i have seen many athiests use the god of the gaps argument. saying that "we now know where lightning comes from, so god doesn't exsist" yes this athiest is in fake an idiot, but no not all athiests are idiots. but athiests do you the "god of the gaps" argument. however I also agree that the god of the gaps argument is flawed beyond all reasoning.
@kradrol You sir, are an idiot. God of the Gaps is something that those who believe in him use. God of the Gaps directly refers to putting god in any thing that science cannot explain, therefore god is filling the gaps. It is not people claiming that because we can naturally explain something, god does not exist. I don't think that knowing where lightning comes from means that god doesn't exist. Nor does any sane person claim that. You're not very bright.
@Ethrock did I say I was claiming that? no. I said I have seen many athiests make that claim; either directly to me, or other theists. but thank you for stating that alot of athiests are insane. next time you should read what I written more carefully, since I clearly stated I don't buy it and think it's a flawed argument.
@kradrol You did say that you claimed that, infact they were your exact words. "I have seen many athiests (misspelled.) use the god of the gaps argument.". God of the gaps is a theist argument.
I tried reading what you wrote clearly, but your sentence structure resulted in a want to be paragraph that made no sense.
Insanity does not come from recognizing stupidity.
@Ethrock after re-reading what I wrote you are correct. my sentence structure, spelling and general typing is horrible. I even transposed certain words when typing them out. I will admit to not proof reading my posts, and that my sentence structure has always been poor; even my english teachers said so. but it's the internet, so who cares. but let me clearify what I was and was not saying.
@Ethrock first off, I am not claiming that the "god of the gaps" argument originated as an atheistic argument. I am simply stating that I have in fact seen atheists use, or perhaps I should say missues, said argument. many atheists have said something to effect of "since we now have natural explanations for those accurences we no long need to god to explain them" that is god of the gaps. they are simply taking god out of gaps, rather then putting him in them.
@kradrol The confusion then comes from your mislabeling of the statement you are making. That is a generally naturalist argument, and is not at all the "God of the Gaps" argument. the God of the Gaps argument applies specifically to the application of god in areas where knowledge is lacking. The removal of god via natural explanation is naturalism.
also: the proposition that the science will one day explain everything is presumptuous. using an unproven future to argue against a purported "fallacy" is patently fallacious -- it's just a matter of faith!
Nevertheless, whether or not science will one day explain everything has no bearing on deciding whether God exists. science and religion are not diametrically opposed, but are orthogonal !.
@Heissenburger I never stated that they are opposed, and have many times stated that religion and science have the capability to co-exist. Also, I haven't stated that science will one day know and prove everything, just that sciences knowledge is expanding and we are seeing a general trend wherein religion fills in the knowledge gaps that we have, as an attempt to explain things rather than seeking an explanation through real means. Both of which are observable occurances. The fact isn't that
@Ethrock having an explanation prevents search for alternative explanations, the issue is that religious people who utilize this tool attempt to have an explanation rather than seek an explanation.
@Ethrock if you have an explanation, it only means you have peeled off one layer of the mystery. that does not preclude any atheist or theist from seeking deeper layers of explanation. it's presumptuous to assert that all people belonging to a certain group don't probe deeper. it might happen that one day, when mankind has peeled to the ultimate layer, atheists, pantheists, theists ... etc unite!
@Heissenburger Again, you have mistaken and misquoted my argument. I am not saying that all Christians or all Creationists stop searching at this point. My statement was that people who turn to the God of the Gaps explanation -instead- of seeking a further possible explanation are the issue here, as they are relying on a predetermined explanation to these things rather than seeking an explanation.
@Heissenburger I have no need to, that is why. I'm not singling out a group, I made a selection of a group to discuss. If I discuss politics I don't need to talk about every political group 'to be fair' I can discuss the flaws of one particular group. The same is true in this condition. While I agree other people can utilize this ignorant ideal set for other purposes, I chose to discuss religious people, and utilized Christians and Creationists who use God of the Gaps as a anecdotal tool
@Ethrock hmmm ... You are not "singling out" a group, but you made "a selection" of a group. i see. you are just as self-deceived as those you criticise. OK, then -- goodbye and good luck. i'll spam-filter your emails.
@Heissenburger You're an idiot sir. You assume that by select I'm referring to the same thing as single out. I'm not, the difference being I recognize the existence of several groups who do this, however I selected a group to discuss while making it clear this was not the only group. If you think those are the same things, you're about as intelligent as a pet rock.
both those against "God of the Gaps" argument and those against "Nature of the Gaps" argument are just arguing from their own dogmatic positions. These are not logical fallacies, rather just restatements of their positions.
re [4:00] why should any explanation preclude any deeper explanation?
You're clearly much more educated than myself, as you are intellectual enough to use shorthands such as ur and are unable to spell microphone, a rather simple word. Well done good sir, you're a damn fool. Come up with a real argument, then come back.
I know what you mean. I find it strange why religious people would want to devaleu their own gods..just to make it fit in a small hole that will be filled one day with what really is anyway.
Btw, I think morality is pragmatic and contextual. I guess you could take it as a middle road between subjectivism and absolutism morality. So when you talk about killing other people it is highly contextual imo.
I believe morality can only be morality if it serves a purpose even if that means there will be an immidiate gain for you or not a gain at all. I didn't mean pragmatic as in I will receive this amount of happiness or brownie points if I do a morally good action right now. I think there are "absolute" principles based on the nature of humanity that apply differently based on the circumstances.
4 stars for knowledge. You lost one for generally lacking charisma. No offense against your personality, reading off a monitor just does not bring out the best in people. Try it without the script, it makes you that much more convincing.
I intend to. I made a video a while back wherein I briefly explained the requirements to be met for something to be a Hovindian Logical Fallacy. This wasn't one of course, but it was the closest fallacy I could think of.
Thats a well disciplined and methodical disassembly.
I read somewhere that there are 34,000 gods on record and its not exactly all of those were sungods :) Hinduism claims that there are 300 million gods alone.
I guess that just goes to show that you can't tell anything about the reality of the original by looking at impersonators. So why do atheists keep bringing up the number of impersonator Gods, as if that indicated anything?
"How do you know it is not? How do you know there is? Do you have any proof?"
There isn't proof either way. My point was that the existence of copycats doesn't invalidate an original or make him any less likely. Even those worshipping a sun god may just pick it because they are aware there is a god, but don't have a lot of details about him, so pick the most powerful thing they see in the sky to represent him.
Or they could pick it because they don't understand the natural process of the sun and believe that it is itself a mystical being. However, the original comment was not intended to say that copycats invalidate the original. His statement was to help clarify for me the part of the video wherein I stated I was not sure how many sun gods had been worshiped throughout history. He told me a general number. You misconstrued it and it became the argument you desired when you made a baseless claim.
"How do you know it is myth? How do you know there isn't an original real God that all the others are mimicking? Do you have any proof?"
1) the same way we know unicorns, fairies, leprechauns etc are myths=there is no evidence for any of them.
2) the same reason how all kinds of fictional stories copy cat off of eachother.
3) yes, the gods are nowhere to be found. it's as if they do not exist. that is proof enough, and when new evidence is presented suggesting the opposite, then it does.
Your own lack of evidence is not proof. That is just basic logic. If someone was raised in a small jail cell their whole life would you say they had proved that there were no oceans, no sun, no trees, just because they had no evidence for them? Of course not. Lack of evidence is never proof of anything.
-What? If there isn't any evidence to support whatever claim, it is automatically concluded that the claim is false. This is how science and our justice systems work.
"If there isn't any evidence to support whatever claim, it is automatically concluded that the claim is false"
That's exactly my point, thanks for restating exactly what I said. If someone makes a claim and and presents no evidence at all, they have not proved the point. As I said, lack of evidence is never proof of anything. A claim can fail to be proven for lack of evidence, but an affirmitive claim can never be proven by asserting a lack of evidence.
However the point is that a lack of evidence for something suggest the falseness of the claim. It does not guarantee or prove it as these are not the premises science works upon. There is a lack of evidence for god. Logically a claim is false until proven true (innoecent until proven guilty) and you are assuming the opposite logical standpoint.
"Logically a claim is false until proven true (innocent until proven guilty)"
Logically, rather than false, a claim is unproven until proven true. That is exactly what I am saying. If you make a claim, but have no evidence at all, you have not proven anything. Lack of evidence is never proof of anything.
I would note that no one is declared innocent at a criminal trial. The verdicts are guilty (guilt proven) and not guilty (guilt not proven). Not guilty does not equal innocent.
Assumptions are false until evidence can be provided. There is vast evidence to support not assuming a gods existence, the only reason for the assumption to be made is blind faith. This fails logically and is determinable to be not logical.
Assumptions are false until evidence can be provided"
No. Assumptions are unproven until evidence can be provided. Not false. This is basic logic. Because there is a huge difference between being unproven and being proven false. I will give an example below.
Say we know from unimpeachable sources that a boxing match was fought on a certain day in 1900 between Boxer A and Boxer B. We know how many rounds it went and that there was a winner. But we have no evidence at all as to which boxer won. So I make the claim that Boxer A was the winner, but then admit I have no evidence at all. That admission means my claim is unproven. The claim isn't proven false, because that would mean Boxer B won. We have no evidence at all that Boxer B won the match.
"Your premise is predicated upon the presumption that what man claims is "logical" is in point of fact absolutely "logical"
Well that is a completely different subject. You can present all the evidence you want about why any particular point is illogical, but that is a different topic. I just want Ethrock to understand the point that in the abstract, a lack of evidence makes a claim unproven, not false. Because it is a basic matter of logic to understand that.
"...in the abstract, a lack of evidence makes a claim unproven, not false." Good point!
I agree. But my point, which you quoted, is also on target. And is not "a completely different subject". One cannot define or "prove" God by science for the simple reason that God is infinite. Science, wonderful as it is, operates on logic.....which is by definition finite, as we are finite beings who devise & use it.
It's not just the infinite part. Theists seem to keep adding impossible attributes and characteristics to their gods, such as immaterialistism, and it only reveals itself to people of "true" faith, etc. It is the typical "invisible friend" argument.
I have evidence that this omnipresent god doesn't exist. Call it personal evidence if you will. But if it were omnipresent and infinite in power and life at the same time, it would make sense that everyone would actually know it exists because it's presense couldn't be avoided.
"it would make sense that everyone would actually know it exists because it's presense couldn't be avoided."
If it is infinite in knowledge and power, and it didn't want that, by definition it could make you avoid notice of it. You are assuming your senses are infallible. they are just chemical signals that any god-like chemist could easily mess with.
"If it is infinite in knowledge and power, and it didn't want that, by definition it could make you avoid notice of it."
-If this is true, then it is no better than nonexisting.
"You are assuming your senses are infallible. they are just chemical signals that any god-like chemist could easily mess with."
-Just as how theists assume it does exist without notice of its existence. It is a rediculous argument to say something exists, and then say there is no way to prove or disprove it.
"One cannot define or "prove" God by science for the simple reason that God is infinite"
I agree that we have not and cannot prove God by science. I am not sure the best or only reason that we cannot do so is because he is infinite, though that certainly adds to the difficulty. To me his ability to go outside of time and space, where we can't go is the biggest problem. Maybe that's what you mean by infinite.
"I agree that we have not and cannot prove God by science. I am not sure the best or only reason that we cannot do so is because he is infinite, though that certainly adds to the difficulty. To me his ability to go outside of time and space, where we can't go is the biggest problem. Maybe that's what you mean by infinite."
-If there is no way to prove or disprove it by human tests and that it is incomprehensible at the same time, then why do you believe it to be true in the first place?
That is part of what I mean. Infinite = not bound by time/space/dimension, uncreated, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient. The best that man's logic, understood as "science", can do is to describe perceived attributes of God, but not His totality. Neither can science, which uses the finite, disprove the existance of the infinite.
It is quite another thing to disbelieve or choose to ignore God. One is free to do so.
Another way to test the existence of these deities, is that if believers say they can communicate with them, then we can ask certain questions that only these gods would be able to know. And see what the results are. Or, just for fun, see if this god or gods would be so kind and participate in an activity of some kind. Any of these, would be pretty remarkable. But like I said, if it refuses to do these (of the believer refuses), then this god is the equivelant of being nonexistent.
"It is written: 'thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test'".
- Jesus to Satan
The interpretations vary from the word "tempt" to the word "test". So it is not entirely clear what is meant or if it was a universal meaning, not just a response to the devil. But, instead of relying on the bible as the ONLY source of answers, why not ask this god directly if we can test him?
You know the answers to your questions. You are also playing at words.......
But for those who are curious, the answers are in the Gospels, and quite plain. Part of it is contained in the "why" Jesus refused to heal certain persons or perform miracles in certain places.
The Devil knows better then most theologians "what is written".......
"But for those who are curious, the answers are in the Gospels, and quite plain. Part of it is contained in the "why" Jesus refused to heal certain persons or perform miracles in certain places."
-Better answers would be answered by this god directly that is supposedly existing now, NOT the bible. If you can communicate with it, then do so and get answers that way. Instead of reverting to the bible or any other holy book.If he doesn't answer back,then why believe he exists in the first place?
Ethrock questions with sincerity; you do not. I do not believe in Buddism, but I was intellectually honest enough to study it with an objective & open mind. You do not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God; yet neither will you be objective enough to find said answers therein.
Communication with God is easy & free: prayer. Not just formal, but with sincerity from the heart. One way or the other, all prayer is answered.
Sorry to disappoint you 19, I am trying to be as sincere as I can. But it is your opinion of how I am coming across. I am merely questioning things as well as stating things that would pose as some kind of compelling evidence of a god. If you don't think so, then great, that is your opinion as well.
Prayer is the only way of communication with god? And prayer consists 99% of "wants" from believers. So that doesn't sound like an accurate way of "communicating" with some supernatural god.
Most ppl have no clue what prayer is, which is the fault of organized religion. If prayer consisted of "wants", then it is not prayer. God is not Santa Claus.
Prayer = uniting with God's will. It is 2 way communication as well. God will not give you $1 million cause u want it, as it would likely be bad for you. BUT - he might let you have it, that you might learn a lesson.
If prayer is not made of only wants, then what exactly is it made of? Last time I checked, prayers are from people who beg god to do something for them or the world. Now, if I saw and heard beleivers having constant conversations with their gods, I would be amazed. That would be evident in some way that they were actually conversing with someone, or some deity....maybe.
If you have a sound relationship with a parent, you ask them for what you need, and they give it to you. If you demand or whine & plead, this is not a sound, mature relationship - nor honest. As you are trying to get what you want by manipulation. All of this applies to prayer. Ppl have such conversations with God all the time; and His response is normally unspoken, but obvious to those with eyes to see & ears to hear. If in words, it is spoken through other humans, unwittingly.
And yet such effects were never seen in my life. This is only a small portion however of why I came to the conclusion that if there is a deity or deities, he, she or they are useless.
I will respond via PM (when I have time). But, fair enough for the moment, and your experience is not out of the ordinary.
But (a quick note) your use of "he, she, or they" is more astute then you may realize. 1st because it is a "they" (Trinity)& 2nd because God is observed by some to be both "mother AND father"....sometimes more maternal! I only use "He" as it is the most common reference.
"Ppl have such conversations with God all the time; and His response is normally unspoken, but obvious to those with eyes to see & ears to hear. If in words, it is spoken through other humans, unwittingly."
-How is it obvious to you guys? I've heard believers say different things of what god is, wants, says, etc all the time. So it doesn't sound so obvious to me.
"I picked something you could relate to. Your mind couldn't comprehend the real me, so this is easier for you..."
If there is real communication, the answers will be as obvious as you are capable of detecting. But in what you quoted of me - that is the easiest way to explain it. But He wont appear in your bathroom as George Burns:)
ME="If there isn't any evidence to support whatever claim, it is automatically concluded that the claim is false"
Lilly="That's exactly my point, thanks for restating exactly what I said. If someone makes a claim and and presents no evidence at all, they have not proved the point............"
-Concluding that theistic claims are false. No evidence=false claim.
That is just basic logic. If someone was raised in a small jail cell their whole life would you say they had proved that there were no unicorns, no elves, no cyclops, etc just because they had no evidence for them?
Actually his statement was going to show that there are a lot of sun gods. Something mentioned in my video as an 'I'm not sure'. Pay attention before you lash out.
I have never heard of the "God of the gaps" term; though I have heard that bizarre explanation before. Agreed - it it feeble, at best! It would tend to make God less then omnipotent; as he would have to be involved in nature.
Any sun deity, Egyptian or otherwise, is understood to actually be satan. Of course that is divorced from any conception of God being behind the operation of the Sun or any heavenly body.
btw...idk what they call it in debate terms...but in war strategies its called a false flag attack :)
Deeredman4 2 months ago
what did you say? lol a hovindium logical fallacy? lol what is that?
Deeredman4 2 months ago
kmon sing to us ! :))
DienesOly 9 months ago
Options 3,4 or5 never occurs to them.
panterguy 1 year ago
i have seen many athiests use the god of the gaps argument. saying that "we now know where lightning comes from, so god doesn't exsist" yes this athiest is in fake an idiot, but no not all athiests are idiots. but athiests do you the "god of the gaps" argument. however I also agree that the god of the gaps argument is flawed beyond all reasoning.
kradrol 1 year ago
@kradrol You sir, are an idiot. God of the Gaps is something that those who believe in him use. God of the Gaps directly refers to putting god in any thing that science cannot explain, therefore god is filling the gaps. It is not people claiming that because we can naturally explain something, god does not exist. I don't think that knowing where lightning comes from means that god doesn't exist. Nor does any sane person claim that. You're not very bright.
Ethrock 1 year ago
@Ethrock did I say I was claiming that? no. I said I have seen many athiests make that claim; either directly to me, or other theists. but thank you for stating that alot of athiests are insane. next time you should read what I written more carefully, since I clearly stated I don't buy it and think it's a flawed argument.
kradrol 1 year ago
@kradrol You did say that you claimed that, infact they were your exact words. "I have seen many athiests (misspelled.) use the god of the gaps argument.". God of the gaps is a theist argument.
I tried reading what you wrote clearly, but your sentence structure resulted in a want to be paragraph that made no sense.
Insanity does not come from recognizing stupidity.
Ethrock 1 year ago
@Ethrock after re-reading what I wrote you are correct. my sentence structure, spelling and general typing is horrible. I even transposed certain words when typing them out. I will admit to not proof reading my posts, and that my sentence structure has always been poor; even my english teachers said so. but it's the internet, so who cares. but let me clearify what I was and was not saying.
kradrol 1 year ago
@Ethrock first off, I am not claiming that the "god of the gaps" argument originated as an atheistic argument. I am simply stating that I have in fact seen atheists use, or perhaps I should say missues, said argument. many atheists have said something to effect of "since we now have natural explanations for those accurences we no long need to god to explain them" that is god of the gaps. they are simply taking god out of gaps, rather then putting him in them.
kradrol 1 year ago
@kradrol The confusion then comes from your mislabeling of the statement you are making. That is a generally naturalist argument, and is not at all the "God of the Gaps" argument. the God of the Gaps argument applies specifically to the application of god in areas where knowledge is lacking. The removal of god via natural explanation is naturalism.
Ethrock 1 year ago
@Ethrock i'm just calling it what they were calling it.
kradrol 1 year ago
@kradrol That's not what it's called though. So using that term to describe naturalism is inaccurate and clearly can be the cause of confusion.
Ethrock 1 year ago
@Ethrock yes. I agree.
kradrol 1 year ago
also: the proposition that the science will one day explain everything is presumptuous. using an unproven future to argue against a purported "fallacy" is patently fallacious -- it's just a matter of faith!
Nevertheless, whether or not science will one day explain everything has no bearing on deciding whether God exists. science and religion are not diametrically opposed, but are orthogonal !.
Heissenburger 1 year ago
@Heissenburger I never stated that they are opposed, and have many times stated that religion and science have the capability to co-exist. Also, I haven't stated that science will one day know and prove everything, just that sciences knowledge is expanding and we are seeing a general trend wherein religion fills in the knowledge gaps that we have, as an attempt to explain things rather than seeking an explanation through real means. Both of which are observable occurances. The fact isn't that
Ethrock 1 year ago
@Ethrock having an explanation prevents search for alternative explanations, the issue is that religious people who utilize this tool attempt to have an explanation rather than seek an explanation.
Ethrock 1 year ago
@Ethrock if you have an explanation, it only means you have peeled off one layer of the mystery. that does not preclude any atheist or theist from seeking deeper layers of explanation. it's presumptuous to assert that all people belonging to a certain group don't probe deeper. it might happen that one day, when mankind has peeled to the ultimate layer, atheists, pantheists, theists ... etc unite!
Heissenburger 1 year ago
@Heissenburger Again, you have mistaken and misquoted my argument. I am not saying that all Christians or all Creationists stop searching at this point. My statement was that people who turn to the God of the Gaps explanation -instead- of seeking a further possible explanation are the issue here, as they are relying on a predetermined explanation to these things rather than seeking an explanation.
Stop taking my statements out of context.
Ethrock 1 year ago
@Ethrock Why should you single out any group then? why not attack those who use "nature of the gaps" arguments also, to be fair?
Heissenburger 1 year ago
@Heissenburger I have no need to, that is why. I'm not singling out a group, I made a selection of a group to discuss. If I discuss politics I don't need to talk about every political group 'to be fair' I can discuss the flaws of one particular group. The same is true in this condition. While I agree other people can utilize this ignorant ideal set for other purposes, I chose to discuss religious people, and utilized Christians and Creationists who use God of the Gaps as a anecdotal tool
Ethrock 1 year ago
@Ethrock hmmm ... You are not "singling out" a group, but you made "a selection" of a group. i see. you are just as self-deceived as those you criticise. OK, then -- goodbye and good luck. i'll spam-filter your emails.
Heissenburger 1 year ago
@Heissenburger You're an idiot sir. You assume that by select I'm referring to the same thing as single out. I'm not, the difference being I recognize the existence of several groups who do this, however I selected a group to discuss while making it clear this was not the only group. If you think those are the same things, you're about as intelligent as a pet rock.
Ethrock 1 year ago
both those against "God of the Gaps" argument and those against "Nature of the Gaps" argument are just arguing from their own dogmatic positions. These are not logical fallacies, rather just restatements of their positions.
re [4:00] why should any explanation preclude any deeper explanation?
Heissenburger 1 year ago
Using the arrogant attack you used on somebody who is an idiot, makes you an equivalent idiot, not better.
Ethrock 2 years ago
You're clearly much more educated than myself, as you are intellectual enough to use shorthands such as ur and are unable to spell microphone, a rather simple word. Well done good sir, you're a damn fool. Come up with a real argument, then come back.
Ethrock 2 years ago
For the Egyptians the sun was a material manifestation of god.They believed in one hidden creator god which manifested itself as many ''sub-gods''.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
God of the gaps is even very disrespectful to the religion. If a god can be defined..you just did something terrible.
masticina 2 years ago
You sir/ma'am are an idiot. 'God of the Gaps' refers to the argument itself, not the deity.
Ethrock 2 years ago
Oh I fully understand that..I was just pointing out how strange it looks .
masticina 2 years ago
It doesn't though. Infact it's a very common argument and the terminology 'God of the gaps' is a very common phrase.
Ethrock 2 years ago
I know what you mean. I find it strange why religious people would want to devaleu their own gods..just to make it fit in a small hole that will be filled one day with what really is anyway.
Do these people think their god is putty?
masticina 2 years ago
You made a great job I think ! congrats
synsei1 2 years ago
Great video, and you're a nice guy.
dilemmix 3 years ago
Thanks.
Ethrock 3 years ago
I like your video, but you seem to be either tired or stressed out when you present videos. Did you just get out of bed?
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
In this one yes (PS I apologize if I appeared hostile in response to your comments on my Moral Dilemma video, I wasn't intending to be.)
Ethrock 3 years ago
Oh no problem. As long as someone is willing to present arguments I don't care if it gets heated.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
Btw, I think morality is pragmatic and contextual. I guess you could take it as a middle road between subjectivism and absolutism morality. So when you talk about killing other people it is highly contextual imo.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
I believe morality can only be morality if it serves a purpose even if that means there will be an immidiate gain for you or not a gain at all. I didn't mean pragmatic as in I will receive this amount of happiness or brownie points if I do a morally good action right now. I think there are "absolute" principles based on the nature of humanity that apply differently based on the circumstances.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
Oh, hilarity!
breathilizer 3 years ago
4 stars for knowledge. You lost one for generally lacking charisma. No offense against your personality, reading off a monitor just does not bring out the best in people. Try it without the script, it makes you that much more convincing.
pentsauce 3 years ago
This as with most of my videos was done with a pseudo script. AKA, jot notes.
Ethrock 3 years ago
I understand, doing whatever you can for quality information is more important than anything.
pentsauce 3 years ago
When I do a video purely off script I try to make a habit of noting that.
Ethrock 3 years ago
Well said.
AnarchyInYourHead 3 years ago
I'm not sure if being an ignorant idiot is really a type of fallacy, but that's what I'd call it.
aleceth 3 years ago
funny......I never perceived you as a headbanger:)
19lfm12 3 years ago
What do you think these luscious locks of hair are for? lol.
Ethrock 3 years ago
Hahahahahaha!!!!
....then again, be careful. Cats are sneaky.....you kitteh might braid you some dreds mon, as you be sleepin.....
:p
19lfm12 3 years ago
"Hovindian Logical Fallacy"
I like it. You should use it moar.
brandonbdx 3 years ago
I intend to. I made a video a while back wherein I briefly explained the requirements to be met for something to be a Hovindian Logical Fallacy. This wasn't one of course, but it was the closest fallacy I could think of.
Ethrock 3 years ago
lets put it all into perspective....
the only reason why people still believe god did anything is simply because...
science is classed as "wrong until proven right"
and religion takes the stance of
"right until proven wrong"
jassi4010709 3 years ago
Thats a well disciplined and methodical disassembly.
I read somewhere that there are 34,000 gods on record and its not exactly all of those were sungods :) Hinduism claims that there are 300 million gods alone.
CognosSquare 3 years ago
"I read somewhere that there are 34,000 gods on record"
I read somewhere that there are 34,000 Elvis impersonators on record. Does that mean there wasn't a real Elvis?
74BobLilly 3 years ago
"I read somewhere that there are 34,000 Elvis impersonators on record. Does that mean there wasn't a real Elvis?"
-I read somewhere that there are 34,000 spiderman impersonators on record. Does that mean there wasn't a real spiderman?
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
I guess that just goes to show that you can't tell anything about the reality of the original by looking at impersonators. So why do atheists keep bringing up the number of impersonator Gods, as if that indicated anything?
74BobLilly 3 years ago
It shows that the human species will worship and believe in myth without any proof at all.
CognosSquare 3 years ago
It shows that the human species will worship and believe in myth without any proof at all."
How do you know it is myth? How do you know there isn't an original real God that all the others are mimicking? Do you have any proof?
74BobLilly 3 years ago
How do you know it is not? How do you know there is? Do you have any proof?
Ethrock 3 years ago
"How do you know it is not? How do you know there is? Do you have any proof?"
There isn't proof either way. My point was that the existence of copycats doesn't invalidate an original or make him any less likely. Even those worshipping a sun god may just pick it because they are aware there is a god, but don't have a lot of details about him, so pick the most powerful thing they see in the sky to represent him.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
Or they could pick it because they don't understand the natural process of the sun and believe that it is itself a mystical being. However, the original comment was not intended to say that copycats invalidate the original. His statement was to help clarify for me the part of the video wherein I stated I was not sure how many sun gods had been worshiped throughout history. He told me a general number. You misconstrued it and it became the argument you desired when you made a baseless claim.
Ethrock 3 years ago
"How do you know it is myth? How do you know there isn't an original real God that all the others are mimicking? Do you have any proof?"
1) the same way we know unicorns, fairies, leprechauns etc are myths=there is no evidence for any of them.
2) the same reason how all kinds of fictional stories copy cat off of eachother.
3) yes, the gods are nowhere to be found. it's as if they do not exist. that is proof enough, and when new evidence is presented suggesting the opposite, then it does.
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
Your own lack of evidence is not proof. That is just basic logic. If someone was raised in a small jail cell their whole life would you say they had proved that there were no oceans, no sun, no trees, just because they had no evidence for them? Of course not. Lack of evidence is never proof of anything.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
"Lack of evidence is never proof of anything."
-What? If there isn't any evidence to support whatever claim, it is automatically concluded that the claim is false. This is how science and our justice systems work.
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
"If there isn't any evidence to support whatever claim, it is automatically concluded that the claim is false"
That's exactly my point, thanks for restating exactly what I said. If someone makes a claim and and presents no evidence at all, they have not proved the point. As I said, lack of evidence is never proof of anything. A claim can fail to be proven for lack of evidence, but an affirmitive claim can never be proven by asserting a lack of evidence.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
However the point is that a lack of evidence for something suggest the falseness of the claim. It does not guarantee or prove it as these are not the premises science works upon. There is a lack of evidence for god. Logically a claim is false until proven true (innoecent until proven guilty) and you are assuming the opposite logical standpoint.
Ethrock 3 years ago
"Logically a claim is false until proven true (innocent until proven guilty)"
Logically, rather than false, a claim is unproven until proven true. That is exactly what I am saying. If you make a claim, but have no evidence at all, you have not proven anything. Lack of evidence is never proof of anything.
I would note that no one is declared innocent at a criminal trial. The verdicts are guilty (guilt proven) and not guilty (guilt not proven). Not guilty does not equal innocent.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
Assumptions are false until evidence can be provided. There is vast evidence to support not assuming a gods existence, the only reason for the assumption to be made is blind faith. This fails logically and is determinable to be not logical.
Ethrock 3 years ago
Assumptions are false until evidence can be provided"
No. Assumptions are unproven until evidence can be provided. Not false. This is basic logic. Because there is a huge difference between being unproven and being proven false. I will give an example below.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
Say we know from unimpeachable sources that a boxing match was fought on a certain day in 1900 between Boxer A and Boxer B. We know how many rounds it went and that there was a winner. But we have no evidence at all as to which boxer won. So I make the claim that Boxer A was the winner, but then admit I have no evidence at all. That admission means my claim is unproven. The claim isn't proven false, because that would mean Boxer B won. We have no evidence at all that Boxer B won the match.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
Your premise is predicated upon the presumption that what man claims is "logical" is in point of fact absolutely "logical".
That is so wrong on so many levels, that there is not enough bandwidth to describe it.....
19lfm12 3 years ago
"Your premise is predicated upon the presumption that what man claims is "logical" is in point of fact absolutely "logical"
Well that is a completely different subject. You can present all the evidence you want about why any particular point is illogical, but that is a different topic. I just want Ethrock to understand the point that in the abstract, a lack of evidence makes a claim unproven, not false. Because it is a basic matter of logic to understand that.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
"...in the abstract, a lack of evidence makes a claim unproven, not false." Good point!
I agree. But my point, which you quoted, is also on target. And is not "a completely different subject". One cannot define or "prove" God by science for the simple reason that God is infinite. Science, wonderful as it is, operates on logic.....which is by definition finite, as we are finite beings who devise & use it.
19lfm12 3 years ago
It's not just the infinite part. Theists seem to keep adding impossible attributes and characteristics to their gods, such as immaterialistism, and it only reveals itself to people of "true" faith, etc. It is the typical "invisible friend" argument.
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
typo, immaterialism not immaterialistism
I have evidence that this omnipresent god doesn't exist. Call it personal evidence if you will. But if it were omnipresent and infinite in power and life at the same time, it would make sense that everyone would actually know it exists because it's presense couldn't be avoided.
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
"it would make sense that everyone would actually know it exists because it's presense couldn't be avoided."
If it is infinite in knowledge and power, and it didn't want that, by definition it could make you avoid notice of it. You are assuming your senses are infallible. they are just chemical signals that any god-like chemist could easily mess with.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
"If it is infinite in knowledge and power, and it didn't want that, by definition it could make you avoid notice of it."
-If this is true, then it is no better than nonexisting.
"You are assuming your senses are infallible. they are just chemical signals that any god-like chemist could easily mess with."
-Just as how theists assume it does exist without notice of its existence. It is a rediculous argument to say something exists, and then say there is no way to prove or disprove it.
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
"One cannot define or "prove" God by science for the simple reason that God is infinite"
I agree that we have not and cannot prove God by science. I am not sure the best or only reason that we cannot do so is because he is infinite, though that certainly adds to the difficulty. To me his ability to go outside of time and space, where we can't go is the biggest problem. Maybe that's what you mean by infinite.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
"I agree that we have not and cannot prove God by science. I am not sure the best or only reason that we cannot do so is because he is infinite, though that certainly adds to the difficulty. To me his ability to go outside of time and space, where we can't go is the biggest problem. Maybe that's what you mean by infinite."
-If there is no way to prove or disprove it by human tests and that it is incomprehensible at the same time, then why do you believe it to be true in the first place?
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
That is part of what I mean. Infinite = not bound by time/space/dimension, uncreated, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient. The best that man's logic, understood as "science", can do is to describe perceived attributes of God, but not His totality. Neither can science, which uses the finite, disprove the existance of the infinite.
It is quite another thing to disbelieve or choose to ignore God. One is free to do so.
19lfm12 3 years ago
Another way to test the existence of these deities, is that if believers say they can communicate with them, then we can ask certain questions that only these gods would be able to know. And see what the results are. Or, just for fun, see if this god or gods would be so kind and participate in an activity of some kind. Any of these, would be pretty remarkable. But like I said, if it refuses to do these (of the believer refuses), then this god is the equivelant of being nonexistent.
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
"It is written: 'thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test'". - Jesus to Satan
19lfm12 3 years ago
"It is written: 'thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test'".
- Jesus to Satan
The interpretations vary from the word "tempt" to the word "test". So it is not entirely clear what is meant or if it was a universal meaning, not just a response to the devil. But, instead of relying on the bible as the ONLY source of answers, why not ask this god directly if we can test him?
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
You know the answers to your questions. You are also playing at words.......
But for those who are curious, the answers are in the Gospels, and quite plain. Part of it is contained in the "why" Jesus refused to heal certain persons or perform miracles in certain places.
The Devil knows better then most theologians "what is written".......
19lfm12 3 years ago
"But for those who are curious, the answers are in the Gospels, and quite plain. Part of it is contained in the "why" Jesus refused to heal certain persons or perform miracles in certain places."
-Better answers would be answered by this god directly that is supposedly existing now, NOT the bible. If you can communicate with it, then do so and get answers that way. Instead of reverting to the bible or any other holy book.If he doesn't answer back,then why believe he exists in the first place?
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
Ethrock questions with sincerity; you do not. I do not believe in Buddism, but I was intellectually honest enough to study it with an objective & open mind. You do not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God; yet neither will you be objective enough to find said answers therein.
Communication with God is easy & free: prayer. Not just formal, but with sincerity from the heart. One way or the other, all prayer is answered.
19lfm12 3 years ago
Sorry to disappoint you 19, I am trying to be as sincere as I can. But it is your opinion of how I am coming across. I am merely questioning things as well as stating things that would pose as some kind of compelling evidence of a god. If you don't think so, then great, that is your opinion as well.
Prayer is the only way of communication with god? And prayer consists 99% of "wants" from believers. So that doesn't sound like an accurate way of "communicating" with some supernatural god.
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
Most ppl have no clue what prayer is, which is the fault of organized religion. If prayer consisted of "wants", then it is not prayer. God is not Santa Claus.
Prayer = uniting with God's will. It is 2 way communication as well. God will not give you $1 million cause u want it, as it would likely be bad for you. BUT - he might let you have it, that you might learn a lesson.
A good & wise parent does the same with a child.
19lfm12 3 years ago
If prayer is not made of only wants, then what exactly is it made of? Last time I checked, prayers are from people who beg god to do something for them or the world. Now, if I saw and heard beleivers having constant conversations with their gods, I would be amazed. That would be evident in some way that they were actually conversing with someone, or some deity....maybe.
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
If you have a sound relationship with a parent, you ask them for what you need, and they give it to you. If you demand or whine & plead, this is not a sound, mature relationship - nor honest. As you are trying to get what you want by manipulation. All of this applies to prayer. Ppl have such conversations with God all the time; and His response is normally unspoken, but obvious to those with eyes to see & ears to hear. If in words, it is spoken through other humans, unwittingly.
19lfm12 3 years ago
And yet such effects were never seen in my life. This is only a small portion however of why I came to the conclusion that if there is a deity or deities, he, she or they are useless.
Ethrock 3 years ago
I will respond via PM (when I have time). But, fair enough for the moment, and your experience is not out of the ordinary.
But (a quick note) your use of "he, she, or they" is more astute then you may realize. 1st because it is a "they" (Trinity)& 2nd because God is observed by some to be both "mother AND father"....sometimes more maternal! I only use "He" as it is the most common reference.
19lfm12 3 years ago
"Ppl have such conversations with God all the time; and His response is normally unspoken, but obvious to those with eyes to see & ears to hear. If in words, it is spoken through other humans, unwittingly."
-How is it obvious to you guys? I've heard believers say different things of what god is, wants, says, etc all the time. So it doesn't sound so obvious to me.
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
Ever see the movie "Oh God" with George Burns?
When asked why he looks like an old man:
"I picked something you could relate to. Your mind couldn't comprehend the real me, so this is easier for you..."
If there is real communication, the answers will be as obvious as you are capable of detecting. But in what you quoted of me - that is the easiest way to explain it. But He wont appear in your bathroom as George Burns:)
19lfm12 3 years ago
"....the answers will be as obvious as you are capable of detecting."
-How do you know they are answers, what you are experiencing (whatever that may be)? Can you give an example?
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
ME="If there isn't any evidence to support whatever claim, it is automatically concluded that the claim is false"
Lilly="That's exactly my point, thanks for restating exactly what I said. If someone makes a claim and and presents no evidence at all, they have not proved the point............"
-Concluding that theistic claims are false. No evidence=false claim.
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
That is just basic logic. If someone was raised in a small jail cell their whole life would you say they had proved that there were no unicorns, no elves, no cyclops, etc just because they had no evidence for them?
Hollenthon2468 3 years ago
Actually his statement was going to show that there are a lot of sun gods. Something mentioned in my video as an 'I'm not sure'. Pay attention before you lash out.
Ethrock 3 years ago
You cracked me up in the beginning. :'D
AceyBlade 3 years ago
Too true.
supajasiu 3 years ago
I have never heard of the "God of the gaps" term; though I have heard that bizarre explanation before. Agreed - it it feeble, at best! It would tend to make God less then omnipotent; as he would have to be involved in nature.
Any sun deity, Egyptian or otherwise, is understood to actually be satan. Of course that is divorced from any conception of God being behind the operation of the Sun or any heavenly body.
19lfm12 3 years ago
*thumbs up*
DblOSmith 3 years ago