What you said in your video is very true, however It is unneeded. In your video you fucus on the all knowing, which is the harder of the 2 to deal with, all powerful is simple and ill demonstrate for you here. All powerful = 100% power
Choise = Power
If A and B both have choise then there is no all powerful.
Science damn it! Where are the rabid theists shouting that you're all going to Hell? I wanted to read some ignorant, baseless debate on how we're all godless, sinning heathens.
OUR CREATION IS ALIVE because OUR CREATOR IS ALIVE....very simple really...WHO? in their right mind ,,,,wants to be separated from LOVE and ENERGY forever????
Hmm...I think set C should probably have intersected A and B - after all, there's a certain core of basic knowledge that any sentient being would have.
First of all, I agree, that we could never know if a god actually exists. However, using that definition of "knowing", then we can never actually know anything. The only thing I could possibly know is: 'I think therefore I am', but even that might be a stretch.
So for me, there is no absolute proof of anything. So according to your logic, I would have to be a hard agnostic and therefore a nonbeliever in just about anything...The sky is blue? The earth circles the sun?...
...I would have to disbelieve in everything, no matter what, because I cannot possibly know.
But that's not how it works. It's all a calculation of probabilities, based on what we experience every day. The question is not "is it absolutely true that the earth circles around the sun?" but "is it reasonable to think that the earth goesaround the sun?".
In that spirit, I could think of ways for god to make a reasonable case for his existence.
While I agree that we can never have absolute proof for anything, I don't think the information you'd require from an entity in a test for its godhood constitutes "absolute proof." To do that, you'd have to consider the possibility of things like the entity guessing correctly, having mistakes in your test, having flaws in your own observational skills, etc.
The test is so rigorous only because of the sheer amount of information in the universe - you could correctly identify the position/momentum of every particle in the Virgo supercluster and still have revealed essentially nothing about the universe.
Also, the sky being blue only requires it to diffuse visible light in a certain way, a way it's easy to demonstrate it does. Less extraordinary claim, less evidence.
Anyway, intriguing comment. My thoughts are provoked. *doesn't believe in sky*
Agreed, but the important word here is evidence, it's not proof. For me, to believe in a god, the evidence would have to be quite extraordinary, but theoretically, I could settle with that, just as I accept that the earth goes around the sun. That's my whole point. You seemed to have said that you won't turn into a believer because there cannot be proof. All I'm saying is that it doesn't take proof to accept a proposition, evidence can be enough...
key word - evidence. the egyptian book of the dead contains prayers to 'ra' resembling the ten commandments almost word for word. where did moses get his laws? egypt.
"because, if you're omniscient, you already know whether or not every existing entity is omniscient. but wait, to become omniscient, you would have to learn along the way whether every existing entity is omniscient in the first place"
Why would the second sentence be true? I don't follow your reasoning. Could you please clear this up?
To be omniscient is to know everything. If you don't know the status of the omniscience of even a single entity, you don't know everything, and as such you are not omniscient.
This is really only an argument against *becoming* omniscient, through incremental gains of knowledge. I don't rule out the possibility of a being being "born" with omniscience.
This has been flagged as spam show
What you said in your video is very true, however It is unneeded. In your video you fucus on the all knowing, which is the harder of the 2 to deal with, all powerful is simple and ill demonstrate for you here. All powerful = 100% power
Choise = Power
If A and B both have choise then there is no all powerful.
it is really as simple as that. Peace
TheRenekruse 8 months ago
Science damn it! Where are the rabid theists shouting that you're all going to Hell? I wanted to read some ignorant, baseless debate on how we're all godless, sinning heathens.
cypherpunk11 2 years ago
I have received some personal attacks via message, but nobody saying I'm hellbound. I think it's weird, too.
Maybe I should make a video about how I'm not going to hell. Perhaps that will prompt the proper improper response.
Sannit 2 years ago
@cypherpunk11
OUR CREATION IS ALIVE because OUR CREATOR IS ALIVE....very simple really...WHO? in their right mind ,,,,wants to be separated from LOVE and ENERGY forever????
00clouds00 1 year ago
So god wouldn't ever have any way of knowing if they were god. I'll be digesting this one for a bit. Briliant video.
SocialAnathema 2 years ago
Hmm...I think set C should probably have intersected A and B - after all, there's a certain core of basic knowledge that any sentient being would have.
gremlinn7 2 years ago
And here I was hoping nobody would notice that.
Sannit 2 years ago
Ha! I majored in math, and I'm a new subscriber...I'll be keeping an eye on you. By the way, love your style and thoroughness.
gremlinn7 2 years ago
I have some comments:
First of all, I agree, that we could never know if a god actually exists. However, using that definition of "knowing", then we can never actually know anything. The only thing I could possibly know is: 'I think therefore I am', but even that might be a stretch.
So for me, there is no absolute proof of anything. So according to your logic, I would have to be a hard agnostic and therefore a nonbeliever in just about anything...The sky is blue? The earth circles the sun?...
thalamay 2 years ago
...I would have to disbelieve in everything, no matter what, because I cannot possibly know.
But that's not how it works. It's all a calculation of probabilities, based on what we experience every day. The question is not "is it absolutely true that the earth circles around the sun?" but "is it reasonable to think that the earth goesaround the sun?".
In that spirit, I could think of ways for god to make a reasonable case for his existence.
But he doesn't, and that's why I'm an atheist.
thalamay 2 years ago
While I agree that we can never have absolute proof for anything, I don't think the information you'd require from an entity in a test for its godhood constitutes "absolute proof." To do that, you'd have to consider the possibility of things like the entity guessing correctly, having mistakes in your test, having flaws in your own observational skills, etc.
Sannit 2 years ago
The test is so rigorous only because of the sheer amount of information in the universe - you could correctly identify the position/momentum of every particle in the Virgo supercluster and still have revealed essentially nothing about the universe.
Also, the sky being blue only requires it to diffuse visible light in a certain way, a way it's easy to demonstrate it does. Less extraordinary claim, less evidence.
Anyway, intriguing comment. My thoughts are provoked. *doesn't believe in sky*
Sannit 2 years ago
"Less extraordinary claim, less evidence."
Agreed, but the important word here is evidence, it's not proof. For me, to believe in a god, the evidence would have to be quite extraordinary, but theoretically, I could settle with that, just as I accept that the earth goes around the sun. That's my whole point. You seemed to have said that you won't turn into a believer because there cannot be proof. All I'm saying is that it doesn't take proof to accept a proposition, evidence can be enough...
thalamay 2 years ago
Beautiful!
cosmos11 2 years ago
Guess i should thank das american atheist for plugging this channel. In short, i agree with you. Nice vid.
932016 2 years ago
Outstanding vid! ***** and subscribed.
lynchmobb2000 2 years ago
key word - evidence. the egyptian book of the dead contains prayers to 'ra' resembling the ten commandments almost word for word. where did moses get his laws? egypt.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
wow, excellent.
ticijev 2 years ago
I'm going to mirror this video on my channel today, rather than just featuring it. Hopfully that will get you some well-deserved subscribers.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
"because, if you're omniscient, you already know whether or not every existing entity is omniscient. but wait, to become omniscient, you would have to learn along the way whether every existing entity is omniscient in the first place"
Why would the second sentence be true? I don't follow your reasoning. Could you please clear this up?
longhornman99001 2 years ago
To be omniscient is to know everything. If you don't know the status of the omniscience of even a single entity, you don't know everything, and as such you are not omniscient.
This is really only an argument against *becoming* omniscient, through incremental gains of knowledge. I don't rule out the possibility of a being being "born" with omniscience.
Does that clear it up?
Sannit 2 years ago
very good reasoning, as usual. :)
damillionmalania 2 years ago
Thank you! As usual.
Sannit 2 years ago