *referents* to which the term applies.
But "God" has a peculiar characteristic. He is supposed to exist like a potato.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) (3) That is, he's not just an idea, or a thought, or an emotion, or an abstraction, or a process, which have to be demonstrated indirectly. He is an *existent being.*
But he has been *defined* as lacking all of the aspects that existent beings possess. He is outside of space - yet omnipresent. Outside of time, yet acts, thinks, etc. Changeless - yet changes his mind, repents, etc.
This has nothing to do with the "mystery of God" -- it is simply the incoherence of a human definition.
prodprod 1 year ago
So what. Question everything you cannot see, feel, or hear. Big words again, make me sound like philosopher. Energy is heat, light, movement - anything that can be used to fuel any process related to movement or action. You could find Santa Claus making you feel all warm and toasty inside, but it doesn't change the fact that he isn't there. Seek the answers, find that man is good and bad without god or satan. Man created god in his image, god is a myth just as Zeus and every other god.
Trapar137 1 year ago
What is god? babe don't hurt me...don't hurt me... no more.
Khaizerful 1 year ago
your whole logic for this video is circular. How do you know that god calls the shots? because it's in the bible. And how do you know the bible is his word? because it says so. How do you know you can't please god without faith? and so on.
Regular christian fail.
Even if god existed and created the universe, the bible and all the holy books could still simply be made up. Maybe god didn't even show himself yet, even if he exists. How do you know? by faith? that's not impressive at all!
De4sher 1 year ago 2
Energy is a form of mater that travels at the speed of light and has no mass. It has a vibration that is defined by the velocity of its travel.
ebilly99 1 year ago
you have not defined what we are to believe or dis believe in. That is not a argument of ignorance any more then you denieing apostopsyonisis is out of ignorance if I do not define it. As I created the word you can not define it, nor do you have to. I created the word and I need to define it. If I say apostopsyonisis is superphysicilogic and then just say that means it is beyond physic I have told you nothing.
ebilly99 1 year ago
"My answer is: so what? An incomplete definition...."
You are wrong, there is no "incomplete definition". Profmth argues there is *no* coherent definition of what God is. The only way you could properly refute his argument is by providing a definition of God, which you obviously haven't. He also did not assert that God is false or non-existant, anywhere in his video. In short, your video is a complete mess.
gininginin 1 year ago
ProfMTH did not use an argument from ignorance. As you said yourself, that fallacy is to claim "because something is not properly understood, it is not true". However, he claimed that god was not adequately *defined*. Definition is not the same as understanding. The point was that it is meaningless to discuss whether you understand something or not if you have not explained what it is you seek to understand.
LordZentei 1 year ago 6
PS: by the way, the analogy you seek to draw with energy is pretty facetious, since physics is about providing a description of processes. No one is asking for a positive ontology of god; an equivalent to the definition of "that which does work" with mathematical descriptions of what that entails would be quite adequate for discussing god.
LordZentei 1 year ago
"God is the combination of the focus of all Its parts coalesced into the composite of all. Awareness -personality- is blocked from being a part of that composite until it realizes that it IS a part of this composite. Being told that it is, means nothing. It is in the realization that one's self is a viable part of that composite that encompases the totality of the being.. "
-It is simple. Enjoy the Sojourn. Godspeed!
MightyMessenger777 1 year ago
face palm
this is a total fail
slim2277 1 year ago 2
INTERESTING & FAMILIAR, BUT SOMETHING SEEMS FUNNY OR MISSING FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW BUT IT SEEMS WORTH KEEPING IN MIND FOR FURTHER STUDY.
THANKS.
billygundum 1 year ago
Energy has a very definite definition. "The ability to do work" where work is also defined (the acceleration of matter over time). The ability to do work is not what energy does, it is what it is.
you are assuming that energy has a "reason" for being, which ProfMTH (nor I) is willing to grant. Things don't require a reason, unless you assume God (also an unnecessary assumption)
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
0:45 : So don't pretend like you "know" what God wants. The words of the Bible are words (of men) and are just constructs (of men). They do not portray God's will. They cannot. God cannot "reveal" himself as we mere mortals are not capable of understanding "infinite wisdom". Revelation is also a construct of men
The Bible is no more a representation or "word of God" than is the Q'uran, Baghavadgita, or other writing of mankind.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
What you are asserting is utterly circular, though you don't seem to realize it -- he who comes to God *must believe that he is* -- that is, in order to "come to God* one must first believe in God.
Well, isn't that convenient? I don't know of any argument that couldn't be one by the application of that paradigm?
In order to come to the accept the idea that the earth's core is stuffed with fairies you must first believe that it is.
No kidding.
"Seek and ye shall find."
No. Not always.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) Not unless you're seeking something that is so obscure and unverifiable that it's existence is fundamentally untestable and its *confirmation* is purely emotional and internal.
And "energy" like any other term -- like "dog" is exactly that -- it is a "defined" term - its meaning consists of a set of qualities that refer to something else -- in the case of energy or dog -- to a set a qualities possessed by entities found in nature.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) If a referent fits the definition of energy, then it *is* energy. It's possible that we may discover some new thing that we hadn't found before to which the definition applies - but that just means we've discovered something new in the natural world. It doesn't mean that we've somehow discovered something new *in the definition."
On the other hand, sometimes we can, for a given reason, change a definition. We used to define Pluto as a planet.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) Then we realized there were literally hundreds of bodies of approximately the same size as Pluto out beyond its orbit. To maintain the same definition of "planet" would mean that all of them would also be planets and we'd suddenly be in a solar system with dozens and dozens of planets.
So we changed the definitions to make the definitions more descriptively useful.
But in all these cases, terms have *referents* -- things. processes, concepts, ideas that we can point to.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) When we talk of "gods" we have many "concepts" of god and so we can certainly speak of gods in terms of "god concepts" -- but if one asserts that the term "god" has an existent referent as something other than a series of overlapping (and often mutually exclusive) concepts -- then the burden is upon the claimant to demonstrate the existence of the referent, not in vague, metaphorical or obscure terms but as something that's really *there.*
prodprod 1 year ago
Begging the question is hardly persuasive.
geoffsuncle 1 year ago
I can invent a god better than yours simply by defining a god as better than yours. I shall name him Scruffy. So why should I pray to your god? Scruffy is just as valid, and better than yours by definition. Scruffy also personally told me that your full of shit.
Riff625 1 year ago
id rather not pray to someone who is willing to send me to hell for eternity because he made me (an evil being of sin) a part of this world somehow also evil and of sin. Id rather just go to hell even if i believed in his existence.
MirageScience 1 year ago
energy is a quantity that can be assigned to every particle, object, and system of objects as a consequence of the state of that particle, object or system of objects. I think that pretty well sums up what energy is.
Afarrell18 1 year ago
I speak from my current level of ignorance, so please take pity on me but as I see it just because we do not know at the moment does not mean that the subject is unknowable. If we said well what does electricity do and then said GOD donnit and left it at that then theists could not reply with the computer that they are using to comment. We as atheists and scientists strive to understand and further knowledge. We do not give up and take the easy way out=GOD we learn and teach from that truth!
larsonb33 1 year ago
Your energy analogy is flawed from the beginning. Energy by itself does not do work. Therefore, saying energy is the capacity to do work does sufficiently answer the question.
jesuriah 1 year ago
@bigwhammyRocks
You not only seem to fail to understand the point of the video you respond to, you present a baseless case.
What sense does it make to talk about what a god wants, reveals, says, etc... when you have no even merely accurrate concept of its nature. We can attribute anything to him.
I could claim god is evil incarnate and you have NO possibility of refuting it other than hiding behind your NON-arguments of authority, from personal experience and biblical circular reasoning. GL.
Azotadeth 1 year ago
Please explain how profMTH's point was an argument of ignorance.
The only ignorance I see here is the one you revel in by smugly admitting you dont understand god, and arent supposed to understand, so it is ok.
Your analogy with energy is flawed from conception in substance and method.
Energy is definable, observable and quantifiable.
Furthermore, science doesnt work with a: "Oh I THINK that X(=energy) exists, so Im going to go look for it and define it !". That would be scientifical fail.
Azotadeth 1 year ago
thing is god can't be demonstrated to exist like energy, sorry bigwhammyfails, god never manifests except in the minds of men, quite delusional ones at that, peace!
awfulnhead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You said:
"I was speaking on the futility of trying to explain something to someone who has already made up their mind due to a known agenda."
Just how did you determine that this is the case with him?
As I mentioned in the 1st post, I was a Xian for most of my life before deconverting. My change came about bcuz of my personal experience & research over the years. Example; "god does not answer prayer." This is a fact. & can be proven. I've never see intercessory prayer answered...ever!
Cootabux 1 year ago
Demonstrate your analogy of energy to god. We can apply energy, see it's attributes work. Can you at least demonstrate god to this level?
All of these proclamations in the video...can you show them to be true? Your claims are open ended, as you leave it up to the "us" to prove god exists. I have found that the Xian god does not!
Btw, I was a Xian most of my life, before I became an atheist, so I've done, and been thru, all that you've suggested.
Interesting how Xians need to attack the person.
Cootabux 1 year ago
for you to prove to me that this thing you call energy exists you need to define it for me, was it there in existence before you defined it, of course, but I had no good reason to believe it did. So maybe god dose exist, but you have no good reason to believe in any such thing until you can define it and show evidence of its existence. We are not arguing what might exists, we are arguing what is reasonable to believe exists and with out a definition and evidence god is not reasonable to believe.
fireflygirl246 1 year ago
sorry your wrong in order to discover or prove something exists it needs to be defined, your also creating a straw man argument, because atheists don't say you need to explain or understand everything about god, just like we don't need to explain or understand what caused the big bang in order to prove it happened. what we are asking is for you to explain your understanding of god and what are your good reasons for believing he exists.
fireflygirl246 1 year ago
Wow, I totally agree. I run into this all the time. Nobody knows what shmarklings are, but they are real. They are whatever you imagine them to be. Some people think that shmarklings are chairs made of circles. Some people claim that shmarklings are just giant invisible robotic tortoises. It's up to you. The bottom line is that nobody can agree on what shmarklings are, but those who think they are made up, are just too ignorant to know what shmarklings are.
May the shmarklings be with you. :-)
theshredator 1 year ago
i lvoe how, at the end, it simply states that we should stop all our thinking and jsut start believe for no reason, it's really great, religion makes for some fine comedie
AllenQuatermain2de 1 year ago
I think the title of this video is inaccurate. within the Bible, there is a claim that there will be false claims to being or knowing some other god, but without the bias of previous belief in the statements within the Bible, you would be unjustified in disagreeing that I, myself, am a god. I suppose my point is this: your citing passages from a book, a book that is obviously inaccurate and which relies on circular logic, does not prove the validity of or verify claims found within it.
stratusmind 1 year ago
You say that God must be defined before he is disproved, right? Well, you obviously believe in the Christian God, given all the scripture you quote.
The Bible gives us PLENTY of characteristics of this god, so he can easily be defined. The god depicted in the Bible cannot exist for the same reason that cubic spheres cannot exist. The characteristics are contradictory. God cannot be the essence of love, and yet still be able to drown all the people on earth.
myteethareshiny 1 year ago
Scientists believe they can investigate the world in order to build theories that can explain certain caracteristics of nature, or properties. but the ontological being of everything in this universe is OUT OF OUR REACH. even in mathematics itself there is this limit and was clearly demonstrated too! SO SCIENTIFIC KNOLEDGE WILL BE ALWAYS INCOPLETE! No scientistic can deny that. So for what you do not have evidence for, you can only say nothing, unless you make theology.
barefootID 1 year ago
@barefootID You are absolutely right. While science is the best way we have discovered to understand the universe around us, it is not perfect. But as we have all seen, nothing is perfect.
That does not mean that we have to openly accept every retarded claim out there until it is proven wrong. This is what skepticism is all about. Disregard stupid or outlandish claims until they are proven.
Theology is made up of nothing but stupid and outlandish claims.
myteethareshiny 1 year ago
@myteethareshiny
yes, absolutely.
Besides, considering that one can produce bullshit at much higher rate than anything else, skepticism get very important in order to disregard it!
barefootID 1 year ago
So what you're saying is everything has to be explained..........But your Gawd?
But you have absolutely no evidence and you can't define your Gawd, or anything that your "alleged" Gawd has created?
This is called "special pleading".
It's a logical fallacy and it's false.
Nice try retard, you pop down on your knees and pray to the invisible man, who lives in the sky. I will not. Pray to Zeus, or the Gawd of Islam too!
bigboy45454545 1 year ago 3
HHahahah this thick cunt thinks god exists
myjizzureye 1 year ago
"God is an infinite being" yeah, I've heard that one before and it's self contradictory. A "being" has boudries, thus it cannot be infinite. Is god just some mist which permeates the universe? Anyway, the question "what is god" is valid. If you take a poll maybe 95% will respond yes to the question "do you believe in god?" But ask a hundred people what is god, or please describe god you'll get 100 different answers - even if it's two folks from the same church.
averagebear1 1 year ago
got hasn't told us shit!!!!
ultradevon04 1 year ago
So... some ancient tent dweller ghost writes for god: "So are My ways higher than your ways" and mindlessly go along with him? These preachers are lying to you and taking your money. Don't let them do that to you.
smsavage32 1 year ago
I agree with you, the problem is that every theist has a different concept for their god. How can you "love" someone which you do not know? that has not "revealed" him/herself in a way that every human in the world can recognize that revelation objectively and impossible of arbitrary explanations.
Can you define your god? will that definition be the same for a hindu? for someone in your own church? I think not.
god is as varied concept as is "my favorite food" every head has a definition....
lapiz1969 1 year ago
Your explanation of the argument from ignorance is wrong, which at least seems to be consistent with the rest of the video.
Danothy03 1 year ago
Energy is force along a distance.
God is He who has done everything heretofore unexplained.
Its sort of unfair to say that you have to believe before you can find Him. Because then how would anyone ever start believing in Him?
Keeban3 2 years ago
your analogy with energy is flawed, since you're forgetting that the concept of "energy" is a human construct to serve as a currency for how much work can be preformed with a given force.
VicTheVicar 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@VicTheVicar All words are human constructs - the word "God" is a human construct - the idea here is that you don't have to have an exhaustive ontology to know that something exists. In science things are often discovered first and then we figure out what it is later. ProMTHs argument is a classic fallacy. So you really don't have a point with this.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
@bigwhammyRocks
You do not seem to grasp the fact that scientistic experiment the presence of energy THROUGH FACTS indipendant of our own opinion. Later it was developed the theory. Sometimes they do exactly the other way round, they PREDICT without never having seen things. In the case of god NO EVIDENCE is given. Not only that, but every single group of people on this earth disagree on the same concept of god everytime creating a god differing from one another!
barefootID 1 year ago
@bigwhammyRocks I went with the black magic rebuttal for which no reply can logically be made. The magician's feats establish the existence of an unseen (evil) force. I can't remember the last time a magician described in detail this unseen force followed by "oohs"and "aaws" from the audience and neither does anyone ever ask the magician to describe it. It's utter pomp and ingratitude to even consider the question "What is God?" relevant. BTW, I am a Muslim and my way of life is Islam.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@bigwhammyRocks
You provide nothing of substance other than bald assertions backed by nothing other than quotes from scripture.
All you are able to do is evangelize. Your abiltiy to ground your arguments in sound rationality or evidentialism utterly fails.
The stupid, it hurts...
LetReasonPrevail1 6 months ago
Human beings created the concept of god to comfort them after they became alcoholics and destroyed their ability to think.
Luckily for bigwhammy.
odinata 2 years ago 2
actually we didn't create god at all, god is part of our mental evolution of the bicameral mind, voices heard from one sphere of the brain to the other were thought to be voices of the gods, when in reality it was only hallucinations. Evidence; schizophrenia. Schizophrenics report hearing voices, ancient men were devoid of reason, primitive minds were devoid of metaphor, logic and consciousness as we know of it today. The gods were mental disorders in the process of evolution of the mind.
Vegasgodless 2 years ago
jesus christ... If there is a hell, that guy is there... talking untill you gouge out your ear drums. That could not have been more ridiculous or juvenile. AND BORING>
leighgyn 2 years ago
Energy is is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force. e = mc^2. etc.
We have physical evidence of energy.
There is no physical evidence of Allah.
Nice try though!
aijesse 2 years ago 41
There's no physical evidence that there isn't God. ;)
You'll find out though soon enough.
FBIRyan 2 years ago
Also, the fact that your watching these videos, means there's still something inside of you that's willing to think so other-wise.
FBIRyan 2 years ago
@aijesse You are your evidence simply unrecognized as such.
MightyMessenger777 1 year ago
fnarf
billygundum 2 years ago
Actually, as a Christian I didn't buy this video's message one bit. You do not have to know what God is to ask if God exists. Logically you cannot know what God is, so how can you ask if God exists ? This approach reduces God to a word, (as it was in the beginning ? lol) but a word has no meaning in isolation from a language and is only an animal vocalizing without context. What is snurp ? Does snurp exist ? What defines snurp ontologically ? God is not meaningless.
xxxFamilyValuesxxx 2 years ago
@xxxFamilyValuesxxx
Are you a parody/POE?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago 2
Well I was joking with you about logic being a whore you rape Dhorpatan. The rest is legit.
xxxFamilyValuesxxx 2 years ago
I don't get this sense of creationist arrogance.The real answer is that no one knows how life came to exist.Even if a designer was behind the universe, what created the designer?I mean who can prove to me that Brahma isn't god?And again I'll specify that since extraterrestrials have no ontology either, we can't disprove their existence.Once again, I'm getting no intelligent answers.
CharlesRaine92 2 years ago 2
I think a good introduction into the study of consciousness and how it relates to God, is Dr. David R. Hawkins' book power vs force
Ulti39 2 years ago
I heard an interesting thing when I was at Uni theology class.
Brahma (Generator), Vishnu (Operator), Shiva (Destroyer). Hinduism's trinity.
There seems to be a thread of monotheism in Hinduism that all the deities are just masks of the true god who lies beyond. Of course they are just ignorant, so rather than look for the real God, they worship the masks. Perhaps God appeared to them and they just failed to understand the message ?
xxxFamilyValuesxxx 2 years ago
What a stupid video. This can never answer any questions either. How does this prove christianity right? How can one ignore the thousands of other religious and/or extraterrestrial possibilities?
CharlesRaine92 2 years ago
"How can one ignore the thousands of other religious and/or extraterrestial possabilities?"
On the religious argument. Christianity for example..You pick it apart seperating Biblical Fact from the Traditions that found itsway into the mainstream churches that they NOW follow. then you can narrow the field down to just a handful.
On the ET concept. eyedunno, ask Richard Dawkins that question he seams to be the one who has a fasination with "Alien seed."
meanmopar426 2 years ago
Your point is a valid one and this is a stupid video. As a Christian I apologize for it. There are a lot of religions, and folks say there are aliens too. The point is, that there is a thread of truth in all the religions which you can follow, but the religion which best condenses that thread is Christianity. You know Christianity is true because it led to science and spread via European dominance as predicted in the Bible. God has a plan, even killing cats was a valid expression of faith.
xxxFamilyValuesxxx 2 years ago 2
"If I take a while to reply its because I'm biking or swimming."
^^^Same deal. I'm doing something else.
Duh!
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@GMM
Hahaha~! Looking over my comment, I used "like", instead of "lie". That would not be grammar, so much as a spelling mistake.
You can't even get that right Matt. To show how much of a joke you are, you arrogantly tried to point out my grammatical mistake, when you made the grammatical mistake of not using proper punctuation at the end of your sentence.
Hahahahahah! (Doubled over laughing).
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@GMM
Sure it was another like from you. Since you wrote that I admitted that you are smarter than me. And that obviously is not the case. (shakes head)
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
"Haha you just admitted that a 15 year old is smarter than you"
^^^Another lie~! Geez dude.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@GMM
Does anyone have to deal with a person who lies as much as you do? And that's just for starters, as you know only too well.
And your debate idea is silly. Why would you ask me to debate, and yet you get to set all the parameters to your advantage, and if I decline, I'm supposed to admit you're smarter than me? What's wrong with you Gut mouth?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@GMM
Hahahaha! Figures a scoundrel such as yourself, would feel the need to apologize to a person that called ProMth and Knowntje, "red neck atheists".
You're such a joke Matt. Not surprising for one who believes in invisible magic beings. LOL~!
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
So you're a Logic rapist ? How is that working out for you Dhorpatan ? Poor Logic, I know she's a whore, but as a series of abstract concepts, she can't call the police. Is that why you do it ?
xxxFamilyValuesxxx 2 years ago
@GMM
RedBeetle not only implies you are WRONG in thinking Knowntje has destroyed Calvinism, but even worse, said Knowntje is guilty of a fallacy, and implies he's a redneck atheist.
Why don't you let knowntje know about Montys smack talk, so he can come here and defend himself.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Well, you asked what I thought.
Consider Knowntje's video:
"The Impossibility of Calvinism Part 1: The Feasibility of Heaven - Part A"
In his first premise (8 minute mark) he claims God created for the creature. If he had read his Bible, then he might have seen Revelation 4:11. His first syllogism is based on his own ignorance of Scripture. His first premise logically contradicts Revelation 4:11.
Today's redneck atheists are easily dispatched, for they don't even know the basics.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
@RedBeetle
Third time. How do you account for knowledge?
I would screen your video, but you blocked me like a coward, so answer here.
If not, then it can be concluded you cannot account for knowledge, and as such, you cannot know anything on your worldview.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
How does this prove the existence of the christian god? Don't you have to disprove the existence of all the other deites?Even if the universe had to be created by a designer, many questions still arise.
CharlesRaine92 2 years ago
Wait -- this is not satire? *Sigh*
This is nonsense. An *ASSERTION* of the question "Does god exist?" *DOES* require a definition of terms (both 'exist' and 'god' in this case).
Scientific investigation, does not proceed in that manner. It is purely investigative and characterizes observation without assumptions. Even hypotheses must be posed on top of universal premises.
If you operate on assumptions without definitional grounding everything you do is suspect.
websnarf 2 years ago
His request for a definition of God is just an excuse. He isn't demanding a definition either. He wants exhaustive detail about God including those things God has chosen NOT to reveal to us. Does a person, for example, need to know the chemical breakdown or composition of a deadly poison to know not to take it? How much knowledge is required to obey and serve God.
Although logically God can neither be proved or disproved, the heavens DO declare His glory for those who bother to look at them!
Blogrich55 2 years ago
A person needs to know the chemical breakdown of a composition if she wants to *KNOW* why they should or should not take a deadly poison. There is a difference between action and knowledge.
Without definitions, you can apply any logic you like, right or wrong, and simply mutate the definition to fix the logic after the fact to seem correct. This makes all such logic superfluous and thus not a justification for your definitionless premises.
websnarf 2 years ago
LOL - not my rap - That was the intro to profMTHs video that I am responding to.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
profMTH is correct when he states that we must first define God before we can intelligently speak of him.
However, the term "existence" is ambiguous, for it can be predicated of EVERYTHING.
The question should never be: does God or anything else exist? But what IS it?
For a correct definition of God read the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 2, Article 1.
TheLogicalCalvinist 2 years ago 2
I agree there are good definitions. But in this case that would be playing his game. ProfMTH is not suffering from a lack of information - he is defending his homosexual agenda by attacking the existence of God. This is a case where I think Matthew 7:6 applies.
I do have a video on the The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) v=dfttQ24L-fY
but I felt it would be wasted in reply to this piece of sophistry.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
you no attack the argument not the man would mae you look more credable and more sane tho i know as a relgious man you are probable niether
hereticjoeyjoey 2 years ago 4
The argument was already dismissed - it is a textbook logical fallacy. It was not an attack - I was speaking on the futility of trying to explain something to someone who has already made up their mind due to a known agenda.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
"ProfMTH is not suffering from a lack of information - he is defending his homosexual agenda by attacking the existence of God."
LOL! It took a little while, but the ad hominem has been revealed. Talk about logical fallacies. Wow, that's golden. Just golden.
ProfMTH 2 years ago 5
But every investigations first light beam should always be motive.
Logical fallacy, I think not. When someone denies what is obvious, then it is natural to look at motives and agendas.
JAMRAND 2 years ago
"Logical fallacy, I think not."
Well, JAMRAND, do yourself a favor by looking up "circumstantial ad hominem." It's a fallacy of relevance. Best to educate yourself before you speak.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
RedBeetle 2 years ago
@RedBeetle
Got logic huh? Hahaha.
Monty, let me ask you a simple question. How do you account for knowledge within your worldview?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
See my video titled:
"On Axiomatic Reasoning."
RedBeetle 2 years ago
@RedBeetle
If I have to go screen a video, why don't you stop blocking me like a coward?
If you refuse to unblock me, just answer the question here, so I'll have a fair call to free speech, to respond to whatever answer you give.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Hey, you contacted me.
Quit crying about being blocked for rejecting the basic laws of logic. When you reject the Law of Non-contradiction, then the conversation necessarily comes to an end. If you don't like it, then go make a video explaining how logic is illogical. I'm sure all your fellow redneck atheists will cheer for you. Make sure you put it in the comedy section--lol.
Got Logic?
RedBeetle 2 years ago
@RedBeetle
Well actually, your claim that I reject the basic Laws of Logic, was a fallacious bare assertion fallacy.
Furthermore, it is your worldview of God belief, that rejects the laws of logic, since your worldview entails Metaphysical Subjectivism, and the primacy of consciousness, both of which violate the Laws of Logic.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
For every Q(fact), there must me an X(foundation),
that grounds Q in Y(justification).
G(God), cannot provide Universal
instantiation of (Y), as
(G) presupposes prior (Q).
Only (Obj)Objectivism can provide
(X) to instantiate (Y) for (Q).
Therefore, Theism presupposes Objectivism.
God is necessarily false.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Ayn Rand wrote:
"At birth, a child's mind is tabula rasa..."
(The New Left, page 155).
Ayn Rand also wrote:
"...a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms..."
(Atlas Shrugged, Galt's rodomontade, page 1016).
Dr. John W. Robbins correctly points out:
"This egregious contradiction lies at the foundation of Rand's epistemology" (Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand And The Close Of Her System, page 30).
Objectivism's foundation is crap.
Read Gordon H. Clark.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
@RedBeetle
The fact that John Robbins thinks that consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, lies at the foundation of Rands epistemology, strongly indicates he does not know much about Objectivism, or has straw-manned it up the wazoo.
That is not the foundation of Objectivism.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
This is not a response to the contradiction Dr. Robbins pointed out in Ayn Rand's writings. And, tabula rasa is, as Rand herself teaches, a critical part of objectivist epistemology.
I think you are simply having trouble coming to terms with the fact that all of Ayn Rand's writings belong in the fiction section of the book store.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
@RedBeetle
Your cowardly blocking of me, strongly indicates the bankruptcy of your epistemology and worldview.
Your craven banning of me speaks for itself. If you were correct, or had any proper epistemology, there would be no need for such craven censorship. It's that simple.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Dhorpatan,
You yap like a little chihuahua. You came on here making big claims, but now you have been reduced to irrelevant complaining.
Let me know when have an answer to Dr. Robbins' criticism. Maybe you could email the Ayn Rand Institute for help.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
@RedBeetle
To be frankly honest. your criticisms of Objectivism in the fashion you have attacked it, are so absurd, it doesn't warrant a serious response. I know you only parroted John Robbins, but geez, it's off. Just a huge strawman.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@RedBeetle
Hey Monty, Matthew Palumbo is claiming Knowntje has destroyed Calvinism.
Is this true?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Dhorpatan wrote:
"Hey Monty, Matthew Palumbo is claiming Knowntje has destroyed Calvinism."
No, I point out how he begs the question with his first syllogism in his video "The Impossibility Of Calvinism Part 3: The Author Of Sin- Part B."
Knowntje merely assumes God is sinning by determining evil, but fails to point out which of the commandments God is breaking by doing this.
These fallacies are common among today's redneck atheists, and this is why they are so easy to refute.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
watch?v=HV5tyvq_vb0&feature=channel_page
It looks like Knowntje has severely refuted
and debunked Calvinism. He might be of the opinion that he has destroyed Calvinism as a viable Theological worldview.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@RedBeetle
Your last PM to me, failed to show in that scripture, where it stated "consciousness must have an object".
You also failed to render where this epistemology is identified ANYWHERE in the Bible. Therefore, you have failed to back up your claims in this regard, and have failed overall in this regard.
And your fascist blocking of me confirms your failure in this manner.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago 2
Dhorpatan,
Wrong. Genesis 1:27-28 clearly asserts a-priori knowledge. You simply denied deductive logic and committed intellectual suicide. Just as you simply chose to ignore the obvious contradiction in Ayn Rand's writings, so you now choose to ignore the basic laws of logic. When you adopt misology as your foundation, then the conversation necessarily comes to a halt. Your messages become spam.
By the way, Dr. Robbins' book on Ayn Rand has never been answered by any objectivist.
RedBeetle 2 years ago
@RedBeetle
The Christian God is not logical in any way, shape, or form. The Chrisitan God is a gaggle of incoherencies, fallacies, and strikes at the very core of all logic and reason.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Actually Red Beetle Rand is right. A child's mind IS tabula rasa as it has not yet developed the language necessary to manipulate ideas, and consciousness without perception is an absurdity, we are not conscious in a coma.
xxxFamilyValuesxxx 2 years ago
You can cancel out the X term, it is redundant.
Also Objectivism is impossible as humans are subjective beings, and objectivity while an ideal is unreachable. Who IS the objective human ? Thus theism makes its appeal to an attainable human subjectivity.
xxxFamilyValuesxxx 2 years ago
This video is just all over the place. It seems to yammer on, but doesn't really make a solid point, or much sense.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
very good bigwhammy, i love your videos! God bless you, man!
want2rock247 2 years ago
ProMTH pwned and dismissed.
OriginalRiffMeister 2 years ago
you say that we dont have a definition for god and therefore cannot answer the question of his existence? so you saying that god doesn't exist?
errskin 2 years ago
No where in your video did you actually say what God is, but you put forward several statements about what energy is. From your video all we know about God is that if you seek him you will find him. Putting aside the fact that it is literally impossible have faith in a God that you don't believe in, how would you know when you found him/her/it. If your God doesn't leave physical evidence of his/her/it's existence than how would I differentiate a message from him from a hallucination.
nietsnevel 2 years ago
No physical evidence? God has left us MOUNTAINS of physical evidences. Look up archaeological discoveries that verify the Bible's accounts of things. If you can prove the Bible is true, you can prove it's claim that God exists.
PassionForHisWord 2 years ago
Mountains of evidence you say? Is this evidence like the fact that there was a kingdom of Israel before the first century BCE or are you talking about the rock that people are saying is Noah's Ark? Can I prove that Harry Potter is real because London exists?
If you are curious about what archaeology says about the bible I can tell you. It says that the story of the exodus from Egypt was almost entirely fictitious, and shows that the four gospels were written well after the death of Jesus.
nietsnevel 2 years ago
Egyptian records show a large group leaving Egypt around 1500 BC - there's debate over who is who - but there's nothing that proves anything either way on the exodus.
archaeology doesn't even attempt to address the dates the gospels were written
cdputnam 2 years ago
"Egyptian records"
Precisely what "Egyptian records" are you talking about, Cdputnam?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Papyrus Anastasi VI describes the land of Goshen where Jacob's sons took their flocks to Egypt during the drought in Genesis 42-45
cdputnam 2 years ago
"Parpyrus Anastasi VI describes the land of Goshen where Jacob's sons took their flocks to Egypt during the drought in Genesis 42-45."
Cdputnam, you're presenting this as a record ot the Exodus?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
What I know is that there are no contemporary extra biblical references to Jesus. Now here's the thing. If Jesus was preforming amazing feats like, walking on water, and turning water into wine, and healing the sick, don't you think the contemporary historians would have noticed this guy. Don't you think one of the 500 witnesses that were said to have seen it would have written something about it?
nietsnevel 2 years ago
lol. Of course they were written after Jesus died. Do you think they would write about His death before He died?
If you're implying they were written very long periods of time apart from the death of Jesus, then you're mistaken. Look up the Magdalene Papyrus, 7Q5, and the Rylands Papyrus P52.
PassionForHisWord 2 years ago
I am a newer subscriber to your channel and have not had a comprehensive look at everything yet. However this video and the one other that I've seen are quite good. Be encouraged and keep up the good work. Prof MTH is one of my favorite people to engage in discussion as he is quite challenging!
TheEdge012 2 years ago 5
1st, why haven't you submitted this as a video response? 2nd, with respect to the bit about energy, does it seem to you that anyone trying to answer the question "What is energy?" is less than certain that it's an aspect of the physical, material universe? Third, Proverbs 8:17 is a fascinating passage in light of, e.g., 1 John 4:10, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us...." Proverbs 8:17 says exactly the opposite. In any case, don't be afraid: submit this as a response.
ProfMTH 2 years ago 3
Your argument is formally fallacious. The energy bit is just a counter example. We don't need a precise definition of it for it to benefit our lives.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
You're avoiding the question, BigwhammyRocks. That's never a good sign. Does it seem to you that anyone trying to answer the question "What is energy?" is less than certain that it's an aspect of the physical, material universe?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Actually it's more correct that you are avoiding the fact that your entire 3 video series is founded on a logical fallacy - whether energy is a fully satisfactory analogy or not.
Energy seems to be a conceptual reality more than a material or physical one. Atheists are acknowledging that the concept of God is real by arguing against it. So in that sense it seems you acknowledge that God exists within the physical material universe in the same way as energy.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
"Energy seems to be a conceptual reality more than a material or physical one."
So there is IMMATERIAL energy, is that correct?
ProfMTH 2 years ago 2
And if there is immaterial energy, BigwhammyRocks, can you let us all in on how you came to this tremendous finding and whether this immaterial energy is kinetic energy, potential energy, or both? Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago 3
EXCUSE ME?!!!
did i say i was putting it aside for religious beliefs?
there is no scientific explanation, there is no answer explaining what it is. if you are so intelligent and have an answer, then please educate us all!
if you have no answer, then you're just as ignorant as everyone, and it's best you just keep quiet, unless you have the answer!
diuryl 2 years ago
"There is no scientific explanation."
Yes, there is. I have neither the time nor the inclination to remediate the deficiencies in your scientific education. I encourage you to pick up a good science textbook that talks about energy. Heck, you could even Google the topic if you like. Educate yourself.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
and then he just talks about how intelligent he is, and walks away! PATHETIC!
LOL!!!
diuryl 2 years ago
I didn't talk about my being intelligent, Diuryl. Rather, I pointed out the gap in your science education and noted my lack of interest in filling it. As I said, get yourself a good science textbook or even just Google "energy." Be assured you'll quickly discover that humankind has figured out what it is *and* it's very much part of the material universe. Good luck to you.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
let me see. you come at me first swinging, wanting to prove something, you say i'm ignorant when it comes to some scientific matters, and when i ask you to flex your muscles of scientific knowledge for us, you decide to head for the hills. you pick a fight and then run away.
if human kind has figured it out and i assume you know, a quick explanation would do. the moment you claim to know something, and refuse to explain what you know, but decide to run instead, people think you're ignorant..
diuryl 2 years ago
amen, my brother. scared another one off, huh? i've watched your videos and seen your comments. you fight a good fight, man. when are you going to approve my friend request on yahoo messenger? i'd love to speak with my brother in real time.
want2rock247 2 years ago
I will take your incessant side stepping of the main point as a tacit admission that your entire argument is indeed fallacious.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
So, no answer on the energy question, eh, BigwhammyRocks? Hoist with your own petard. That's always fun.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"Like I said its only a peripheral issue, your argument is invalid and summarily dismissed."
It's was the analogy you used to prove me wrong, but now you can't run away from it fast enough. As I said, hoist with your own petard.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
No the fact that your argument is a textbook logical fallacy is what I used to prove you wrong. I don't even need an analogy at all. But it is an interesting one.
You remind me of the Black Knight
watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Your claim was that you were showing how human beings "discover" things. The example you used was energy, which you've now abandoned, even though you're not man enough to admit it. In fact, we know the ontology for energy, which is why we can talk about it in meaningful ways. By contrast -- and by your own admission in the video -- we do not know the ontology of what you call "God" and, therefore, we cannot talk about that in meaningful ways.
Next time you'd do well to think it through.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Your reasoning is fallacious all they way around.
The fact that scientists often discover things before they define them is obvious. Often there is fierce debate over how to classify discoveries. Yet we know they exist.
Actually there is a plethora of meaningful terms and attributes that you list in your video describing God. But you find them incredulous so you dismiss his existence. This is a textbook logical fallacy - see the side bar. You have no valid argument sir.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
"The fact that scientists often discover things before they define them is obvious. Often there is fierce debate about how to classify discoveries. Yet we know they exist."
Once again, is it your understanding that any of this "fierce debate" among scientists is about whether the "discovery" is part of the material universe?
"Actually there is a plethora of meaningful terms and attributes that you list in your video describing God."
The secondary and relational attributes are...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...ontologically significant only when there is a positive and coherent primary attribute. I can say "X is yellow and generous," but unless you know what X is, those attribute lack significance and do not tell you what X is.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"is it your understanding that any of this "fierce debate" among scientists is about whether the "discovery" is part of the material universe?"
Absolutely, ProfMTH there is much meaningful discussion in physics about black holes, strings, strings and branes. Black holes were doubted for a long time but are now generally accepted. D-Branes are still very tenuous yet there is fierce debate and conjecture.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
My question, BigwhammyRocks, was whether it is your understanding that any of this "fierce debate" among scientists is about whether any of these "discoveries" are part of the material universe? Once again, you have steered around the question, this time merely repeating that there is debate and "much meaningful discussion." I'll ask again: does ANY of that meaningful discussion go to whether, e.g., black holes or strings are anything other than aspects of the material universe?
ProfMTH 2 years ago