I was thinking how your statements about question priority were tediously repetitious...then I remembered how religious people consistently fail to realize this as well as many other incredibly obvious things. I'm not sure sure repetition will help, though. I find that religious people are like people who are really high. You can tell them they have to define God before asking/answering the question of his existence, but five minutes later they'll be gassing on with their spurious claims.
There are thousands upon thousands of answer to what a god is or isnt.So what is the point of this vid.Just look up what peoples concepts and ideas of a god and find the thing that all gods or spirits or whatever have in common.
@ProfMTH none are coherent? What do you mean they arent coherent? They are beliefs and concepts so wouldnt be ONE idea about them all.What you said doesnt even make any sense at all.
None IS coherent. That's what I wrote. None of the various concepts of god makes sense. I find it hard to believe that you're truly having trouble understanding what I've written but anything is possible, I suppose.
This is all explained at great length in this series and the video "What is God?" If you're having trouble understanding, I encourage you to watch the videos again (assuming you watched them in the first place).
@ProfMTH No i understand what you are saying.But what doesnt make sense to me is how an atheist who doesnt believe in God could or would want to rationalize a spiritual and philosophical concept.I dont see the point of a person trying to simplify such an ancient concept as this one in just a couple of youtube vidoes.
I guess it is really hard for "some" people that have never experienced the power of the Lord for themselves to have any solid faith in Heaven. That's too bad...
I believe there is a god. I just do not know who he is. He could be anyone. Christian, Islam, buddhism, judaism, they could all be right, or only one, or the real god may have nothing to do with these faiths. I don't know. I guess i'll have to wait and find out one day.....
To put it simply, it is sort of possible to believe in something without a positive definition. You can believe that "whatever it is that caused this universe to exist, it had us in mind". In that case they believe that something exists, and then they love to label it God.
@MrArpas123 You can be an agnostic atheist. Agnostic is about knowledge, or saying "I don't know". Atheism is about belief, or "I don't believe". I happily say both, or "I don't believe, but I don't know."
@ProfMTH I gotta disagree. Agnosticism, (the common definitions I'm familiar with), is about understanding that faith is self-deception. (in that way Agnosticism is about faith...specifically, the avoidance of faith), and that the claims of the existence/non-existence of anything supernatural is unknown or unknowable. (in that way Agnosticism is the knowledge that we have no knowledge about anything supernatural.)
@TheHigherVoltage You begin by saying that you "gotta disagree" and then proceed to agree with the fact that agnosticism is about the unknown or unknowable--or, as I put it, knowledge. So, actually, you're not disagreeing.
@ProfMTH I cannot agree that Agnosticism is not about faith...as Agnosticism is specifically about the rejection of faith.
The only knowledge of Agnosticism I can find is understanding the unknowable (supernatural) is just that - unknowable. Other than that, there's no knowledge in Agnosticism.
It's a bit surprising to me that you don't. It seems you're hooked on a quibble and a distinction withut significant difference. But, hey, agreeing to disagree is fine. Thanks for your comment.
@theenforcer1977 "Not true. I'm agnostic but I have faith. I believe there is a higher power but I do not know for sure."
Then you and I have different definitions for Agnostic. And i'm curious, if you believe there is a higher power, why don't you consider yourself a Theist?
Raising the Bar, is a common informal logical fallacy. The arguer, when presented with evidence against one of his claims, redefines his claim without acknowledging the validity of the evidence and counterargument. How to Refute it: Call them on it. Tell the person they are changing the parameters of the question. Ask for one clearly defined question to discuss. Make sure the terms are clear up front.
It's sophistry because you couldn't describe a good cup of coffee to that standard. Does a good cup of coffee exist? What is the primary nature of a good cup of coffee without describing secondary characteristics like hot, sweet, rich, dark roasted etc. Even then this grants the describer of the coffee arbitrary power to define primary nature and secondary. The standard for coffee has to be applicable to anything or it's incoherant. The sophist argument is a moving goalpost, a rising bar.
This is very typical of the sophist. You misquote. I wrote that you can't. You describe a good cup of coffee and your fallacy will be revealed. You could only describe it in terms of what you call secondary chrateristics not "fundamental nature" which is a poorly defined standard. Undefined in the case of your argument. You say the believer fails to define but your argument contains undefined standards. Your argument was disposed of logicly thousands of years ago.
My point? I fell God, I talk to God and He talks to me, I fell him, talk to him and know him.So Do I Know he is here? Yes, Its not about beliving, its about knowing. knowing for a fact, like I do. There is a fine line between knowing and beliving.if you are still holding on to thease questions as a man I think its time for that person to read all of the scriptures, pray and ask for the truth himeself.its not a public knowing,its a private relationshiop of God and you.
@TheHigherVoltage I am as delusional as the next guy,But in all reality I do talk to gods spirit all the time and he does answer back.You are to blind to understand it so why even answer me with any insult? really? it did no one any good at all.
@mystic81006 Not everyone is delusional. I understand you just fine - I was convinced I was in a relationship with Jesus for almost 2 decades. Fortunately, I figured out I was just having a relationship with my imagination, spurred on by the cult.
"Delusional" wasn't an insult, it's factual reality. My apologetics use to include things like your "you can't see air either" - which is why I msged. If you learn statements like that are nonsense, maybe you'll start to wake up too.
@TheHigherVoltage Just becouse you dont think you where in any relashionship with God does not mean you were not,it just means you lost faith,wich in this day and age makes alot of sense.But in all truth if you followed men who missused Gods word for there own gain or for there own way of life and not God's then all this tells me is you where miss lead and that is no good reason not to belive at all.Now I made that comment of the air to make people understand there are invisible forces there.
@mystic81006 I stopped supporting Christianity after a few years of researching the various sects. I stopped believing in the bible after I read a few version of it cover to cover. And I stopped having faith after I learned what faith really is.
"I made that comment of the air to make people understand there are invisible forces there." I get that. My point was, air is not invisible - it's microscopic matter we can see with the right equipment.
@TheHigherVoltage microscopic matter? can you prove it? if so then I would be amazed, Im not stupid and Im not trying to be an ass but In all truth what they are seeing is not wind, it might be particles in the wind,but not wind,see, my point here is anything they say can be explained away with floating particles.To see wind that blows is impossible,you cant see anything microscopic that is in motion,so what you just said to me is silly,and if this is what they are saying they are silly.
@mystic81006 "can you prove it?" Science can and does. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
All gases are comprised of tiny particles (more specifically, elements) that have weight, volume and atomic structures. Our atmosphere is a soup of gases we can see individually or as "air", under an electron microscope.
@TheHigherVoltage BUT YOU CAN NOT SEE IT, ITS STILL INVISIBLE GASSES, INVISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE,YOU CAN NOT SEE IT BUT YOU STILL BELIVE IN IT AS I DO IN GOD.
@mystic81006 "BUT YOU CAN NOT SEE IT, ITS STILL INVISIBLE GASSES, INVISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE,YOU CAN NOT SEE IT BUT YOU STILL BELIVE IN IT AS I DO IN GOD."
And this pretty much sums up a rational mind vs an irrational mind. There's no such thing as "invisible gasses", as we CAN and DO see gasses with the right microscopes. 'Invisible' is just that - invisible.
@mystic81006 (CONT2) 6000 years ago, "the wind" was used as evidence for Amun, the Egyptian Creator God. 3000 years ago, it was used as evidence for Aeolus, the Greek God of wind. 700 years ago it was evidence for Yahweh. And as far as I can tell, every religious cult has always used things like the wind (ie. you can't explain it, so it's my God's doing) as evidence to sell their cults, and convince people to believe/support ideologies, that just aren't true.
@TheHigherVoltage 6000 years ago, "the wind" was used as evidence for Amun=PROVE IT,
religious cult? IM NOT SHURE WHY YOU KEEP SAYING BELIVING IN GOD IS A CULT,I BELIVE IN GOD ALL BY MYSELF AND I DO NOT GO TO ANY CHURCH,AM MYSELF ANY CULT?
@mystic81006 "6000 years ago, "the wind" was used as evidence for Amun=PROVE IT," Read the Coffin Texts. You'll recognize a lot of Christianity in it.
"I BELIVE IN GOD ALL BY MYSELF AND I DO NOT GO TO ANY CHURCH,AM MYSELF ANY CULT?"
If I read the Vedas and base my personal God on their Ganeshu, It's a cultgod. No different than if you read the Bible and base your personal God on Yahweh. It's still based on a cultgod.
@mystic81006 (CONT3) I just re-read what I wrote and should clarify a bit. Specifically, when I said "we can see the wind blow" - the wind doesn't actually "blow", that's an inaccurate euphemism that's been giving people the wrong visualization of wind for probably our entire history, up until the last few centuries. I would imagine it didn't help that ancient people (and even into the Dark Ages) people drew pictures of their Gods breathing hard to depict the wind.
@TheHigherVoltage The wind blows,we all know this,we fill it,no,no one has ever seen it, what you call gasses I call a force. You just named it something is all,you gave the name of the force a name just to explain god away,this is fine but still does not explain the force. its easy to say gasses are air but this to is not so and you should know this.YES, THE WIND BLOWS,AND TO SAY IT DOES NOT IS WELL, STUPID.
@mystic81006 "The wind blows,we all know this,we fill it,no,no one has ever seen it, what you call gasses I call a force."
We can see gasses expanding and contracting just fine. Cap an empty bottle and throw it in the fire. Watch it expand. Put it in a freezer, watch it contract. The same thing is happening to the atmosphere on a global scale.
"what you call gasses I call a force." I call it expanding and contracting gasses because that's exactly what it is.
@mystic81006 "you gave the name of the force a name just to explain god away," No, I call it expanding and contracting gasses because that's exactly what it is.
"this is fine but still does not explain the force" Yes, expanding and contracting gases explain the "force" just fine. It's a testable and reproducible fact.
"its easy to say gasses are air but this to is not so " I said air is comprised of gasses. And once again, this is a testable and reproducible fact.
"YES, THE WIND BLOWS,AND TO SAY IT DOES NOT IS WELL, STUPID."
Saying the wind blows, is no different than saying "I know in my heart." Your heart is a muscle that pumps blood. To say it can know anything is provably not true. Same with the wind. It's expanding and contracting gases. Saying "the wind blows" is not true. You may "believe" it is, but it provably is a misleading euphemism.
The "Ideal Gas Law" is hypothetical. And only deals with a pure sample of a noble gas.
Gases are made up of molecules. If a gas obeyed the ideal gas law perfectly, it would have to be compressible to arbitrarily small volumes, and so it would have to be made up of molecules with zero size. my point, if there is any real gasses in air, we all would never breath.
@mystic81006 "if there is any real gasses in air, we all would never breath."
So what do you believe we are breathing if not gasses? God's love scent?
"it would have to be made up of molecules with zero size" - no molecule has zero size. wtf man. Your making stuff up to back up a claim.
We can prove we are breathing a mixture of gases. The gas we require to live is oxygen. If there's no oxygen in the air, we die. That's the benefit of science - actually figuring out what's going on.
@TheHigherVoltage I can not lie as I am no lier, No one knows for shure what it is we are breathing,we named it,its bran new to this generation.In the 1800's no one knew but for some strange reason now we do? There is no true way to capture air.There is no testing tube,no machine,no camera that can capture air to test.So to say we know for a fact what is in air is well, is stupid.Now there are ways to test gasses that we can see,but this is not air.
@TheHigherVoltage Cant take the truth stay out of the way buddy,no there is no way to capture what is everywhere,its impossible to test anything you can not grab,touch,smell,taist,see,and if you think there is your the one who is unbelievably baffling. I DO NOT LIE AND JUST TO PROVE THERE IS NO GOD YOU WILL SAY JUST ABOUT ANY INSULT WILL YOU NOT? INSULTING ME WILL NOT DISSPROVE GOD. SO CAN YOU taist air?NO,Can you touch and hold onto air?NO,Can you take as ample of air then test it,NO.
@mystic81006 "its impossible to test anything you can not grab,touch,smell,taist,see,and if you think there is your the one who is unbelievably baffling."
A 10 second Google search for "gas detectors" will prove how wrong you are.
I'm done with this conversation. You are either knowingly or unknowingly a liar.
@TheHigherVoltage I also find it funny that with all the ways to test compound"s in the earth and from certin gasses has no effect with air,all of them are chemicle tests done with liquid gasses. Non of them are tests of invisible componds or should I say micro particles. Also there is not one,not one picture of air,not one. First show me the real picture of air and I would have to see you take that picture then we will talk truth to lies.
@mystic81006 Will you answer my question? What do you believe makes "the wind blow"? If you don't accept what science has figured out, what do you believe? What is your God telling you makes the wind blow?
@TheHigherVoltage I can not answer a question I dont know, I guess is a force from God, I dont know as well as the so called scientest Who pretend to know. In my mind I Dont belive everything I read, most every thing writen in the scientific world is for money,funding.nothing else.
@mystic81006 "I can not answer a question I dont know". And yet, you've done so a dozen times so far :/
"I dont know as well as the so called scientest Who pretend to know." - Scientists don't play pretend. If they did, we'd be still living in the Dark Ages.
"most every thing writen in the scientific world is for money,funding.nothing else." - I think you mean the theistic world. The scientific world is responsible for just about every technological advancement we have.
@TheHigherVoltage And if there are other invisible forces there like the wind then we know the wind is not the only one. The wind is a great example,why? its invisable,but it is still a forse that no one trully knows why.Still to this day all we can do is guess.So in all truth the wind is a real good example of things we can not see but we know for a fact is there.As God,I know he is there becouse I fill him,Not only that I talk to him and he answers, trully,belive or not,this is my experiance.
@TheHigherVoltage If you belive or not Is non my buisness, Im not here to save you in any way nore care,why? this is Gods work not mine.If he wants you to belive you would.If he wanted you to know him he would make you belive, its not my rules its his,this is the way he made it.Most people dont understand this,But in all truth God chooses you we dont choose him.So I am not hear to sell God to any one,I am ot her on my will,I am here only for the correction of the truth,nothing more.
@mystic81006 (CONT) The "wind" is the expansion and contraction of those various gases caused largely by the absorption and dissipation of thermal energy from the sun. There's various other factors if you want to get into it, but that's the gist. We can see the wind blow if there is enough water vapor in the air (like when fog or clouds move) or by adding a compound like smoke. My point is, air and wind are not invisible or random - they are calculable, quantifiable and measurable.
@TheHigherVoltage Insulting me like a suicide bomber? really? YES, YOU ARE RIGHT, JUST LIKE IT BUDDY,SO WATCH OUT FOR YOU HOUSE IM A COMMING,LOL,GROW UP,OR MABEY I AM TALING TO A TEENAGER? Ok, I dont talk to little children on the internet,it might get me in troble. Here is some real edvice you robot who follows faulty men who know nothing, STOP READING LIES FROM MEN WHO KNOW NOTHING PERIOD.I will now inore you.
God is not a what? God is Who, God is a being, a living being, God made us in his image, as ,God looks just as we Do as We are made in his image. God is the creator of all,its not a belife it fact,just as fact as you and me being who we are.You cant put God into any terms as no one man has seen God,at least not publicly. To Ask the question who is God is the true correct question.If thought exsist then we do so also does God our creator.We cant see air but we know its there as evident of God.
@mystic81006 "We cant see air but we know its there as evident of God."
We can see air just fine. We can also quantify and examine the specific matter in any quantity of air we encapsulate. Look up "electron microscope". And no, air is not evidence of a God or Gods - it's evidence we live in an atmosphere.
You relegate "powerful" as a secondary atribute. But omnipotence is different from "powerful". "Powerful" is an aspect of omnipotence. But to claim that not having a full knowledge of the nature of omnipotence is to have a "nebulous" definition is sophistry.
@sk1ll3tfr34k "im not even gonna watch this crazy movie. logical fallacy to assume that everyone who believes in a god is an agnostic"
lol What exactly is the logical fallacy? And since you didn't watch the video, you're just assuming that I've merely "assume[d] that everyone who believes in god is an agnostic." You haven't seen the argument. In sum, you've made yourself look very silly.
@ProfMTH the logical fallacy is found in the title, i assure u that i am WELL GROUNDED IN MY BELIEF, that I KNOW WHAT GOD I BELIEVE IN, that MY GOD IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE UNIVERSE.
agnostic-a person who believes that a creator/creators exist(s). do i believe in multiple creators of the world? do i believe that a creator may exist, but he cannot be found by humans? these points are what a basic agnostic believes in.
@sk1ll3tfr34k "the logical fallacy is found in the title"
Then identify the logical fallacy. What is the name of the logical fallacy? Is it the ad hominem fallacy, argument ad populum, circular argument, what?
My suspicion is you don't know what you're talking about here and, alas to say, you're not doing anything to persuade me that my suspicion is off track. In fact, you're on the verge of confirming my suspicion. But I'll give you one more shot.
1. it's in the beginning stages of a Begging-the-question fallacy. you say that believers are agnostics. how do YOU know that? if kept going, this argument would eventually use the same conclusion, and start the process over again. this type of begging-the-question fallacy is "circular reasoning"
2. it's definately a generalization fallacy, most likely a hasty generalization
did u see my points on what agnostics believe in? if not, then read them.
5. If there's somebody or even something , which has caused himself to be, maybe he can be scientifically be called with the term "God" . That term in Hebrew would be not אֵל-[el] or אֱלֹהַּ -[eloah]-(plural: אֱלֹהִים -[elohim]), but only יַהְוֶה -[YHWH]-"Yahweh", because only it means "He causes to be", and can be rendered with the term "God", independent of all expectations, understandings of people and their descriptions.
3. Many people think, that if there is a cause of space, from which they've originated, then He has to care about themselves, and if a gun is used to kill people, then it is not a gun, it simply doesn't exist.
4. Not the Hebrew אֵל-[el], but גִּבּוֹר-[gibbor] means "Mighty One", and עָז-[az] means "Strong". Even the Hebrew אֱלֹהַּ -[eloah]-(plural: אֱלֹהִים -[elohim]) can be read as אֲלַוֶּה -[alavveh]-"I accompany" is from לִוָּה -[livvah]-"He has accompanied".
1. If there's somebody or even something in the Space, which has caused himself to be, maybe he can be scientifically be called with the term "God" .
2.But in the Original languages of the Bible there's no word literally meaning "God" . Usually the Hebrew אֵל-[el] is translated as "God", but it's the same Hebrew word אַיִל -[ail] meaning "ram", it's pronounced as אֵיל-[eil] or אֵל -[el]-literally) "ram of" in conjunction with other words.
If we were give a definition of what we meant by the term 'television' to a primitive tribe, they would no doubt regard your definition as meaningless! They might understand some small aspect of it, such as the smooth screen, or the fact that it can make a noise, or produce pictures.....but unless they see it for themselves they will not fully understand. Until then the definition 'God is All in All, and All in All That' is a good one because it allows us to explore God and Truth as One.
There is an ancient Hindu definition which I cannot beat which states that 'God is All in All, and All and All That'. This Truth has stood the test of time. It's a simple Truth....but then all great Truths are Simple with an innate profoundity. It's a definition which we can understand and use. While I am open to higher definitions we should realize that the human mind can only go so far before it becomes lost in complications.
The idea that I must have a solid definition for what God is in order to not believe in God seems fundamentally wrong. Who has the time to sit around defining all the specific things they don't believe in?
I don't need to consider all the characteristics of the Invisible Pink Unicorn so that I may then make the informed decision to not believe in it. Hell, I really don't even care whether it is in fact a unicorn.
A definition of a being that is both invisible and pink seems incoherent to me. And I don't believe in IPUs. It doesn't need to be coherent, and I don't even need to be aware of a concept to lack belief regarding that concept.
By using large, overly sophisticated words to describe something that even he does not fully understand, he places judgment on the masses for the same predicament that he is preaching about. Get a hobby bro!
Classic response: What if God is beyond human comprehension, and therefore not subject to a coherent and positive explanation of the entity that has been perceived indirectly?
Great to see George Smith making an appearance. When I read his case for positive atheism, it was a revelation; I always thought any conventional idea of an omnipotent god could be dismissed on purely logical grounds, but college profs know that kind of talk will spark complaints, so they tend to take refuge in agnosticism.
You can no more `prove' that God doesn't exist, than I can `prove' that He does. "Choice" is then all but defined; Physical = Non vs. Belief. Correlating; Spiritual = Separation as opposed to Acceptance...
@ProfMTH - Life is but a simple choice that we're all given to either accept God's standard & authority or not. The decision rendered while in the physical, will in fact be finalized in eternity with His love & acceptance or judgement & separation. Regardless of all the assumptions and conjecturing, it really makes no difference in the end, as His cause & effect is in full force, as there's no middle ground to speak of...
@ProfMTH - Yes, the video is irrevelant, misleading and a complete waste of time! Has nothing to do with the intention of life that God perpetrated. You Prof., would be wise to redirect and begin again...
@ProfMTH Who made it logically more acceptable to establish who God is or isn't before establishing His existence? If someone doesn't believe you own a car, will you begin describing what the car is or isn't or provide some type of proof of ownership first? From the scope of science, a hypothesis is first made, then proofs and evidences are presented to either affirm or reject it. Of course, the original hypothesis was derived from pre-existing hypotheses and/or evidences.
@ProfMTH I viewed "What is God" and came to the same conclusion. Gods, like cars, are known to us. From Krishna to Mithras, their final tally is innumerable. Humans are unnaturally inclined to worship all sorts of things, seen or unseen. Belief is more reliant upon establishing existence rather than a detailed description. Black magic proves the existence of an unseen force. Belief is established through the feats of the magician not a detailed description of this unseen force.
@812LJ Can't prove or disprove the existence of god, true(nor the existence of the boogeyman, for that matter).. However, the bible HAS been disproven. So even if there is a god, the characteristics you've attributed to it are moot. Pretty much everything you've just said in this post is all flight of fancy(assumption and conjecture implies thought).
Why are the fairy tale followers so angry at people who think for themselves? You chose the mindless cult lifestyle for yourself.
@812LJ In which instance? Let's take Noah's flood.. Didn't happen.. all fish(except maybe a handful of species) would have died out.. and then all animals would have died. After 2+ months under water, ALL vegetation would die, so herbivores die, then carnivores(that's giving WAY too much credit to ability to build ship large enough to get all animals on AND food to sustain them during the flood alone).
@812LJ My bad. I didn't realize that it was only an assumption that all fish could survive in salt water and that salt water fish could survive in diluted salt water. I didn't realize that plants could live months without carbon dioxide or sunlight beneath tons of salty water. I didn't realize there was invisible water and that it was an assumption that it didnt exist.. . Didn't realize I was just speculating that global flood would make all current bodies of water same salt concentration
@xESOTERlC - Again, assumption & speculation without one shred of evidence on your end. Who said that all fish survived during the flood? Who said after the water subsided & evaporated that plant life couldn't begin again? The earth was covered with 40 days & nights of torrential rainfall. Dilution would've been minimal or zero at certain depths. Did you know that on every known mountain top in the world they've discovered crustacean fossils proving they were all under water at one time?!
@812LJ .. 40 days and nights of rainfall.. and then what? disappeared over night? would take much longer to disappear.. of course, first you have to explain where the water came from in the first place.. and even IF, say, water appeared by magic, and disappeared right after it stopped raining, dilution would be fast with torrential downpours. and fish can't live in salt water and fresh water.. a slight difference will kill EITHER.
@xESOTERlC - "40 days and nights of rainfall.. and then what? disappeared over night? would take much longer to disappear"
Of course it would take longer. In fact, it was months before Noah left the Ark. Did you know that they found the Ark embedded in ice at the 12k ft. level on Mt. Ararat?! Again, dilution is remote under pressure at depth... Even so, have you ever heard of a bullshark? If not, do some research on that bad boy & then tell me about fish that won't adapt for survival...
yes, i know of the bullshark. as i said, there are a handful of fish that can survive in both salt and fresh water by controlling their own salinity.
Adapt? adaption takes place over generations..
Dilution on takes place under pressure? Ok. buy some fresh water fish and a tank. fill it half frsh water half sea water salinity and see how well they "adapt".. This will be my last response because you don't care for "evidence" or logic so it is pointless
Click on my channel and see the expedition under the uploads button...
"Dilution on takes place under pressure? Ok. buy some fresh water fish and a tank. fill it half frsh water half sea water salinity and see how well they "adapt".. This will be my last response because you don't care for "evidence" or logic so it is pointless"
Again, I said under pressure at depth! Have a good day...
@812LJ and if only a handful of fish survived, they evolved into all sea creatures we know today in a few thousand years? that's absurd. plus, lakes and oceans would have the same salinity.
Plus, if you're going to argue for the existence of god, then you can't deny that he used abiogenesis because that IS what your biblical god did.. made life out of the inanimate. That IS abiogenesis.
Plant life begin again? even if it did, how do animals live months/years while it grows?
@xESOTERlC - "and if only a handful of fish survived, they evolved into all sea creatures we know today in a few thousand years? that's absurd. plus, lakes and oceans would have the same salinity"
Again, assumption & speculation on your end. Also, as stated previously, dilution wasn't prevalent on top or at the bottom...
"Plant life begin again? even if it did, how do animals live months/years while it grows?"
@812LJ PLUS with water now "evaporated", salt would be across all land... go cover your lawn in salt and see what happens.. not going to get growth. Now, you can say that your god just protected everything .. but then why make a flood in the first place? itd be pointless.. he could just make all humanity have a heart attack and start again. Or did he do the flood just to test Noah? lol
@812LJ Saying that saltwater fish die in diluted water is not "assumption and speculation".. it is fact. Fresh water fish die in slightly saline water. plant life will die in salt water NOT TO MENTION without sun/carbon dioxide
Not assumption and speculation to say there is not enough water to cover entire earth--let alone to rise above it hundreds of feet--FACT.. you just choose to IGNORE everything. in that case, tooth fairy and santa claus ARE real
@xESOTERlC - "Not assumption and speculation to say there is not enough water to cover entire earth--let alone to rise above it hundreds of feet--FACT..
How do you know? Were you there when it took place? Asinine...
@812LJ um. water expands when it freezes. that means the ice is taking up more space now than it would as water.
plus, even if you melt the poles, it will be enough to flood some coasts but not all land.. Especially not to cover it in HUNDREDS OF FEET WHICH IT WOULD HAVE TO RISE IN ORDER TO COVER ELEVATED LAND
@812LJ I'd say evolution, but bible doesn't say that god didn't use evolution.. in fact, it says that man came from the inanimate, which supports abiogenesis, and from there, a god could have used evolution to make man..
@xESOTERlC - "I'd say evolution, but bible doesn't say that god didn't use evolution.. in fact, it says that man came from the inanimate, which supports abiogenesis"
No, that would be creation from a trancendent God giving life, not abiogenesis. Not one shred of evidence in a laboratory supports the fallacy of abiogenesis...
@812LJ YES mountains were under water.. they were once below sea level and rose up from impact of tectonic plates. himalayas still rise about 1 cm per year. Evidence is available for all of those things. do the research. But you wn't because you will only acknowledge the word of a fairy tale book written by man. The book says it so you accept it as fact and outright deny anything else..
Wouldn't the answer or definition of "god" change or differ based on the respective "believers"? A muslim would offer a different description or definition than a hindu would, etc.
@hughdiock Sometimes it changes. But for the most part the attempts to explain the god concept are similar--often identical--even though the names of the various gods are different.
@ProfMTH More specifically Prof....A Christian could say that Jesus is God, A Jew could say that God is the creator of all things, while a New Ager could say "I am God." All of these definitions differ pretty signifigantly from one another, so I think the refutations of such definitions would differ accordingly. What do you think?
@hughdiock "Christian could say that Jesus is God...."
Well, *most* Christians would. But even the ones who believe Jesus is divine wouldn't say that Jesus is the entirety of what they call "god."
"A Jew could say that God is the creator of all things...."
As do Christians and Muslims. And I explained in this series why "creator," which is a relational attribute, doesn't answer the "what is god" question.
@ProfMTH I think I'd have to disagree with your comment on Christians who assert Jesus' divinity. In this viewpoint, Jesus is both fully God and fully human, so he does satisfy the entirety of what they call "god" and personifies it. Moreover, if "god" is unfathomable to the human mind, then this is an unanswerable question. This does not equate to agnosticism, inasmuch as there are distunguishable attributes that each theology would apply to "god", to narrow the definition respectively.
@ProfMTH Agnosticism: The view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly.
This is the definition that I work off of. It's a broad statement. So even by giving relational attributes and specific characteristics of what I consider "god" to be, especially if they differ from yours, necessarily disqualifies me from the aforementioned definition. Wouldn't it?
@ProfMTH On a side note, you posted a video response to someone who called you a Jesuit or something to that effect, in which you responded by showing pictures of you in different Jesuit College sweatshirts. Why did you leave out Santa Clara University? I feel shafted!! ;)
@hughdiock "Agnosticism: The view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly."
Right. So if, as you've said, "'god' is unfathomable to the human mind" & the question "What is god?" is "unanswerable," we are, by the definition you've given, in the realm of agnositicism, are we not?
"Doesn't Jesus answer this? 'I and the Father are one.'"
@ProfMTH I think an exhaustive definition or comprehension of what "god" is humanly impossible. That is not to say "I don't know anything" about what "god" is. I do apply certain specific characteristics to "god" however which narrow the parameters of my definition. So I think the broad statement "I don't know" is not an accurate appraisal of my belief.
@ProfMTH "What do you 'know' and how do you 'know' it?"
LOL.....I may have screwed myself by that wording....but I assume the question is in reference to "god". I know I believe in "god" and I know that because they are my beliefs. ;-p
@hughdiock "I know I believe in "god" and I know that because they are my beliefs."
But that's information about you, not about what you call "god." Do you claim to know anything about what you call "god"? If so, how do you know what you claim to know? Thanks.
@ProfMTH Ultimately Prof I think that EVERYBODY would fit the definition of "agnostic" in one permutation or the other since no one can fully know or understand what "god" is. This goes for atheists and believers alike. That being said, I think it's disingenuous to say someone who holds certain specific attributes or descriptions of "god" is agnostic because their response isn't a blanket "I don't know" statement.
@hughdiock "Ultimately Prof I think that EVERYBODY would fit the definition of "agnostic" in one permutation or the other since no one can fully know or understand what "god" is. This goes for atheists and believers alike."
That's what I said in the video. Earlier you disagreed, insisting "[t]his does not equate to agnosticism." But now you're saying what I said.
BTW, my questions. Do you claim to know anything about what you call "god"? If so, how do you know what you claim to know?
@ProfMTH I don't think this is completely honest thouhg Prof. In completely finalistic views this may be argued true, but in a realistic sense I don't hink this applies to either of us. Realistically, a believer or theist is someone who believes in a "god"; an atheist is someone who believes there is no "god"; and an agnostic doesn't know if there's a "god". The rest is just clever semantics.
@hughdiock So now you've gone from saying "[t]his does not equate to agnosticism" to saying "Ultimately Prof I think that EVERYBODY would fit the definition of 'agnostic'" and back to saying that it's *not* agnosticism. Seems to me you need to take some time to think this through. You *want* to disagree with the video, but you really haven't thought through whether you have a real basis for doing so.
@ProfMTH In all humble honesty Prof, I am more than gratefull for you and your videos because you have driven and encouraged me to study and evaluate my own beliefs much more closely. You are absolutely the real deal and I appreciate that. That being said I can only ask that you continue to show patience and bare with me as I attempt to answer the questions you pose.
@hughdiock "I am more than grateful for you and your videos because you have driven and encouraged me to study and evaluate my own beliefs much more closely."
Excellent!
" I can only ask that you continue to show patience and bare with me as I attempt to answer the questions you pose."
Take all the time you need. These are important, complex questions that merit one's time and thoughtfulness.
God = Love. No mystery :) No man in the clouds, no hellfire and brimstone. God is Love, not man-made religion, not fear, not hate, not 'he' not 'she', no devils, the shadows are made by MAN, God is LOVE LOVE LOVE. WE are little pieces of God because God (LOVE) is Everywhere, this means that there is NO WHERE that God is not (including in US) that's my view, love to you and you and you:):):)
Part 2 Speaking as an atheist I'd say that, among other things (e.g. a delusion), god is the psychological cop out of those who need something to validate their existence. It's much easier to think you're the centre of the universe and that some all powerful deity is taking care of you than to understand your real place in it and try to do something to improve it. I think the last scene in "Breaker Morant" sums it up rather well.
Part 1 IF I were a believer I'd say: God is outside nature and unknowable, therefore beyond ontology. He is the creator of the universe and has placed every atom in its place. He has sent His prophets/messiahs who work many miracles so that we may have testimony of, and faith in, Him and to make His will known to humanity for whom He made it all. "Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason." Martin Luther, "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out..." Mark 9:47
I was thinking how your statements about question priority were tediously repetitious...then I remembered how religious people consistently fail to realize this as well as many other incredibly obvious things. I'm not sure sure repetition will help, though. I find that religious people are like people who are really high. You can tell them they have to define God before asking/answering the question of his existence, but five minutes later they'll be gassing on with their spurious claims.
Snakepliskinist 1 month ago
There are thousands upon thousands of answer to what a god is or isnt.So what is the point of this vid.Just look up what peoples concepts and ideas of a god and find the thing that all gods or spirits or whatever have in common.
EstacadoConstantine 1 month ago
@EstacadoConstantine "There are thousands upon thousands of answer to what a god is or isnt."
No doubt. None is coherent. That's the point. Hard to believe that got by you.
ProfMTH 1 month ago
@ProfMTH none are coherent? What do you mean they arent coherent? They are beliefs and concepts so wouldnt be ONE idea about them all.What you said doesnt even make any sense at all.
EstacadoConstantine 1 month ago
@EstacadoConstantine "none are coherent?"
None IS coherent. That's what I wrote. None of the various concepts of god makes sense. I find it hard to believe that you're truly having trouble understanding what I've written but anything is possible, I suppose.
This is all explained at great length in this series and the video "What is God?" If you're having trouble understanding, I encourage you to watch the videos again (assuming you watched them in the first place).
ProfMTH 1 month ago
@ProfMTH No i understand what you are saying.But what doesnt make sense to me is how an atheist who doesnt believe in God could or would want to rationalize a spiritual and philosophical concept.I dont see the point of a person trying to simplify such an ancient concept as this one in just a couple of youtube vidoes.
EstacadoConstantine 1 month ago
I guess it is really hard for "some" people that have never experienced the power of the Lord for themselves to have any solid faith in Heaven. That's too bad...
VictoriaofSommerset 1 month ago
@VictoriaofSommerset I guess it's hard for some people to address the actual substance of this video.
BTW, what do you mean when you say "experienced the power of the Lord"? What, if anything, did you feel and what did it feel like?
ProfMTH 1 month ago
I believe there is a god. I just do not know who he is. He could be anyone. Christian, Islam, buddhism, judaism, they could all be right, or only one, or the real god may have nothing to do with these faiths. I don't know. I guess i'll have to wait and find out one day.....
NYCMOBIUS 2 months ago
What's the difference between agnostic and gnostic?
derekmasses 3 months ago
@derekmasses In a nutshell, the former claims not to have knowledge while the latter claims to have knowledge.
ProfMTH 3 months ago
"GOD IN THE OTHER HAND MADE HEAVEN AND EARTH YOU CAN SEE TODAY INCLUDING MAN AND EVERY LIVING THING U SEE TODAY ;)"
God myth came form lots of kultures form teh Bronzor Age. He had a wif who wuz a fertiliteez goddes. Dey wer paagns. ;)
Forgive the spelling. I'm not used to communicating with cats. ;)
seleroan 5 months ago
@MrArpas123 So are you an agnostic believer in Santa Claus? I mean you can't disprove him, so you must be.
CHECK MY SITE FOR HELP ON HOW TO STAY OFF SANTA'S NAUGHTY LIST.
xRocketNumber9x 5 months ago
To put it simply, it is sort of possible to believe in something without a positive definition. You can believe that "whatever it is that caused this universe to exist, it had us in mind". In that case they believe that something exists, and then they love to label it God.
Pickle900 5 months ago
@MrArpas123 You can be an agnostic atheist. Agnostic is about knowledge, or saying "I don't know". Atheism is about belief, or "I don't believe". I happily say both, or "I don't believe, but I don't know."
Pickle900 5 months ago
@MrArpas123 Do you have anything to say that's relevant to the video?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
Believers have faith. Agnostics do not.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Agnosticism is about knowledge, not faith.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH I gotta disagree. Agnosticism, (the common definitions I'm familiar with), is about understanding that faith is self-deception. (in that way Agnosticism is about faith...specifically, the avoidance of faith), and that the claims of the existence/non-existence of anything supernatural is unknown or unknowable. (in that way Agnosticism is the knowledge that we have no knowledge about anything supernatural.)
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage You begin by saying that you "gotta disagree" and then proceed to agree with the fact that agnosticism is about the unknown or unknowable--or, as I put it, knowledge. So, actually, you're not disagreeing.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH I cannot agree that Agnosticism is not about faith...as Agnosticism is specifically about the rejection of faith.
The only knowledge of Agnosticism I can find is understanding the unknowable (supernatural) is just that - unknowable. Other than that, there's no knowledge in Agnosticism.
See that as an agreement if you like.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage "See that as an agreement if you like."
It's a bit surprising to me that you don't. It seems you're hooked on a quibble and a distinction withut significant difference. But, hey, agreeing to disagree is fine. Thanks for your comment.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Not true. I'm agnostic but I have faith. I believe there is a higher power but I do not know for sure.
theenforcer1977 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theenforcer1977 "Not true. I'm agnostic but I have faith. I believe there is a higher power but I do not know for sure."
Then you and I have different definitions for Agnostic. And i'm curious, if you believe there is a higher power, why don't you consider yourself a Theist?
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
Raising the Bar, is a common informal logical fallacy. The arguer, when presented with evidence against one of his claims, redefines his claim without acknowledging the validity of the evidence and counterargument. How to Refute it: Call them on it. Tell the person they are changing the parameters of the question. Ask for one clearly defined question to discuss. Make sure the terms are clear up front.
dpsamu2000 6 months ago
It's sophistry because you couldn't describe a good cup of coffee to that standard. Does a good cup of coffee exist? What is the primary nature of a good cup of coffee without describing secondary characteristics like hot, sweet, rich, dark roasted etc. Even then this grants the describer of the coffee arbitrary power to define primary nature and secondary. The standard for coffee has to be applicable to anything or it's incoherant. The sophist argument is a moving goalpost, a rising bar.
dpsamu2000 6 months ago
@dpsamu2000 You can't coherently tell me what a cup of coffee is? Really?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
Comment removed
dpsamu2000 6 months ago
Comment removed
dpsamu2000 6 months ago
Comment removed
dpsamu2000 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProfMTH
This is very typical of the sophist. You misquote. I wrote that you can't. You describe a good cup of coffee and your fallacy will be revealed. You could only describe it in terms of what you call secondary chrateristics not "fundamental nature" which is a poorly defined standard. Undefined in the case of your argument. You say the believer fails to define but your argument contains undefined standards. Your argument was disposed of logicly thousands of years ago.
dpsamu2000 6 months ago
My point? I fell God, I talk to God and He talks to me, I fell him, talk to him and know him.So Do I Know he is here? Yes, Its not about beliving, its about knowing. knowing for a fact, like I do. There is a fine line between knowing and beliving.if you are still holding on to thease questions as a man I think its time for that person to read all of the scriptures, pray and ask for the truth himeself.its not a public knowing,its a private relationshiop of God and you.
mystic81006 7 months ago
@mystic81006 "I talk to God and He talks to me"
No. He doesn't. You're as delusional as a suicide bomber.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I am as delusional as the next guy,But in all reality I do talk to gods spirit all the time and he does answer back.You are to blind to understand it so why even answer me with any insult? really? it did no one any good at all.
mystic81006 6 months ago
@mystic81006 Not everyone is delusional. I understand you just fine - I was convinced I was in a relationship with Jesus for almost 2 decades. Fortunately, I figured out I was just having a relationship with my imagination, spurred on by the cult.
"Delusional" wasn't an insult, it's factual reality. My apologetics use to include things like your "you can't see air either" - which is why I msged. If you learn statements like that are nonsense, maybe you'll start to wake up too.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Just becouse you dont think you where in any relashionship with God does not mean you were not,it just means you lost faith,wich in this day and age makes alot of sense.But in all truth if you followed men who missused Gods word for there own gain or for there own way of life and not God's then all this tells me is you where miss lead and that is no good reason not to belive at all.Now I made that comment of the air to make people understand there are invisible forces there.
mystic81006 6 months ago
@mystic81006 I stopped supporting Christianity after a few years of researching the various sects. I stopped believing in the bible after I read a few version of it cover to cover. And I stopped having faith after I learned what faith really is.
"I made that comment of the air to make people understand there are invisible forces there." I get that. My point was, air is not invisible - it's microscopic matter we can see with the right equipment.
Just spreading some truth.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage microscopic matter? can you prove it? if so then I would be amazed, Im not stupid and Im not trying to be an ass but In all truth what they are seeing is not wind, it might be particles in the wind,but not wind,see, my point here is anything they say can be explained away with floating particles.To see wind that blows is impossible,you cant see anything microscopic that is in motion,so what you just said to me is silly,and if this is what they are saying they are silly.
mystic81006 6 months ago
@mystic81006 "can you prove it?" Science can and does. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
All gases are comprised of tiny particles (more specifically, elements) that have weight, volume and atomic structures. Our atmosphere is a soup of gases we can see individually or as "air", under an electron microscope.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage BUT YOU CAN NOT SEE IT, ITS STILL INVISIBLE GASSES, INVISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE,YOU CAN NOT SEE IT BUT YOU STILL BELIVE IN IT AS I DO IN GOD.
mystic81006 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mystic81006 "BUT YOU CAN NOT SEE IT, ITS STILL INVISIBLE GASSES, INVISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE,YOU CAN NOT SEE IT BUT YOU STILL BELIVE IN IT AS I DO IN GOD."
And this pretty much sums up a rational mind vs an irrational mind. There's no such thing as "invisible gasses", as we CAN and DO see gasses with the right microscopes. 'Invisible' is just that - invisible.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@mystic81006 (CONT2) 6000 years ago, "the wind" was used as evidence for Amun, the Egyptian Creator God. 3000 years ago, it was used as evidence for Aeolus, the Greek God of wind. 700 years ago it was evidence for Yahweh. And as far as I can tell, every religious cult has always used things like the wind (ie. you can't explain it, so it's my God's doing) as evidence to sell their cults, and convince people to believe/support ideologies, that just aren't true.
Science figures out the truth.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage 6000 years ago, "the wind" was used as evidence for Amun=PROVE IT,
religious cult? IM NOT SHURE WHY YOU KEEP SAYING BELIVING IN GOD IS A CULT,I BELIVE IN GOD ALL BY MYSELF AND I DO NOT GO TO ANY CHURCH,AM MYSELF ANY CULT?
mystic81006 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mystic81006 "6000 years ago, "the wind" was used as evidence for Amun=PROVE IT," Read the Coffin Texts. You'll recognize a lot of Christianity in it.
"I BELIVE IN GOD ALL BY MYSELF AND I DO NOT GO TO ANY CHURCH,AM MYSELF ANY CULT?"
If I read the Vedas and base my personal God on their Ganeshu, It's a cultgod. No different than if you read the Bible and base your personal God on Yahweh. It's still based on a cultgod.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@mystic81006 (CONT3) I just re-read what I wrote and should clarify a bit. Specifically, when I said "we can see the wind blow" - the wind doesn't actually "blow", that's an inaccurate euphemism that's been giving people the wrong visualization of wind for probably our entire history, up until the last few centuries. I would imagine it didn't help that ancient people (and even into the Dark Ages) people drew pictures of their Gods breathing hard to depict the wind.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage The wind blows,we all know this,we fill it,no,no one has ever seen it, what you call gasses I call a force. You just named it something is all,you gave the name of the force a name just to explain god away,this is fine but still does not explain the force. its easy to say gasses are air but this to is not so and you should know this.YES, THE WIND BLOWS,AND TO SAY IT DOES NOT IS WELL, STUPID.
mystic81006 6 months ago
@mystic81006 "The wind blows,we all know this,we fill it,no,no one has ever seen it, what you call gasses I call a force."
We can see gasses expanding and contracting just fine. Cap an empty bottle and throw it in the fire. Watch it expand. Put it in a freezer, watch it contract. The same thing is happening to the atmosphere on a global scale.
"what you call gasses I call a force." I call it expanding and contracting gasses because that's exactly what it is.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@mystic81006 "you gave the name of the force a name just to explain god away," No, I call it expanding and contracting gasses because that's exactly what it is.
"this is fine but still does not explain the force" Yes, expanding and contracting gases explain the "force" just fine. It's a testable and reproducible fact.
"its easy to say gasses are air but this to is not so " I said air is comprised of gasses. And once again, this is a testable and reproducible fact.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
"YES, THE WIND BLOWS,AND TO SAY IT DOES NOT IS WELL, STUPID."
Saying the wind blows, is no different than saying "I know in my heart." Your heart is a muscle that pumps blood. To say it can know anything is provably not true. Same with the wind. It's expanding and contracting gases. Saying "the wind blows" is not true. You may "believe" it is, but it provably is a misleading euphemism.
The "Ideal Gas Law" is hypothetical. And only deals with a pure sample of a noble gas.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
Gases are made up of molecules. If a gas obeyed the ideal gas law perfectly, it would have to be compressible to arbitrarily small volumes, and so it would have to be made up of molecules with zero size. my point, if there is any real gasses in air, we all would never breath.
mystic81006 6 months ago
@mystic81006 "if there is any real gasses in air, we all would never breath."
So what do you believe we are breathing if not gasses? God's love scent?
"it would have to be made up of molecules with zero size" - no molecule has zero size. wtf man. Your making stuff up to back up a claim.
We can prove we are breathing a mixture of gases. The gas we require to live is oxygen. If there's no oxygen in the air, we die. That's the benefit of science - actually figuring out what's going on.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@mystic81006 I'm curious...what do you believe makes "the wind blow"? If we're not breathing gases, what do you believe we are breathing?
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I can not lie as I am no lier, No one knows for shure what it is we are breathing,we named it,its bran new to this generation.In the 1800's no one knew but for some strange reason now we do? There is no true way to capture air.There is no testing tube,no machine,no camera that can capture air to test.So to say we know for a fact what is in air is well, is stupid.Now there are ways to test gasses that we can see,but this is not air.
mystic81006 6 months ago
@mystic81006 "I can not lie as I am no lier, No one knows for shure what it is we are breathing."
Knowingly or unknowingly, you provably lied.
"There is no true way to capture air." Grab an empty screw-top bottle. Hold it in front of you. Screw the cap on. You just captured a sample of air.
"There is no testing tube,no machine,no camera that can capture air to test." Do a google search for "air sampling equipment".
Your statements are unbelievably baffling.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Cant take the truth stay out of the way buddy,no there is no way to capture what is everywhere,its impossible to test anything you can not grab,touch,smell,taist,see,and if you think there is your the one who is unbelievably baffling. I DO NOT LIE AND JUST TO PROVE THERE IS NO GOD YOU WILL SAY JUST ABOUT ANY INSULT WILL YOU NOT? INSULTING ME WILL NOT DISSPROVE GOD. SO CAN YOU taist air?NO,Can you touch and hold onto air?NO,Can you take as ample of air then test it,NO.
mystic81006 6 months ago
@mystic81006 READ MY LAST COMMENT, THEN WHEN YOU ARE DONE,GO AWAY,YOU ARE TRYONG TO MAKE PEOPLE STUPID.
mystic81006 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mystic81006 "its impossible to test anything you can not grab,touch,smell,taist,see,and if you think there is your the one who is unbelievably baffling."
A 10 second Google search for "gas detectors" will prove how wrong you are.
I'm done with this conversation. You are either knowingly or unknowingly a liar.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I also find it funny that with all the ways to test compound"s in the earth and from certin gasses has no effect with air,all of them are chemicle tests done with liquid gasses. Non of them are tests of invisible componds or should I say micro particles. Also there is not one,not one picture of air,not one. First show me the real picture of air and I would have to see you take that picture then we will talk truth to lies.
mystic81006 6 months ago
@mystic81006 Will you answer my question? What do you believe makes "the wind blow"? If you don't accept what science has figured out, what do you believe? What is your God telling you makes the wind blow?
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage I can not answer a question I dont know, I guess is a force from God, I dont know as well as the so called scientest Who pretend to know. In my mind I Dont belive everything I read, most every thing writen in the scientific world is for money,funding.nothing else.
mystic81006 6 months ago
@mystic81006 "I can not answer a question I dont know". And yet, you've done so a dozen times so far :/
"I dont know as well as the so called scientest Who pretend to know." - Scientists don't play pretend. If they did, we'd be still living in the Dark Ages.
"most every thing writen in the scientific world is for money,funding.nothing else." - I think you mean the theistic world. The scientific world is responsible for just about every technological advancement we have.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
@mystic81006 "I don't believe everything I read." - That's a really funny statement to come from a theist.
shagoosty 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage And if there are other invisible forces there like the wind then we know the wind is not the only one. The wind is a great example,why? its invisable,but it is still a forse that no one trully knows why.Still to this day all we can do is guess.So in all truth the wind is a real good example of things we can not see but we know for a fact is there.As God,I know he is there becouse I fill him,Not only that I talk to him and he answers, trully,belive or not,this is my experiance.
mystic81006 6 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage If you belive or not Is non my buisness, Im not here to save you in any way nore care,why? this is Gods work not mine.If he wants you to belive you would.If he wanted you to know him he would make you belive, its not my rules its his,this is the way he made it.Most people dont understand this,But in all truth God chooses you we dont choose him.So I am not hear to sell God to any one,I am ot her on my will,I am here only for the correction of the truth,nothing more.
mystic81006 6 months ago
@mystic81006 (CONT) The "wind" is the expansion and contraction of those various gases caused largely by the absorption and dissipation of thermal energy from the sun. There's various other factors if you want to get into it, but that's the gist. We can see the wind blow if there is enough water vapor in the air (like when fog or clouds move) or by adding a compound like smoke. My point is, air and wind are not invisible or random - they are calculable, quantifiable and measurable.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHigherVoltage Insulting me like a suicide bomber? really? YES, YOU ARE RIGHT, JUST LIKE IT BUDDY,SO WATCH OUT FOR YOU HOUSE IM A COMMING,LOL,GROW UP,OR MABEY I AM TALING TO A TEENAGER? Ok, I dont talk to little children on the internet,it might get me in troble. Here is some real edvice you robot who follows faulty men who know nothing, STOP READING LIES FROM MEN WHO KNOW NOTHING PERIOD.I will now inore you.
mystic81006 6 months ago
God is not a what? God is Who, God is a being, a living being, God made us in his image, as ,God looks just as we Do as We are made in his image. God is the creator of all,its not a belife it fact,just as fact as you and me being who we are.You cant put God into any terms as no one man has seen God,at least not publicly. To Ask the question who is God is the true correct question.If thought exsist then we do so also does God our creator.We cant see air but we know its there as evident of God.
mystic81006 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mystic81006 "We cant see air but we know its there as evident of God."
We can see air just fine. We can also quantify and examine the specific matter in any quantity of air we encapsulate. Look up "electron microscope". And no, air is not evidence of a God or Gods - it's evidence we live in an atmosphere.
TheHigherVoltage 6 months ago
You relegate "powerful" as a secondary atribute. But omnipotence is different from "powerful". "Powerful" is an aspect of omnipotence. But to claim that not having a full knowledge of the nature of omnipotence is to have a "nebulous" definition is sophistry.
dpsamu2000 7 months ago
God is my penis. There we have it, the problem is solved.
el oh el I know, rudimentary, crude, kindergartener's answer, but it made me laugh!
CRUSH3Rdlux 8 months ago
im not even gonna watch this crazy movie. logical fallacy to assume that everyone who believes in a god is an agnostic -.-
sk1ll3tfr34k 9 months ago
@sk1ll3tfr34k "im not even gonna watch this crazy movie. logical fallacy to assume that everyone who believes in a god is an agnostic"
lol What exactly is the logical fallacy? And since you didn't watch the video, you're just assuming that I've merely "assume[d] that everyone who believes in god is an agnostic." You haven't seen the argument. In sum, you've made yourself look very silly.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH the logical fallacy is found in the title, i assure u that i am WELL GROUNDED IN MY BELIEF, that I KNOW WHAT GOD I BELIEVE IN, that MY GOD IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE UNIVERSE.
agnostic-a person who believes that a creator/creators exist(s). do i believe in multiple creators of the world? do i believe that a creator may exist, but he cannot be found by humans? these points are what a basic agnostic believes in.
sk1ll3tfr34k 9 months ago
@sk1ll3tfr34k "the logical fallacy is found in the title"
Then identify the logical fallacy. What is the name of the logical fallacy? Is it the ad hominem fallacy, argument ad populum, circular argument, what?
My suspicion is you don't know what you're talking about here and, alas to say, you're not doing anything to persuade me that my suspicion is off track. In fact, you're on the verge of confirming my suspicion. But I'll give you one more shot.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH "Believers are agnostics"
1. it's in the beginning stages of a Begging-the-question fallacy. you say that believers are agnostics. how do YOU know that? if kept going, this argument would eventually use the same conclusion, and start the process over again. this type of begging-the-question fallacy is "circular reasoning"
2. it's definately a generalization fallacy, most likely a hasty generalization
did u see my points on what agnostics believe in? if not, then read them.
sk1ll3tfr34k 9 months ago
@sk1ll3tfr34k "it's in the beginning stages of a Begging-the-question fallacy. you say that believers are agnostics. how do YOU know that?"
I explained it in the video series. You must not have been paying attention or you didn't watch the entire thing.
" it's definately a generalization fallacy"
How so?
"did u see my points on what agnostics believe in?"
Yes. Clearly, you either didn't watch the all of both videos, you failed to understand, or your failed to pay attention.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH an example would be the Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates.
sk1ll3tfr34k 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sk1ll3tfr34k Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a God exists, or do you KNOW that a God exists?
TheRationalRant 8 months ago
5. If there's somebody or even something , which has caused himself to be, maybe he can be scientifically be called with the term "God" . That term in Hebrew would be not אֵל-[el] or אֱלֹהַּ -[eloah]-(plural: אֱלֹהִים -[elohim]), but only יַהְוֶה -[YHWH]-"Yahweh", because only it means "He causes to be", and can be rendered with the term "God", independent of all expectations, understandings of people and their descriptions.
776AD 10 months ago
3. Many people think, that if there is a cause of space, from which they've originated, then He has to care about themselves, and if a gun is used to kill people, then it is not a gun, it simply doesn't exist.
4. Not the Hebrew אֵל-[el], but גִּבּוֹר-[gibbor] means "Mighty One", and עָז-[az] means "Strong". Even the Hebrew אֱלֹהַּ -[eloah]-(plural: אֱלֹהִים -[elohim]) can be read as אֲלַוֶּה -[alavveh]-"I accompany" is from לִוָּה -[livvah]-"He has accompanied".
776AD 10 months ago
1. If there's somebody or even something in the Space, which has caused himself to be, maybe he can be scientifically be called with the term "God" .
2.But in the Original languages of the Bible there's no word literally meaning "God" . Usually the Hebrew אֵל-[el] is translated as "God", but it's the same Hebrew word אַיִל -[ail] meaning "ram", it's pronounced as אֵיל-[eil] or אֵל -[el]-literally) "ram of" in conjunction with other words.
776AD 10 months ago
absolute value of x
sniperboy102 11 months ago
The reason people can't explain there deity is because it's meant to be a concept without boundaries.
Say for example the early text of the Christian god were in a chauvinistic language where there is different forms of the same words.
Say there is love male and love female.
There god is described as having both just in certain circumstances he would have one or the other.
To try and show how all encompassing he is.
Your premise is flawed please don’t lump theists with agnostics.
Thank you
Caladors 11 months ago
If we were give a definition of what we meant by the term 'television' to a primitive tribe, they would no doubt regard your definition as meaningless! They might understand some small aspect of it, such as the smooth screen, or the fact that it can make a noise, or produce pictures.....but unless they see it for themselves they will not fully understand. Until then the definition 'God is All in All, and All in All That' is a good one because it allows us to explore God and Truth as One.
YogiAdept 11 months ago
A coherent definition of God?
There is an ancient Hindu definition which I cannot beat which states that 'God is All in All, and All and All That'. This Truth has stood the test of time. It's a simple Truth....but then all great Truths are Simple with an innate profoundity. It's a definition which we can understand and use. While I am open to higher definitions we should realize that the human mind can only go so far before it becomes lost in complications.
YogiAdept 11 months ago
The idea that I must have a solid definition for what God is in order to not believe in God seems fundamentally wrong. Who has the time to sit around defining all the specific things they don't believe in?
I don't need to consider all the characteristics of the Invisible Pink Unicorn so that I may then make the informed decision to not believe in it. Hell, I really don't even care whether it is in fact a unicorn.
escher2003v2 1 year ago
@escher2003v2 "I don't need to consider all the characteristics of the Invisible Pink Unicorn...."
It's not my argument that the defintion has to be exhaustive. Rather, my argument is that it has to be coherent.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Sorry, I should have specified I was referring to Veritas48's statement, not your argument.
escher2003v2 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
A definition of a being that is both invisible and pink seems incoherent to me. And I don't believe in IPUs. It doesn't need to be coherent, and I don't even need to be aware of a concept to lack belief regarding that concept.
AdNeeb 11 months ago
Well then atheists and believers have no fundamental differences.
cunnidvd 10 months ago
@escher2003v2 How about simply stating one attribute of the concept that you object to.
cunnidvd 10 months ago
OK i tell you what I cant believe.... i cant believe this video has only 12,070+ views!... people c'mon !!! share!.
BUDA20 1 year ago
By using large, overly sophisticated words to describe something that even he does not fully understand, he places judgment on the masses for the same predicament that he is preaching about. Get a hobby bro!
masseynewish 1 year ago
@masseynewish "using large, overly sophisticated words"
I'm sorry you found the vocabulary to be beyond you. Get an education, bro!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Classic response: What if God is beyond human comprehension, and therefore not subject to a coherent and positive explanation of the entity that has been perceived indirectly?
WouldbeSage 1 year ago
Great to see George Smith making an appearance. When I read his case for positive atheism, it was a revelation; I always thought any conventional idea of an omnipotent god could be dismissed on purely logical grounds, but college profs know that kind of talk will spark complaints, so they tend to take refuge in agnosticism.
Thanks for posting.
MrZardoz777 1 year ago
You can no more `prove' that God doesn't exist, than I can `prove' that He does. "Choice" is then all but defined; Physical = Non vs. Belief. Correlating; Spiritual = Separation as opposed to Acceptance...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ What?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH - Life is but a simple choice that we're all given to either accept God's standard & authority or not. The decision rendered while in the physical, will in fact be finalized in eternity with His love & acceptance or judgement & separation. Regardless of all the assumptions and conjecturing, it really makes no difference in the end, as His cause & effect is in full force, as there's no middle ground to speak of...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ Do you have anything to say that's coherent and relevant to the video?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH - Yes, the video is irrevelant, misleading and a complete waste of time! Has nothing to do with the intention of life that God perpetrated. You Prof., would be wise to redirect and begin again...
812LJ 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Who made it logically more acceptable to establish who God is or isn't before establishing His existence? If someone doesn't believe you own a car, will you begin describing what the car is or isn't or provide some type of proof of ownership first? From the scope of science, a hypothesis is first made, then proofs and evidences are presented to either affirm or reject it. Of course, the original hypothesis was derived from pre-existing hypotheses and/or evidences.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition "Who made it logically more acceptable to establish who God is or isn't before establishing His existence?"
I explained that at length in this video series and the related video "What is God?" If you didn't understand it, you should watch the series again.
"If someone doesn't believe you own a car, will you begin describing what the car is...."
If the person doesn't know what a car is, then that's where I'd start, yes.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I viewed "What is God" and came to the same conclusion. Gods, like cars, are known to us. From Krishna to Mithras, their final tally is innumerable. Humans are unnaturally inclined to worship all sorts of things, seen or unseen. Belief is more reliant upon establishing existence rather than a detailed description. Black magic proves the existence of an unseen force. Belief is established through the feats of the magician not a detailed description of this unseen force.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@812LJ Can't prove or disprove the existence of god, true(nor the existence of the boogeyman, for that matter).. However, the bible HAS been disproven. So even if there is a god, the characteristics you've attributed to it are moot. Pretty much everything you've just said in this post is all flight of fancy(assumption and conjecture implies thought).
Why are the fairy tale followers so angry at people who think for themselves? You chose the mindless cult lifestyle for yourself.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - "However, the bible HAS been disproven."
Please show the evidentiary support for your assertion?
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ In which instance? Let's take Noah's flood.. Didn't happen.. all fish(except maybe a handful of species) would have died out.. and then all animals would have died. After 2+ months under water, ALL vegetation would die, so herbivores die, then carnivores(that's giving WAY too much credit to ability to build ship large enough to get all animals on AND food to sustain them during the flood alone).
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - I said evidence, not assumption or speculation...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ My bad. I didn't realize that it was only an assumption that all fish could survive in salt water and that salt water fish could survive in diluted salt water. I didn't realize that plants could live months without carbon dioxide or sunlight beneath tons of salty water. I didn't realize there was invisible water and that it was an assumption that it didnt exist.. . Didn't realize I was just speculating that global flood would make all current bodies of water same salt concentration
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - Again, assumption & speculation without one shred of evidence on your end. Who said that all fish survived during the flood? Who said after the water subsided & evaporated that plant life couldn't begin again? The earth was covered with 40 days & nights of torrential rainfall. Dilution would've been minimal or zero at certain depths. Did you know that on every known mountain top in the world they've discovered crustacean fossils proving they were all under water at one time?!
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ .. 40 days and nights of rainfall.. and then what? disappeared over night? would take much longer to disappear.. of course, first you have to explain where the water came from in the first place.. and even IF, say, water appeared by magic, and disappeared right after it stopped raining, dilution would be fast with torrential downpours. and fish can't live in salt water and fresh water.. a slight difference will kill EITHER.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - "40 days and nights of rainfall.. and then what? disappeared over night? would take much longer to disappear"
Of course it would take longer. In fact, it was months before Noah left the Ark. Did you know that they found the Ark embedded in ice at the 12k ft. level on Mt. Ararat?! Again, dilution is remote under pressure at depth... Even so, have you ever heard of a bullshark? If not, do some research on that bad boy & then tell me about fish that won't adapt for survival...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ they never found the "ark"
yes, i know of the bullshark. as i said, there are a handful of fish that can survive in both salt and fresh water by controlling their own salinity.
Adapt? adaption takes place over generations..
Dilution on takes place under pressure? Ok. buy some fresh water fish and a tank. fill it half frsh water half sea water salinity and see how well they "adapt".. This will be my last response because you don't care for "evidence" or logic so it is pointless
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xESOTERlC - "they never found the "ark""
Click on my channel and see the expedition under the uploads button...
"Dilution on takes place under pressure? Ok. buy some fresh water fish and a tank. fill it half frsh water half sea water salinity and see how well they "adapt".. This will be my last response because you don't care for "evidence" or logic so it is pointless"
Again, I said under pressure at depth! Have a good day...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ and if only a handful of fish survived, they evolved into all sea creatures we know today in a few thousand years? that's absurd. plus, lakes and oceans would have the same salinity.
Plus, if you're going to argue for the existence of god, then you can't deny that he used abiogenesis because that IS what your biblical god did.. made life out of the inanimate. That IS abiogenesis.
Plant life begin again? even if it did, how do animals live months/years while it grows?
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - "and if only a handful of fish survived, they evolved into all sea creatures we know today in a few thousand years? that's absurd. plus, lakes and oceans would have the same salinity"
Again, assumption & speculation on your end. Also, as stated previously, dilution wasn't prevalent on top or at the bottom...
"Plant life begin again? even if it did, how do animals live months/years while it grows?"
Noah's Ark...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ PLUS with water now "evaporated", salt would be across all land... go cover your lawn in salt and see what happens.. not going to get growth. Now, you can say that your god just protected everything .. but then why make a flood in the first place? itd be pointless.. he could just make all humanity have a heart attack and start again. Or did he do the flood just to test Noah? lol
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - "PLUS with water now "evaporated", salt would be across all land... "
Your comprehension is lacking or you're not wanting to accept the answers already given. No need to explain further...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ OHHH i get it. you're telling me that salt only exists in the oceans at depths? lol.. ok, thanks for the info. how foolish of me
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - The subject, if you've forgotten is about the flood in the Book of Genesis...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ whats ur point
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@812LJ Saying that saltwater fish die in diluted water is not "assumption and speculation".. it is fact. Fresh water fish die in slightly saline water. plant life will die in salt water NOT TO MENTION without sun/carbon dioxide
Not assumption and speculation to say there is not enough water to cover entire earth--let alone to rise above it hundreds of feet--FACT.. you just choose to IGNORE everything. in that case, tooth fairy and santa claus ARE real
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - "Not assumption and speculation to say there is not enough water to cover entire earth--let alone to rise above it hundreds of feet--FACT..
How do you know? Were you there when it took place? Asinine...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ I'm on earth now. . . where is all the water to cover all land, AND rise above it?
Don't ahve to be there THEN to know there's not enough water.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - "where is all the water to cover all land, AND rise above it? Don't ahve to be there THEN to know there's not enough water"
Northern & Southern poles, evaporation and seepage...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ um. water expands when it freezes. that means the ice is taking up more space now than it would as water.
plus, even if you melt the poles, it will be enough to flood some coasts but not all land.. Especially not to cover it in HUNDREDS OF FEET WHICH IT WOULD HAVE TO RISE IN ORDER TO COVER ELEVATED LAND
You're obviously an idiot. I'm done.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - "You're obviously an idiot. I'm done"
Typical that you resort to childish behavior... Was I just talking strictly about the poles? NO, I wasn't but I'll leave it there...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ I'd say evolution, but bible doesn't say that god didn't use evolution.. in fact, it says that man came from the inanimate, which supports abiogenesis, and from there, a god could have used evolution to make man..
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - "I'd say evolution, but bible doesn't say that god didn't use evolution.. in fact, it says that man came from the inanimate, which supports abiogenesis"
No, that would be creation from a trancendent God giving life, not abiogenesis. Not one shred of evidence in a laboratory supports the fallacy of abiogenesis...
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ YES mountains were under water.. they were once below sea level and rose up from impact of tectonic plates. himalayas still rise about 1 cm per year. Evidence is available for all of those things. do the research. But you wn't because you will only acknowledge the word of a fairy tale book written by man. The book says it so you accept it as fact and outright deny anything else..
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC - What will it take to admit you're wrong and there is a God?
812LJ 1 year ago
@812LJ I have no stance on the existence of a god and I never made any such claims whether there was or was not.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@812LJ or the fact that there's not anywhere near enough water to cover the ENTIRE earth, raising sea level 100s of feet.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
Wouldn't the answer or definition of "god" change or differ based on the respective "believers"? A muslim would offer a different description or definition than a hindu would, etc.
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock Sometimes it changes. But for the most part the attempts to explain the god concept are similar--often identical--even though the names of the various gods are different.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH More specifically Prof....A Christian could say that Jesus is God, A Jew could say that God is the creator of all things, while a New Ager could say "I am God." All of these definitions differ pretty signifigantly from one another, so I think the refutations of such definitions would differ accordingly. What do you think?
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock "Christian could say that Jesus is God...."
Well, *most* Christians would. But even the ones who believe Jesus is divine wouldn't say that Jesus is the entirety of what they call "god."
"A Jew could say that God is the creator of all things...."
As do Christians and Muslims. And I explained in this series why "creator," which is a relational attribute, doesn't answer the "what is god" question.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I think I'd have to disagree with your comment on Christians who assert Jesus' divinity. In this viewpoint, Jesus is both fully God and fully human, so he does satisfy the entirety of what they call "god" and personifies it. Moreover, if "god" is unfathomable to the human mind, then this is an unanswerable question. This does not equate to agnosticism, inasmuch as there are distunguishable attributes that each theology would apply to "god", to narrow the definition respectively.
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock "In this viewpoint, Jesus is both fully God and fully human, so he does satisfy the entirety of what they call "god""
What about the Father? And for trinitarian believers in Jesus' divinity, what about the Holy Spirit?
"Moreover, if "god" is unfathomable to the human mind, then this is an unanswerable question. This does not equate to agnosticism...."
Do you know the meaning of 'agnostic'?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Agnosticism: The view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly.
This is the definition that I work off of. It's a broad statement. So even by giving relational attributes and specific characteristics of what I consider "god" to be, especially if they differ from yours, necessarily disqualifies me from the aforementioned definition. Wouldn't it?
hughdiock 1 year ago
@ProfMTH "What about the Father?"
Doesn't Jesus answer this? "I and the Father are one."
"What about the Holy Spirit?"
Wouldn't this qualify as just another relational attribute?
hughdiock 1 year ago
@ProfMTH On a side note, you posted a video response to someone who called you a Jesuit or something to that effect, in which you responded by showing pictures of you in different Jesuit College sweatshirts. Why did you leave out Santa Clara University? I feel shafted!! ;)
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock "Agnosticism: The view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly."
Right. So if, as you've said, "'god' is unfathomable to the human mind" & the question "What is god?" is "unanswerable," we are, by the definition you've given, in the realm of agnositicism, are we not?
"Doesn't Jesus answer this? 'I and the Father are one.'"
Are you a trinitarian?
" Why did you leave out Santa Clara University?"
I probably just ran out of room. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I think an exhaustive definition or comprehension of what "god" is humanly impossible. That is not to say "I don't know anything" about what "god" is. I do apply certain specific characteristics to "god" however which narrow the parameters of my definition. So I think the broad statement "I don't know" is not an accurate appraisal of my belief.
"Are you a trinitarian?"
I am
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock "That is not to say "I don't know anything" about what "god" is."
What do you "know" and how do you "know" it?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH "What do you 'know' and how do you 'know' it?"
LOL.....I may have screwed myself by that wording....but I assume the question is in reference to "god". I know I believe in "god" and I know that because they are my beliefs. ;-p
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock "I know I believe in "god" and I know that because they are my beliefs."
But that's information about you, not about what you call "god." Do you claim to know anything about what you call "god"? If so, how do you know what you claim to know? Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Ultimately Prof I think that EVERYBODY would fit the definition of "agnostic" in one permutation or the other since no one can fully know or understand what "god" is. This goes for atheists and believers alike. That being said, I think it's disingenuous to say someone who holds certain specific attributes or descriptions of "god" is agnostic because their response isn't a blanket "I don't know" statement.
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock "Ultimately Prof I think that EVERYBODY would fit the definition of "agnostic" in one permutation or the other since no one can fully know or understand what "god" is. This goes for atheists and believers alike."
That's what I said in the video. Earlier you disagreed, insisting "[t]his does not equate to agnosticism." But now you're saying what I said.
BTW, my questions. Do you claim to know anything about what you call "god"? If so, how do you know what you claim to know?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I don't think this is completely honest thouhg Prof. In completely finalistic views this may be argued true, but in a realistic sense I don't hink this applies to either of us. Realistically, a believer or theist is someone who believes in a "god"; an atheist is someone who believes there is no "god"; and an agnostic doesn't know if there's a "god". The rest is just clever semantics.
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock So now you've gone from saying "[t]his does not equate to agnosticism" to saying "Ultimately Prof I think that EVERYBODY would fit the definition of 'agnostic'" and back to saying that it's *not* agnosticism. Seems to me you need to take some time to think this through. You *want* to disagree with the video, but you really haven't thought through whether you have a real basis for doing so.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH In all humble honesty Prof, I am more than gratefull for you and your videos because you have driven and encouraged me to study and evaluate my own beliefs much more closely. You are absolutely the real deal and I appreciate that. That being said I can only ask that you continue to show patience and bare with me as I attempt to answer the questions you pose.
hughdiock 1 year ago
@hughdiock "I am more than grateful for you and your videos because you have driven and encouraged me to study and evaluate my own beliefs much more closely."
Excellent!
" I can only ask that you continue to show patience and bare with me as I attempt to answer the questions you pose."
Take all the time you need. These are important, complex questions that merit one's time and thoughtfulness.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@--->---->-----
God = Love. No mystery :) No man in the clouds, no hellfire and brimstone. God is Love, not man-made religion, not fear, not hate, not 'he' not 'she', no devils, the shadows are made by MAN, God is LOVE LOVE LOVE. WE are little pieces of God because God (LOVE) is Everywhere, this means that there is NO WHERE that God is not (including in US) that's my view, love to you and you and you:):):)
michelle
urtheanswer 1 year ago
Part 2 Speaking as an atheist I'd say that, among other things (e.g. a delusion), god is the psychological cop out of those who need something to validate their existence. It's much easier to think you're the centre of the universe and that some all powerful deity is taking care of you than to understand your real place in it and try to do something to improve it. I think the last scene in "Breaker Morant" sums it up rather well.
colourmegone 1 year ago
Part 1 IF I were a believer I'd say: God is outside nature and unknowable, therefore beyond ontology. He is the creator of the universe and has placed every atom in its place. He has sent His prophets/messiahs who work many miracles so that we may have testimony of, and faith in, Him and to make His will known to humanity for whom He made it all. "Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason." Martin Luther, "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out..." Mark 9:47
colourmegone 1 year ago
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Dick, Philip K.
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Love is felt like gravity... Love is reckonized by others from its effects..
And pretty much the simularities end there because love
Is not gravity but the proof of gravity is similar to love
nickmxp 1 year ago
Sorry I wasn't thorough I also deem love as more than a way of behaving..
I think of Emotions and behaviors as consequences of love not vice versa..
Like gravity.. Love is intangible but also a primary coherent description
If I remember your wording correctly...
nickmxp 1 year ago
@nickmxp Love is like gravity? How so?
ProfMTH 1 year ago