Have you ever heard of the term "assuming"? Ignorance has hold of you child. You have out-dated beliefs and that.. my very unfortunate friend, can be proven with statistics. Its only a matter of time, just like the many religions before it that failed to comfort even the most close-minded people before us. Don't reply if you can't understand, because this is merely a heads up and should be taken as advice.
@mbehringers What is up with every last atheist it seems making comments that would put them in the ranks with the mentally deficient? Giving rhetorical questions followed by claims (with poor grammar and wrong words selected) that are not backed up is again, quite typical of the mind disease of the most ignorant and out dated religion of all time (Atheism). I have shown how and why atheists are just as dogmatic in their worldview as the most staunch Christian. Another troll bites the dust..
@YahxThatxOnexGuy I was raised like an atheist. You call me a hypocrite, yet don't explain how/why (typical atheist egg head rhetoric). I embrace the truth, but you have to ask yourself about your ultimate epistemological authority and if you can even have a foundation for grasping and laying claim to the truth, and you my friend, as well as all atheists, cannot even begin to argue without refuting yourself. Trolls get blocked. Bye bye..
@JesusManPowerKick Yes i do know what morals are, and without God, nothing can be proven. There is the ultimate of the many validations. I doubt you are honest with yourself.
that doesnt make any sence. thats like saying no one knows how a car works or how your body work. but thousands of people apparently do if cars run every day and lives are being saved by doctors. and what is there to be honost about? cause the holy bible is a lie. so theres nothing to be honost about
@JesusManPowerKick It is not that people can't do those things if they don't believe in God, it is that they cannot justify these things we all take for granted without the God who is and the biblical worldview, without being inconsistent, arbitrary, etc. And, if you think the bible is a lie, then quit asking me questions about whether i can prove God is real. If you have already concluded it is a lie, then stop bothering me for "proof" you'll just re-interpret to fit your worldview. Bye troll.
Your logic is a joke!! Too say atheists need a god to have morals! Do other social animals have a belief in a sky daddy to live in their societies? No they don't You obviously have not educated yourself on other reasons for morals, For you too say Atheist need a god, you again do not understand what atheist means ! We don't believe in your imaginary friends. You are full of words with no substance! I wish you could see how dumb you sound from this end!
@ThinkForYourself47 Why do you have to have a channel name called "thinkforyourself," with a picture of Einstein? Are you a bit insecure about your intelligence and freedom of thought? That's what people who are would do. And you, my poor moron, only say i am dumb, that i have no substance, that i am uneducated, that i don't know what an atheist is, yet you don't show how or why!!! And you top it all off (if that wasn't good enough), you throw in a couple more assertions. Classic atheist idiot!
I don't know anyone, who cannot think of someone, they would have no natural compunctions over hurting or killing. So, an Atheist can only, not want to hurt someone, because they don't wish to bother with the morality of those who would seek vengeance. Atheists who use the argument;"they don't want to hurt people",are liars,because there is always, somebody, in someone's mind they would have relished hurting or even killing. They're afraid of 'something' moral over them bringing reprisal. Hmmm?
Tom, Tom, I did not watch the whole thing, but the thing you are calling "morals." the sense of "right" and "wrong" that you say your god has given us is much more simply and clearly explained by biology. Social animals have to have a way to live together and send the species forward in time. There is something awe-inspiring about the process, but not supernatural. You did have a little venomfangx sound to you there as well, not good.
@joestfrancois C'mon, and this one is only 7 minutes, and you couldn't hang in there. Oh well. 1st, simplicity or complexity of explanations for things is not only subjective to who thinks so, but also still says nothing one way or the other with regards to its truth-hood. 2nd, who says biological entities would even have the desire to live and/or that being cooperative is the best way for that to happen. China has a greater population and they treat their people like shit.
@1tmoch Also, survival of the fittest and the "selfish gene" idea that people propose can just as easily go the other direction of screw every other thing if i can benefit by screwing them (only going to be alive for 70-90 years, who cares past that point).You can't say it's not supernatural, only that you don't think it is. No, maybe Venomfang is getting a little smarter in recent times, and sounds a little more like me. His old videos sucked, but some of the newer ones are pretty good.
@1tmoch You should note that all sorts of desires exist, and per the naturalist account they're all born of the desire to survive. so the arguments they use to ground what we call morals, can be used to support rape as well. Reductio ad absurdum lol.
By simple I mean obvious Tom. I know you see your god everywhere and though I cannot disprove the supernatural, but there was never any indicators for it so I don't feel the need to do so.
I don't know the why of it, but biology explains behaviour That we are intelligent enough to expound on it does not make a difference. Humans are reaching a point of success as a species that may have dire consequences, but those consequences will not be supernatural, just a byproduct of our sucess.
"Atheists use the word science/scientific as a magical escape tool, to escape having to provide counter evidence against someone´s testimony or allegory." Actually, the scientific method has replaced lots of so called biblical "explanations", and we´re still waiting for the reverse to happen once, just once.... And I´m leaving out the fact that "goddidit" is never an explanation, it´s just another way of saying "I have no f… clue".
@mechaorgacgn You are an absolute mush head. Alternate explanations are not refutations. And it is clear you are straw manning (you do not know the biblical world view). The fact that we may be able to figure out how certain things in the universe operate says nothing against that fact that God is "doing it." You have erected a false dichotomy. God uses means to the ends we see. Why have i entertained you this long?
You say: The atheist appeals to science in a vague way. Once again you´re strawmaning the real issues - YOU tie yourself to the bible, the atheist doesn´t have to do the same with some other doctrine or belief system. Just because the atheist is rejecting baseless assertions doesn´t mean, he/she has to subscribe to any other worldview. You´re dramatically overestimating your mental junk if you think only science can serve as a last refuge against the "power" of your "arguments".
@mechaorgacgn I never said you have to be an atheist if you reject the bible. So where exactly is the strawman? You really didn't show it, rather just gave more of your whining. I have had SEVERAL atheists say to me "i follow science," and left it at that. What! That word is not magical (alone, that is meaningless). Dealing with specifics is what i am calling Christians to pull out of atheists who talk like that. A methodology in observation is one avenue to knowledge, and it requires specifics
(cont´d) ...by saying stuff like "Science is only possible within the christian world- and liveview". If presuppositionalism is not assuming parameters from the start, then I don´t know what is. But once again, science is not the issue here, you´re conflating the two, to distract from you having no basis for your truth claims. So, how many fallacies do I have to assign to this nonsense?! Oh well, I lost count….
@mechaorgacgn Assuming certain things as foundation to even get started is not the same thing as consciously being occupied with (distracted) certain things/parameters. Most of these are not even points against me, but rather you just having a bitch fest. Fallacies? You haven't pointed out even one fallacy, and you are supposedly on #12. Get the heck outta here moron. You are getting blocked for wasting my time with this nonsense.
"Experimentation is just someone´s experience or their allegory of them using a supposedly more structured approach to testing." Huh… what the hell does that mean? Do you even understand your own words? Just about all words in this phrase are mutually contradictory and exclusive. Experimentation is NOT experience. Experience has little or nothing to do with gathering data in a scientific setting. Allegory… sigh, just look up the definition of allegory. ... (cont´d)
@mechaorgacgn Mecha-Moron Alert! Simply because you have a mis fire in your lemon, doesn't mean it is my problem. The point is simple. When a person does an experiment, that is a part of their experience, and they can then go and tell a story about their experience later.
About this last point you´re bringing up (science): You´re once again (as you have been doing multiple times in the past) conflating certain scientific issues with atheism. Once again, if you like it or not, atheism is not synonymous with big bang cosmology, or the theory of evolution, which is basically what you´re hinting at as the core contention.
@mechaorgacgn You are just about as blind as they come. Too fruitless to deal with all your ignorant comments. Chugging along; here we go #8: You keep bringing up irrelevant points to the video, simply because you have, what appears to be, pent up frustrations concerning theists and their beliefs. I never said atheism is synonymous with x,y,z, but if i find a common thread in a crap load of atheists arguments, then get on their case, not mine.
Another gem…! What are "real" morals? You´re introducing two different standards of morals. If by that you were trying to say that theists usually do apply double standards, I´d actually have to agree with you. The rest is pure assertion w/o backup. That was No. 2.
@mechaorgacgn By real morals, i mean things which are not mere conventions of men, that which is inherent, that which is universal and absolute, independent of the individual who makes the moral claim. So no, this is not a problem on my end, but on your end for lack of understanding.
Actually, a lot more than just two. It begins right at the start! "Atheist claiming the moral highground". It´s not about moral highground, it´s about being called immoral by theists who treat anyone with a different view on this in a derogatory fashion. You are the best example. A distortion of facts which doesn´t surprise me, considering it´s from you. Using the terms atheist and moron synonymously means you´re refuting your own point. That´s for starters only.
@mechaorgacgn Wrong. I'm not making a video about you and how you think. This is about arguments i've heard several times from atheists. If you don't use the arguments, then don't worry about it. And descriptively calling atheists what they are (morons) does zero damage to my points in the video. Apparently you don't even know what my points were (on 2 counts here) which makes you a little moronic yourself. BTW, if the rest of your comments are as dumb as this one, they are getting deleted.
I'm Christian, but I'm going to say something that I'm pretty sure you've already heard before. Anyone with any logical reasoning can punch several holes in your "arguments." Even if your logic in here was perfect, which, I'm afraid, it is far from being, you are quite hypocritical in your attitude towards other people. You claim that you are to be held to a higher moral standard than atheists because you are Christian, yet you insult a large group of people by calling them morons.
@abobabobabob Whoops typo (start over): You might have a point if i were being unbiblical, but in fact i am not. The declaration of moron is what the bible says about them. I am merely repeating it. I admit that at times i get in the flesh and frustrated with atheists, but this is not an example of that.
I've seen Atheists say they care more about human suffering than Christians do,which is a laugh, of course I can't think of any atheist built hospitals,you see plenty of Christian hospitals.The only medical procedure that I know of atheists supporting,such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is abortion,they give Billions to murder the unborn all over the world.Seems like a warped sense of alleviating human suffering if you ask me.
Hey brother, I would like for you to 'video response' this video to one of mine. I REALLY want other ppl to see this video. Would you do me the honor?
I love your videos, brother. Your videos are a TREMENDOUS blessing to me. I don't think you have enough RAM on your PC for me to write down what kind of a blessing your videos have been to me. Keep up the good work. Love to meet you guys inperson some day. God bless you.
@vekl Thanks man. My pleasure to be of service and to know that i am making an impact for causing people to be motivated to learn and know that every position under the sun that comes against Christ is utter foolishness. Peace.
@1tmoch You postulate that morality is beamed into your head at conception by a magic man lurking in the cosmos. a common fallacy and a cartoon idea. Morality is behavior that is NOT objective it is subjective. Much of today's moral framework is the end product of a constantly evolving and improving moral zeitgeist. As far as general altruism, there is a darwinian account of why humans are altruistic or generally good. Those that were NOT generally altruistic were eliminated from the gene pool.
@arich23 Ok, but that is still arbitrary and non authoritative. Therefore there is no such thing as "improvements" with regard to the way people live. You created the cartoon in your head, and your fantasy take on reality is just that.
@1tmoch well of course it's not authoritative that's the whole point. there is no authority. We decided morality because it was discussed, debated and rationalized by us. Over time, WE DEFINED what improvement is to us, because again, it is subjective. That's what subjectivity means. It is subject to interpretation the same thin is happening now. By the way on some scale this is what all species do which proves that it is darwinian, there is nothing fantasy about it.
@1tmoch I'm not sure I understand this statement at all. Some of the morality we constructed is the result of reciprocal altruism that is a part of our darwinian programming, and so it's obvious (don't kill, steal, oppose suffering...etc). So in a sense we have a lust to be nice. For the rest we have the police and lawmakers to sort out that subjectivity.
@arich23'reciprocal altruism' can't possibly be a product of 'Darwinian programming' because there is no natural environment that could possibly select for such a thing. All ape species are 'war like','kill','kill each other' - which can be attributed to 'Darwinian programming'. Survival of the fittest cannot evolve into 'reciprocal altruism',because no 'God-less environment' can select for such behavior. Only 'kill or be killed' can be selected by environment & is where, most of man, is today.
@RefutingSkellyism a common misconception. "kill or be killed" is a gross mis-understanding of natural selection. Evolution by means of natural selection demonstrates that the bodies that SURVIVED long enough to reproduce and pass on the equipment (genes) that made the body good at surviving. The kin of species had to cooperate in order to SURVIVE long enough to get their shared genes into the next generation. This is why species, including apes generally cooperate today. (cont)
@arich23"Kill or be killed"is not a gross misunderstanding of natural selection. Are you nuts?Do you know what 'gross' means?'Kill or be killed' is a major component of 'natural selection theory'.Just how do you think 'the bodies that survived',survived? They killed & outlasted their competitors within particular environments that facilitated, aided, & abetted their 'genes' toward self preservation over others for food, breeding rights,etc,but NEVER altruism.Prove me wrong,site examples
@RefutingSkellyism ...kill or be killed isn't universally associated with Darwinism. A herbivore didn't kill. It ate vegetation and evaded predators to survive long enough to reproduce. It's about SURVIVAL. Cooperation (altruism) was "profitable" to survival. Darwin famously quoted "any being if it vary however slightly, in any manner PROFITABLE to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance at SURVIVING and thus be naturally selected."
@arich23 'kill or be killed' IS quintessential Darwinism! Just what do you mean; 'universally associated'? Herbivores kill living plants,& carnivores kill them. Environments only select herbivores that feed on (kill) plants that don't go extinct, & carnivores that kill the best! Environments do not select for 'reciprocal altruism', because there is no aspect of nature that can possibly favor or select a species mutated toward 'unselfish regard' toward same or other species.Show me one!
@RefutingSkellyism Here is where you're wrong. You're using the colloquial term "kill or be killed" interchangeably with the "survival of the fittest" which is a general term used to describe natural selection. Your confusion is likely coming from PREDATOR & PREY relationships. Something irrelevant to herbivores that don't kill other SPECIES! My point with that was to simply to demonstrate that there are many species that don't kill SPECIES, or have a natural predator. An elephant for example.
@arich23 "My point,,,was to simply demonstrate,,,many species,,,,don't kill SPECIES" Your own words, my friend, prove yourself an unreliable witness to the truth of nature. Plants are living species! Their consumption = death. Please prove to me there is a living species that does not prey upon another living species. There is an obvious, & highly ironic answer. The question is;"do YOU know the answer?" Produce a species that doesn't kill another, & practices 'altruism'. I beg you.
@RefutingSkellyism We got here because of your erroneous use of 'kill or be killed' to describe natural selection. When I effortlessly demonstrate your error, your only way out of embarrassment is to laughably argue that vegetation is "killed." *raised eyebrow* Wow those corn harvesters are murderers. If you want to take that path, I could ask you what does the corn and grass species kill; but to save you further embarrassment, I'll be specific: species CAPABLE of altruism (i.e., with brains).
@arich23 I've already hinted to you about plants not killing;"There is an obvious, & highly ironic answer."" I'm glad you're catching up, but you're still way behind. I've never stated 'kill or be killed' was the 'be & end all' of natural selection theory. Nor, have I asked you to name a species that demonstrates altruism. You're reading comprehension is utterly bleak.Name a species - describe it's mutation headed toward altruism - & describe factors of the environment that favored it.
@RefutingSkellyism Altruism increased "FITNESS" which was profitable and thus naturally selected WITHIN SPECIES. (bees and their kin, ants and kin, primates and their kin...etc.) The more two species are genetically RELATED, the more they behave selflessly with each other (i.e., cooperate). Now do yourself a favor, WIki "Selfish Gene" and read. Do yourself another favor, search on YouTube for the video titled 'ALTRUISM: COOPERATION INCREASES FITNESS' and that should alleviate your confusion.
@arich23 I'm reading a little bit (not all) of this exchange you 2 are having, but i want to add that this is just a potential EXPLANATION, but not a proof for anything, nor a refutation of anything. I think you are smart enough to realize that though (just making sure). Also, virtually anything can be made (in an explanatory way) profitable in one way or another, so it seems rather arbitrary or after the fact that evolutionists are just trying to come up with a story that matches reality.
@1tmoch Well let's ignore the loads of peer reviewed research; and the observable and DEMONSTRABLE survival dependent altruistic behavior of species, which are all cousins of each other, and I were to submit we don't have 100% proof. Ok, I admire the critical thinking/skepticism; but you need to explain to me why you abandon the same critical thinking faculties, at the extraordinary claim, that a supernatural Jewish man beamed & hard coded altruism into the brains of humans he created from dirt.
@1tmoch (cont)...However short or incomplete you feel the position of the evolutionary biologist, the extraordinary claim of the theologian is many, many, many, many orders of magnitude more difficult. You only apply skepticism to that which you do not want to be true. This is a form of confirmation bias.
@arich23 "Altruism increased "FITNESS"" 1stl, you have to prove there were mutations of species headed toward 'altruism' before you can tout how great it is for a species. You have to mutate to get it, BEFORE you reap it's benefits. 2nd You need an environment that favors & selects the 'alleged' mutations. There's your challenge that I doubt you can meet: Describe a natural environment that selects a mutation within a species toward altruism over it's 'kill or be killed' siblings.
@RefutingSkellyism AGAIN; watch the vid 'ALTRUISM: COOPERATION INCREASES FITNESS'. Altruism desire is bundled in BRAINS, like MATING desire is bundled in brains. Foolishly demanding the SPECIFIC mutation that brings forth altruism is like demanding the SPECIFIC mutation that brings forth mating, and thus procreation. The profitability in BOTH cases is demonstrable. The ENVIRONMENTS of bees/penguins are a basic demonstration of the increased fitness level due to cooperation that impacts survival.
@1tmoch Well I'm glad you at least seem to be averse to assertions. Of course, I presume you're equally averse to the assertion that a Jewish man's mother was a virgin and he was the son of a god??
@arich23 Irrelevant. Nice attempt at taking the focus off of YOUR mere assertion. You don't like people reading from their bible, but have no problem reading from your "bible." I actually have more than just blind faith or mere assertion for trusting the text of scripture though, one of the things being that it does indeed (as i said previously) match up with the observable world. And this includes many lines of reasoning and evidence, which you can see some presented in my many vids.
@1tmoch Well I admire your skepticism; however, my "assertions" are backed by peer reviewed science, INDEPENDENTLY verified by scientists seeking desperately to outdue each other, and thus skeptically interrogate each other's work and arrived at the same evidenced based conclusions. That is why the scientific method can NEVER be placed on a par with the extraordinary claims of any "bible." Now I've read the bible, and it no better matches with the observable world than the chronicles of narnia.
@1tmoch And it is effortlessly easy as I've just done in the meager characters of the above posts. Now if you relax your confirmation bias, pick up one of the literally hundreds of books written on the subject, and watch your magic centered position on morality slowly unravel.
@arich23 Ok, morons who like to get snarky, while not putting out when the screws are held to him, get shut out. You're officially blocked for being yet another blind faithing atheist troll.
@1tmoch "Ok, morons who like to get snarky, while not putting out when the screws are held to him, get shut out." Sha-zam! I love it! 'not putting out when the screws are tightly turned'. What a wheenie! I'm still waiting for a description of the 'environment' he so desperately believes 'happened' with greater faith than those who believe in the reality of 'Noah's Ark'. LOL!! It's so hilarious they don't realize they are exercising more faith than Bible believers.
@Cafeeine Hey, truth is truth. It's not for any display of "wits" as you say. Ad hom is perfectly ok, if it is not used IN PLACE OF an argument. A crash course in logic and you'd know this.
@1tmoch Did I accuse you of an ad hominem fallacy? Better check yourself, you're beginning to respond to accusations that don't exist as well as believing in things that don't exist. One can address an insult on its own (lack of) merit.
@Cafeeine Well, then why would it lack merit or indicate low wits to insult in and of itself? Seems an empty and arbitrary claim unless you were trying to say it was a fallacy.
@1tmoch Pointing out that insults are not a high level of discourse is not pointless, it is what it says it is. Besides if I was addressing logical flaws in your argument, I would have addressed the comment to you, not astherrien.
@Cafeeine In your opinion. I tend to think that being as descriptively accurate as possible is quite high on the discourse meter, no matter if it hurts someones sensibilities in the process. But i can appreciate that we can be more friendly with one another also (from my worldview only of course can that really carry any weight).
@1tmoch Unless you really think that only atheists can be morons, you weren't really being accurate. But I agree that sometimes the truth hurts. There's really no nice way to tell someone they are delusional, especially when they've concocted a whole faulty rationale to protect their delusion from falsification.
How can you make an induction about the probability of something being true from an infinite amount of possibilities? Is your memory reliable? Is nature uniform? How do you determine the probability of these things? without first being certain about them?
@roxfoot You need to corner them first though, which is quite harder, even if we don't have the advantage of punting to the will of a mysterious entity that cannot be questioned.
what is a corner ,i mean if you are just electric impulses and biological matter intent on reproduction ,why should you believe your own definition ,your mind has no basis for logic ,period
@roxfoot Logic is observed in the world around us. Biological matter using electric impulses seems to be quite good at observing things. Why shouldn't I believe that which is objectively evident ?
objective by what standard ,as such a position demand subjective perspective ,logic exist because of GOD ,without GOD theres none ,because you see logic matters not the question is its origin ,as an atheist you have no answer
@roxfoot Objective, as in verifiable through multiple different independant viewpoints.
Claiming to have an answer that you can't demonstrate is tantamount to having no answer at all. The claim "logic exists because of god" is worthless until you can show a god exists, otherwise you might as well admit to the god being fictional.
please do not backtrack to that burden of proof nonsense to respond to a different topic ,try stay on point ,as an atheist whos "independant viewpoint" would you trust as without GOD there is no such thing as absolute truth ,and even one you trust ,you own mind may well be decieving you for some evolutionary process
@roxfoot How do you know god isn't deceiving you? If he does, it's by definition a good thing. If anything god is a terrible standard for truth. Reality is a much better standard for truth and its telling that many apologists denigrate it in the defense of their god.
"Absolute truth" is too often used as a crutch for people who don't like uncertainty, so they want someone to tell them what the truth is. In essence "absolute" is a code for "divine" which makes the circularity obvious.
@Cafeeine To evaluate anything you must begin with God so God is always necessary. You don't have absolute truth and you don't even have a probable truth because you need certainty to get a probability.
@Cafeeine What are you certain about to begin with? How can you say one thing is more probable than another when you cannot even establish a first truth?
@BeholdTheCross All past observation. Everything people have observed. In a specific circumstance, the observations of the individual making the probability inference, which may include learning about observations of others. I don't see how the concept of a 'first truth' is even useful in this. Can you give an example?
@Cafeeine Is there such thing as causation? How do you know you did not just now begin to exist memories included just as you started reading this? How do you know the past has any bearing on the future? Is the universe logically necessary? How do you know what chance is then?
@BeholdTheCross The problem with undisprovable claims is that we don't know. You have the exact same problem. What you've done is more or less arbitrarily selected one undisprovable claim and assert that it disproves all the rest.
In reality, there is no reason to assume such undisprovable claims are true, and until we have such reason there is no reason to consider them. Gods included.
@Cafeeine We believe what allows us to make sense of experience and the world. We hold it to be true because of the absurdity of the contrary. Start with God and things make sense. Start with self and all is absurd. You are left with radical skepticism and you cannot escape apart from just asserting yourself as if you arbitrate reality.
@BeholdTheCross Reality is not arbitrated by me, I don't see when you got that, my understanding of reality is. I start with asserting myself, as it is a necessary presupposition for me to think for me to exist. God claims are external to reality, so any sense they infer necessarily contradicts reality.
Thing is, you need to assert as many things as I do for your claims, but you also have to go a few steps further.
@Cafeeine First problem is you cannot assert yourself without being in relationship with something personal. God is not external to reality he is most fundamental to our reality. He reveals himself through all he has made you just try to shut him out. That you are a small part of an intelligible whole should tell you the self does not take primacy. The intelligence that governs and is communicating through creation allowing you to grasp truth should.
@BeholdTheCross There are too many unfounded assumptions in this to adequately address in a single comment. Of course I can assert myself. I never claimed that there is a primacy of self. I descrpibed the starting point of my investigation. You keep making claims about god that contradict our observations of reality. I don't see an intelligence governing reality.
@Cafeeine No self without other. No thought without intelligible reality. No ethics, universals or intelligibility without person. No primacy of self then no atheism or starting with self to investigate. You would see yourself as subject to the all controlling mind of God. Gods revelation in nature would to be your starting point.There is no imbetween here. Self or God. You cannot assume reality is intelligible because that presupposes intelligence. Judgement presupposes value.
@BeholdTheCross The intelligibility of nature, in the sense that it is consistent, doesn't require a governing intelligence, and indeed speaks out against such intelligence and in the sense that is can be intelligently observed, it is trivial, since we know this because human intelligences have done so. You need to start corroborating your claims rather than just making absolute dichotomies and expect me to accept them.
@Cafeeine Presupposing logic is a consistent universe logically necessary? Why would it be intelligible if it is not? Why can't it just disappear or turn into a frog? How can you know it without presupposing it is first? You believe the universe is intelligiable not because of your world view but inspite of it. Otherwise how would you know other than your assertion that it is trivial and others have done so? You need to realise your view cannot escape global skepticism.
@BeholdTheCross I believe the universe is intelligible because it consistently lives up to that standard. As far as we know the universe has never turned into a frog, so I have no reason to think it might. The consistency mentioned above doesn't need to be presupposed. There are more positions to be had than the binary of extreme skepticism and blind acceptance of a proposition.
@Cafeeine lol..How can you know it consistently live up to that standard? Begs the question! We know? l am not integral to your mind. You have no reason to think your thoughts are reliable. Ok. Give me one.. go on. Maybe you need to type it in capital letters to give it that epistmic force. No the positions are either reality arbirated by God or by you. If you insist you then I will continue to show you how inadequate such a position is for knowing anything epistemically.
@BeholdTheCross You can't 'continue' to do what you haven't done in the first place. Are you saying you have observed the universe turn into a frog? If not, my point stands.
Your epistemic certainty is only as strong as the god claim is, not vice versa. You seem to think that I think thoughts alone affect what reality is. They don't. Reality is what it is. The question is, how do we know about reality? The god claim is inconsequential to this question.
Reality is a product of consciousness, it isn't synonymous with matter time or space. The question is who has determined reality. You - or an external consciousness in which you persist. If you cannot effect reality, I would expect the latter.
@FillTheirVoid That is not what I refer to as reality. Reality is everything that exists, regardless of observation of it. If you're saying that this reality requires a consciousness to create it, I must disagree.
You can superimpose a filter on what you experience, claim that what you experience is some Matrix-analog, but unless you can demonstrate your case, no one has any reason to accept it.
You cannot physically demonstrate consciousness - it is a matter of philosophy. If you want to know about matter space or time your position might be valid - but this is an entirely different matter.
Things aren't quite as simple as you might like them to be.
@FillTheirVoid But I don't think they are simple, I just don't think it behooves us to add complexities unnecessarily.
Philosophy is organized thought and has a lot to offer, but it what it tells us about reality must be consistent with it. I asked you corroborate your claim that reality is a product of consciousness. So far all you've said was the equivalent of 'its complicated'. If you are unwilling to expand, you shouldn't have made the claim to begin with.
You don't even know what reality consists of my friend, you mistake it for matter time and space - but this is simply false.
It is complicated, and I am not an expect - but I can tell you that an apple floating in space is not "reality". It is the product of a consciousness.
You desire all things to be observable and testable, but they aren't. I'm sorry.
@FillTheirVoid Instead of feeling sorry for me and assuming my opinions & desires, try informing yourself on the philosophical theories you wish to adopt before bringing them up in a discussion. If your best argument is "It's complicated and untestable, but trust me on this, you're definitely wrong" how do you expect people to take you seriously?
As I stated previously my purpose is to show you that you may be looking at reality in the wrong way. I never claimed that I could provide for you an expert description of my position.
Even your position is unclear to me, seeing as how you somehow equate space time and matter with "reality" despite the experiences of my own consciousness.
Which is why I am having a discussion with you, but you take offense too easily.
@FillTheirVoid Im not offended, and I don't equate "reality" with space, time and matter. That was your assumption. However is it frustrating when you're making a definite claim and not backing it up with anything, not even the reasons that brought you to that conclusion, admit you're unclear about it, yet you can claim that you have a better understanding than me. Well, as the saying goes "put up or shut up" ;)
If reality is not space time and matter then what is it except the product of a consciousness? Reality is the product of consciousness, you cannot crack open an atom and find reality.
I never claimed that I necessarily had a "better understanding" than you. This is the third time which I have stated that my desire was to show you that you could be looking at reality in the wrong manner.
@FillTheirVoid Reality is the sum total of everything, which includes matter, space, time and any consciousness, and anything we have yet to uncover.
I am aware that I may be wrong. I have been wrong many times in my life, and I have subsequently changed my mind. This is why I am asking you to be concise. When you say I don't know what reality is, that is saying implicitly you know better than me what reality is.
Ah but you cannot quantify consciousness, it is immeasurable just like you cannot quantify logic. There is no "reality" to the physical world, it is entirely physical. Reality is the product of a consciousness, you cannot locate it and measure it.
Furthermore - you couldn't even quantify or measure matter space or time - without a consciousness. Hence the necessity. If all real things are a "sum total" a consciousness must sum it up.
@FillTheirVoid If it must be observed, yes a consciousness must do it, but observation is not a necessity. The universe existed for millions of years before we were here to observe it.
Again, you're mistaking space time and matter for reality. Then you're assuming that man is the only consciousness from whence reality can arise. Rather, God was in the beginning and all real things were created by Him.
Well if everything that is true must be measured and observed, without anyone to measure or observe - nothing would have been true.
Well we've already been arguing the necessity of an independent consciousness to result in measurable and observable things in the past (that is real things). Apart from this consciousness there would be no form to any object (no real things). Just as we have seen - if you cannot observe or measure an apple - there is no intelligible form to an apple - hence there is no apple.
@BeholdTheCross We've been through this. I don't, for the same reason you don't.
I don't care because the claim has no evidence to back it and therefore it has no merit, you don't care because you have accepted an unfalsifiable claim that contradicts it.
@Cafeeine I have a solid foundation from which to form inferences. Given that I am working according to Gods design and God is revealing himself and controlling all things I have grounds for my confidence. God has revealed himself most clearly in the bible. The difference is you do not any such grounds. Only your big atheist mouth which cannot establish anything but rebels against God all the while relying upon him to do so.
@Cafeeine Did your beliefs and desires cause you to repsond after you experienced symbols and colours on the screen? Then the claim is corroborated unless you deny this.
@FillTheirVoid I have no desire to play a riddle game with someone who doesn't (or can't) explain their position clearly. Please do so, or have a good night talking to someone else.
@Cafeeine Oh so matter has the property of belief, desires qualia and language? If not then think about it. What are these the properties of? If it is not one then it's the other.
@BeholdTheCross Belief, desires, qualia are all properties that derive from a functioning brain. Language is the product of a society of individuals communicating. Why do you think think proves anything about your case?
@Cafeeine You don't think things through. The brain is what? Material? Belief, desires and qualia are what? Immaterial? You writing your message was caused by someting immaterial not material or what? What is going though your head? Is saying a functioning brain an answer? Can I break your beliefs into atoms?
@BeholdTheCross I think you haven't really thought things through, if you think that kind of naive materialism is in any case comparable towhat I'm saying.
Do you have a car? Whats the engine's horse power? Did they pour the horse power in there with a funnel like the gas? Can you extract the wetness from water?
There is no disconnect with material things having immaterial attributes emerging from their composition. There is however no precedent of consciousness divided from a material brain.
@Cafeeine Parrot! Immaterial attributes from matter jingling around. So is wetness deducible from the structure of water molecules? Are beliefs decucible from the arrangement of mass and motion? Sharp difference. One logically follows the other does not. How does something immaterial cause anything then? Futhermore wetness itself is dependant on the sensations of the mind. Our experience of all things is mind dependant so maybe idealism is the best approach.
@BeholdTheCross (: The difference may lay only in our current ignorance. Neuroscience is doing fantastic work in that domain. But your thoughts and beliefs are often affected by the amount of alcohol or LSD or cannabis in your body. Idealism ignores the intimate relationship of mind and brain and conflates personal experience of reality with reality.
@Cafeeine Materialism ignores the causul efficacy of the mind. What matter is cannot be known if it exists independantly of the experience. It has no description so what can you say about it. In idealism the universe could be understood as the language God uses to reveal his attributes so brain and mind can be given an account.
@BeholdTheCross What makes you think there is a requirement for us to understand matter as more than the approximation of our experience? Your idealism here assumes a message and a messenger to offer an explanation that may not be needed.
materialism recognizes the causal efficacy of the mind, but it views it within the perspective of material interaction. The mind causes based on what the eyes & ears, the nerves transmit, and to the extent that the arms, legs, mouth etc. can act.
@Cafeeine What do you mean approximation of our experience? Message and messenger connect our truth with reality. How else? Whay assume otherwise? So the immaterial has causul efficacy? How do you propose interaction takes place?
@Cafeeine When will you learn? Skepticism always rears its head. You cannot win. How would you know regardless of what I tell you? I could be mistaken or I could be lying or I might be a figment of your imagination. Maybe you will misunderstand or something else will prevent you from even knowing my response. We know reality because God reveals it to us. We have been designed to think his thoughts after him.
@BeholdTheCross Then it seems god is having his self-effacing moments when I synv in, since I really don't think he exists.
You understand the epistemic problems of knowldge, yet you seem to think that claims of a god that magically overcomes these problems is enough to do so. You have only found the best way to fool yourself.
@BeholdTheCross My understanding of the world reflects what we can observe in it. Any kind of assertion of a "truth" that is not demonstrable in the world completely skews that perspective.
There are things I don't know. I prefer to say so rather than invent a solution, or accept one others have invented that has no reference to reality.
@Cafeeine You cannot demonstrate anything without presupposing some truth about reality. We don't infer God, we start with God. I am trying to show you how your rejection of God leaves you with no viable foundation for knowledge. Observation on its own is inadequate. All knowledge must be grasped by the intellect through reason. If reason is not good enough to convince you of God then reason should not be good enough to convince you of anything and you should negate all beliefs.
@BeholdTheCross My point is that god is not a viable foundation for knowledge, it is the illusion of such a basis, since there is no good reason to think it exists.
You claim is false, since I have been convinced of many things through reason, and the god claims are not of them. Once again, storytelling is not an argument.
Have you ever heard of the term "assuming"? Ignorance has hold of you child. You have out-dated beliefs and that.. my very unfortunate friend, can be proven with statistics. Its only a matter of time, just like the many religions before it that failed to comfort even the most close-minded people before us. Don't reply if you can't understand, because this is merely a heads up and should be taken as advice.
mbehringers 2 weeks ago
@mbehringers What is up with every last atheist it seems making comments that would put them in the ranks with the mentally deficient? Giving rhetorical questions followed by claims (with poor grammar and wrong words selected) that are not backed up is again, quite typical of the mind disease of the most ignorant and out dated religion of all time (Atheism). I have shown how and why atheists are just as dogmatic in their worldview as the most staunch Christian. Another troll bites the dust..
1tmoch 1 week ago
@1tmoch
dont be scared of the truth its not gonna change no matter what you tell your self. you coud of easily been raised an atheist fucking hypocrite
YahxThatxOnexGuy 2 weeks ago
@YahxThatxOnexGuy I was raised like an atheist. You call me a hypocrite, yet don't explain how/why (typical atheist egg head rhetoric). I embrace the truth, but you have to ask yourself about your ultimate epistemological authority and if you can even have a foundation for grasping and laying claim to the truth, and you my friend, as well as all atheists, cannot even begin to argue without refuting yourself. Trolls get blocked. Bye bye..
1tmoch 2 weeks ago
do you even know what morals are? and can you even prove god is real? i doubt it.
JesusManPowerKick 2 weeks ago
@JesusManPowerKick Yes i do know what morals are, and without God, nothing can be proven. There is the ultimate of the many validations. I doubt you are honest with yourself.
1tmoch 2 weeks ago
@1tmoch
that doesnt make any sence. thats like saying no one knows how a car works or how your body work. but thousands of people apparently do if cars run every day and lives are being saved by doctors. and what is there to be honost about? cause the holy bible is a lie. so theres nothing to be honost about
JesusManPowerKick 2 weeks ago
@JesusManPowerKick It is not that people can't do those things if they don't believe in God, it is that they cannot justify these things we all take for granted without the God who is and the biblical worldview, without being inconsistent, arbitrary, etc. And, if you think the bible is a lie, then quit asking me questions about whether i can prove God is real. If you have already concluded it is a lie, then stop bothering me for "proof" you'll just re-interpret to fit your worldview. Bye troll.
1tmoch 2 weeks ago
Good video, God bless!!
Nobleeagle100 3 weeks ago
Your logic is a joke!! Too say atheists need a god to have morals! Do other social animals have a belief in a sky daddy to live in their societies? No they don't You obviously have not educated yourself on other reasons for morals, For you too say Atheist need a god, you again do not understand what atheist means ! We don't believe in your imaginary friends. You are full of words with no substance! I wish you could see how dumb you sound from this end!
ThinkForYourself47 4 weeks ago
@ThinkForYourself47 Why do you have to have a channel name called "thinkforyourself," with a picture of Einstein? Are you a bit insecure about your intelligence and freedom of thought? That's what people who are would do. And you, my poor moron, only say i am dumb, that i have no substance, that i am uneducated, that i don't know what an atheist is, yet you don't show how or why!!! And you top it all off (if that wasn't good enough), you throw in a couple more assertions. Classic atheist idiot!
1tmoch 4 weeks ago
@1tmoch straight out haha
JACOESHMT 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't know anyone, who cannot think of someone, they would have no natural compunctions over hurting or killing. So, an Atheist can only, not want to hurt someone, because they don't wish to bother with the morality of those who would seek vengeance. Atheists who use the argument;"they don't want to hurt people",are liars,because there is always, somebody, in someone's mind they would have relished hurting or even killing. They're afraid of 'something' moral over them bringing reprisal. Hmmm?
RefutingSkellyism 1 month ago
Tom, Tom, I did not watch the whole thing, but the thing you are calling "morals." the sense of "right" and "wrong" that you say your god has given us is much more simply and clearly explained by biology. Social animals have to have a way to live together and send the species forward in time. There is something awe-inspiring about the process, but not supernatural. You did have a little venomfangx sound to you there as well, not good.
I am still you favorite moron though, right?
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois C'mon, and this one is only 7 minutes, and you couldn't hang in there. Oh well. 1st, simplicity or complexity of explanations for things is not only subjective to who thinks so, but also still says nothing one way or the other with regards to its truth-hood. 2nd, who says biological entities would even have the desire to live and/or that being cooperative is the best way for that to happen. China has a greater population and they treat their people like shit.
1tmoch 1 month ago
@1tmoch Also, survival of the fittest and the "selfish gene" idea that people propose can just as easily go the other direction of screw every other thing if i can benefit by screwing them (only going to be alive for 70-90 years, who cares past that point).You can't say it's not supernatural, only that you don't think it is. No, maybe Venomfang is getting a little smarter in recent times, and sounds a little more like me. His old videos sucked, but some of the newer ones are pretty good.
1tmoch 1 month ago
@1tmoch Darn 500 character limit. And yes, you know you'll always be my favorite moron. Peace ; )
1tmoch 1 month ago
@1tmoch You should note that all sorts of desires exist, and per the naturalist account they're all born of the desire to survive. so the arguments they use to ground what we call morals, can be used to support rape as well. Reductio ad absurdum lol.
TheCarydal 1 month ago
By simple I mean obvious Tom. I know you see your god everywhere and though I cannot disprove the supernatural, but there was never any indicators for it so I don't feel the need to do so.
I don't know the why of it, but biology explains behaviour That we are intelligent enough to expound on it does not make a difference. Humans are reaching a point of success as a species that may have dire consequences, but those consequences will not be supernatural, just a byproduct of our sucess.
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois How did such huge grammar errors get by me? Spelling I mess up, but not so much the grammar not so much.
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois LOL.
joestfrancois 1 month ago
14)
"Atheists use the word science/scientific as a magical escape tool, to escape having to provide counter evidence against someone´s testimony or allegory." Actually, the scientific method has replaced lots of so called biblical "explanations", and we´re still waiting for the reverse to happen once, just once.... And I´m leaving out the fact that "goddidit" is never an explanation, it´s just another way of saying "I have no f… clue".
mechaorgacgn 1 month ago
@mechaorgacgn You are an absolute mush head. Alternate explanations are not refutations. And it is clear you are straw manning (you do not know the biblical world view). The fact that we may be able to figure out how certain things in the universe operate says nothing against that fact that God is "doing it." You have erected a false dichotomy. God uses means to the ends we see. Why have i entertained you this long?
1tmoch 1 month ago
13)
You say: The atheist appeals to science in a vague way. Once again you´re strawmaning the real issues - YOU tie yourself to the bible, the atheist doesn´t have to do the same with some other doctrine or belief system. Just because the atheist is rejecting baseless assertions doesn´t mean, he/she has to subscribe to any other worldview. You´re dramatically overestimating your mental junk if you think only science can serve as a last refuge against the "power" of your "arguments".
mechaorgacgn 1 month ago
@mechaorgacgn I never said you have to be an atheist if you reject the bible. So where exactly is the strawman? You really didn't show it, rather just gave more of your whining. I have had SEVERAL atheists say to me "i follow science," and left it at that. What! That word is not magical (alone, that is meaningless). Dealing with specifics is what i am calling Christians to pull out of atheists who talk like that. A methodology in observation is one avenue to knowledge, and it requires specifics
1tmoch 1 month ago
12)
(cont´d) ...by saying stuff like "Science is only possible within the christian world- and liveview". If presuppositionalism is not assuming parameters from the start, then I don´t know what is. But once again, science is not the issue here, you´re conflating the two, to distract from you having no basis for your truth claims. So, how many fallacies do I have to assign to this nonsense?! Oh well, I lost count….
mechaorgacgn 1 month ago
@mechaorgacgn Assuming certain things as foundation to even get started is not the same thing as consciously being occupied with (distracted) certain things/parameters. Most of these are not even points against me, but rather you just having a bitch fest. Fallacies? You haven't pointed out even one fallacy, and you are supposedly on #12. Get the heck outta here moron. You are getting blocked for wasting my time with this nonsense.
1tmoch 1 month ago
9)
"Experimentation is just someone´s experience or their allegory of them using a supposedly more structured approach to testing." Huh… what the hell does that mean? Do you even understand your own words? Just about all words in this phrase are mutually contradictory and exclusive. Experimentation is NOT experience. Experience has little or nothing to do with gathering data in a scientific setting. Allegory… sigh, just look up the definition of allegory. ... (cont´d)
mechaorgacgn 1 month ago
@mechaorgacgn Mecha-Moron Alert! Simply because you have a mis fire in your lemon, doesn't mean it is my problem. The point is simple. When a person does an experiment, that is a part of their experience, and they can then go and tell a story about their experience later.
1tmoch 1 month ago
8)
About this last point you´re bringing up (science): You´re once again (as you have been doing multiple times in the past) conflating certain scientific issues with atheism. Once again, if you like it or not, atheism is not synonymous with big bang cosmology, or the theory of evolution, which is basically what you´re hinting at as the core contention.
mechaorgacgn 1 month ago
@mechaorgacgn You are just about as blind as they come. Too fruitless to deal with all your ignorant comments. Chugging along; here we go #8: You keep bringing up irrelevant points to the video, simply because you have, what appears to be, pent up frustrations concerning theists and their beliefs. I never said atheism is synonymous with x,y,z, but if i find a common thread in a crap load of atheists arguments, then get on their case, not mine.
1tmoch 1 month ago
2)
"Real morals don´t exist w/o god."
Another gem…! What are "real" morals? You´re introducing two different standards of morals. If by that you were trying to say that theists usually do apply double standards, I´d actually have to agree with you. The rest is pure assertion w/o backup. That was No. 2.
mechaorgacgn 1 month ago
@mechaorgacgn By real morals, i mean things which are not mere conventions of men, that which is inherent, that which is universal and absolute, independent of the individual who makes the moral claim. So no, this is not a problem on my end, but on your end for lack of understanding.
1tmoch 1 month ago
1)
Actually, a lot more than just two. It begins right at the start! "Atheist claiming the moral highground". It´s not about moral highground, it´s about being called immoral by theists who treat anyone with a different view on this in a derogatory fashion. You are the best example. A distortion of facts which doesn´t surprise me, considering it´s from you. Using the terms atheist and moron synonymously means you´re refuting your own point. That´s for starters only.
mechaorgacgn 1 month ago
@mechaorgacgn Wrong. I'm not making a video about you and how you think. This is about arguments i've heard several times from atheists. If you don't use the arguments, then don't worry about it. And descriptively calling atheists what they are (morons) does zero damage to my points in the video. Apparently you don't even know what my points were (on 2 counts here) which makes you a little moronic yourself. BTW, if the rest of your comments are as dumb as this one, they are getting deleted.
1tmoch 1 month ago
Amen brother!!!
Sophiethefembot 1 month ago
I'm Christian, but I'm going to say something that I'm pretty sure you've already heard before. Anyone with any logical reasoning can punch several holes in your "arguments." Even if your logic in here was perfect, which, I'm afraid, it is far from being, you are quite hypocritical in your attitude towards other people. You claim that you are to be held to a higher moral standard than atheists because you are Christian, yet you insult a large group of people by calling them morons.
abobabobabob 1 month ago
@abobabobabob Whoops typo (start over): You might have a point if i were being unbiblical, but in fact i am not. The declaration of moron is what the bible says about them. I am merely repeating it. I admit that at times i get in the flesh and frustrated with atheists, but this is not an example of that.
1tmoch 1 month ago
I've seen Atheists say they care more about human suffering than Christians do,which is a laugh, of course I can't think of any atheist built hospitals,you see plenty of Christian hospitals.The only medical procedure that I know of atheists supporting,such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is abortion,they give Billions to murder the unborn all over the world.Seems like a warped sense of alleviating human suffering if you ask me.
CBALLEN 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey brother, can you go to this video and 'video response' it to THIS video? Pretty please!?!?
/watch?v=iaMnk2wIEP0
vekl 1 month ago
Hey brother, I would like for you to 'video response' this video to one of mine. I REALLY want other ppl to see this video. Would you do me the honor?
vekl 1 month ago
@vekl Which video?
1tmoch 1 month ago
I love your videos, brother. Your videos are a TREMENDOUS blessing to me. I don't think you have enough RAM on your PC for me to write down what kind of a blessing your videos have been to me. Keep up the good work. Love to meet you guys inperson some day. God bless you.
vekl 1 month ago
@vekl Thanks man. My pleasure to be of service and to know that i am making an impact for causing people to be motivated to learn and know that every position under the sun that comes against Christ is utter foolishness. Peace.
1tmoch 1 month ago
haaa the new venomfangx, and his arguments are just as dumb
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23 Which one is dumb and why? Claims are empty. Back it up...
1tmoch 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tmoch You postulate that morality is beamed into your head at conception by a magic man lurking in the cosmos. a common fallacy and a cartoon idea. Morality is behavior that is NOT objective it is subjective. Much of today's moral framework is the end product of a constantly evolving and improving moral zeitgeist. As far as general altruism, there is a darwinian account of why humans are altruistic or generally good. Those that were NOT generally altruistic were eliminated from the gene pool.
arich23 1 month ago 12
@arich23 Ok, but that is still arbitrary and non authoritative. Therefore there is no such thing as "improvements" with regard to the way people live. You created the cartoon in your head, and your fantasy take on reality is just that.
1tmoch 1 month ago
@1tmoch well of course it's not authoritative that's the whole point. there is no authority. We decided morality because it was discussed, debated and rationalized by us. Over time, WE DEFINED what improvement is to us, because again, it is subjective. That's what subjectivity means. It is subject to interpretation the same thin is happening now. By the way on some scale this is what all species do which proves that it is darwinian, there is nothing fantasy about it.
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23 You don't live as if they are merely subjective. You can philosophically be consistent, but not practically.
1tmoch 1 month ago
@1tmoch I'm not sure I understand this statement at all. Some of the morality we constructed is the result of reciprocal altruism that is a part of our darwinian programming, and so it's obvious (don't kill, steal, oppose suffering...etc). So in a sense we have a lust to be nice. For the rest we have the police and lawmakers to sort out that subjectivity.
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23'reciprocal altruism' can't possibly be a product of 'Darwinian programming' because there is no natural environment that could possibly select for such a thing. All ape species are 'war like','kill','kill each other' - which can be attributed to 'Darwinian programming'. Survival of the fittest cannot evolve into 'reciprocal altruism',because no 'God-less environment' can select for such behavior. Only 'kill or be killed' can be selected by environment & is where, most of man, is today.
RefutingSkellyism 1 month ago
@RefutingSkellyism a common misconception. "kill or be killed" is a gross mis-understanding of natural selection. Evolution by means of natural selection demonstrates that the bodies that SURVIVED long enough to reproduce and pass on the equipment (genes) that made the body good at surviving. The kin of species had to cooperate in order to SURVIVE long enough to get their shared genes into the next generation. This is why species, including apes generally cooperate today. (cont)
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23"Kill or be killed"is not a gross misunderstanding of natural selection. Are you nuts?Do you know what 'gross' means?'Kill or be killed' is a major component of 'natural selection theory'.Just how do you think 'the bodies that survived',survived? They killed & outlasted their competitors within particular environments that facilitated, aided, & abetted their 'genes' toward self preservation over others for food, breeding rights,etc,but NEVER altruism.Prove me wrong,site examples
RefutingSkellyism 1 month ago
@RefutingSkellyism ...kill or be killed isn't universally associated with Darwinism. A herbivore didn't kill. It ate vegetation and evaded predators to survive long enough to reproduce. It's about SURVIVAL. Cooperation (altruism) was "profitable" to survival. Darwin famously quoted "any being if it vary however slightly, in any manner PROFITABLE to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance at SURVIVING and thus be naturally selected."
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23 'kill or be killed' IS quintessential Darwinism! Just what do you mean; 'universally associated'? Herbivores kill living plants,& carnivores kill them. Environments only select herbivores that feed on (kill) plants that don't go extinct, & carnivores that kill the best! Environments do not select for 'reciprocal altruism', because there is no aspect of nature that can possibly favor or select a species mutated toward 'unselfish regard' toward same or other species.Show me one!
RefutingSkellyism 1 month ago
@RefutingSkellyism Here is where you're wrong. You're using the colloquial term "kill or be killed" interchangeably with the "survival of the fittest" which is a general term used to describe natural selection. Your confusion is likely coming from PREDATOR & PREY relationships. Something irrelevant to herbivores that don't kill other SPECIES! My point with that was to simply to demonstrate that there are many species that don't kill SPECIES, or have a natural predator. An elephant for example.
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23 "My point,,,was to simply demonstrate,,,many species,,,,don't kill SPECIES" Your own words, my friend, prove yourself an unreliable witness to the truth of nature. Plants are living species! Their consumption = death. Please prove to me there is a living species that does not prey upon another living species. There is an obvious, & highly ironic answer. The question is;"do YOU know the answer?" Produce a species that doesn't kill another, & practices 'altruism'. I beg you.
RefutingSkellyism 1 month ago
@RefutingSkellyism We got here because of your erroneous use of 'kill or be killed' to describe natural selection. When I effortlessly demonstrate your error, your only way out of embarrassment is to laughably argue that vegetation is "killed." *raised eyebrow* Wow those corn harvesters are murderers. If you want to take that path, I could ask you what does the corn and grass species kill; but to save you further embarrassment, I'll be specific: species CAPABLE of altruism (i.e., with brains).
arich23 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arich23 I've already hinted to you about plants not killing;"There is an obvious, & highly ironic answer."" I'm glad you're catching up, but you're still way behind. I've never stated 'kill or be killed' was the 'be & end all' of natural selection theory. Nor, have I asked you to name a species that demonstrates altruism. You're reading comprehension is utterly bleak.Name a species - describe it's mutation headed toward altruism - & describe factors of the environment that favored it.
TroddinSod 4 weeks ago
@RefutingSkellyism Altruism increased "FITNESS" which was profitable and thus naturally selected WITHIN SPECIES. (bees and their kin, ants and kin, primates and their kin...etc.) The more two species are genetically RELATED, the more they behave selflessly with each other (i.e., cooperate). Now do yourself a favor, WIki "Selfish Gene" and read. Do yourself another favor, search on YouTube for the video titled 'ALTRUISM: COOPERATION INCREASES FITNESS' and that should alleviate your confusion.
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23 I'm reading a little bit (not all) of this exchange you 2 are having, but i want to add that this is just a potential EXPLANATION, but not a proof for anything, nor a refutation of anything. I think you are smart enough to realize that though (just making sure). Also, virtually anything can be made (in an explanatory way) profitable in one way or another, so it seems rather arbitrary or after the fact that evolutionists are just trying to come up with a story that matches reality.
1tmoch 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tmoch Well let's ignore the loads of peer reviewed research; and the observable and DEMONSTRABLE survival dependent altruistic behavior of species, which are all cousins of each other, and I were to submit we don't have 100% proof. Ok, I admire the critical thinking/skepticism; but you need to explain to me why you abandon the same critical thinking faculties, at the extraordinary claim, that a supernatural Jewish man beamed & hard coded altruism into the brains of humans he created from dirt.
arich23 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tmoch (cont)...However short or incomplete you feel the position of the evolutionary biologist, the extraordinary claim of the theologian is many, many, many, many orders of magnitude more difficult. You only apply skepticism to that which you do not want to be true. This is a form of confirmation bias.
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23 "Altruism increased "FITNESS"" 1stl, you have to prove there were mutations of species headed toward 'altruism' before you can tout how great it is for a species. You have to mutate to get it, BEFORE you reap it's benefits. 2nd You need an environment that favors & selects the 'alleged' mutations. There's your challenge that I doubt you can meet: Describe a natural environment that selects a mutation within a species toward altruism over it's 'kill or be killed' siblings.
RefutingSkellyism 1 month ago
Comment removed
arich23 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RefutingSkellyism AGAIN; watch the vid 'ALTRUISM: COOPERATION INCREASES FITNESS'. Altruism desire is bundled in BRAINS, like MATING desire is bundled in brains. Foolishly demanding the SPECIFIC mutation that brings forth altruism is like demanding the SPECIFIC mutation that brings forth mating, and thus procreation. The profitability in BOTH cases is demonstrable. The ENVIRONMENTS of bees/penguins are a basic demonstration of the increased fitness level due to cooperation that impacts survival.
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23 Mere assertion is all this is. Also, this doesn't seem to consistently match up with the observable world that we see.
1tmoch 1 month ago
@1tmoch Well I'm glad you at least seem to be averse to assertions. Of course, I presume you're equally averse to the assertion that a Jewish man's mother was a virgin and he was the son of a god??
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23 Irrelevant. Nice attempt at taking the focus off of YOUR mere assertion. You don't like people reading from their bible, but have no problem reading from your "bible." I actually have more than just blind faith or mere assertion for trusting the text of scripture though, one of the things being that it does indeed (as i said previously) match up with the observable world. And this includes many lines of reasoning and evidence, which you can see some presented in my many vids.
1tmoch 1 month ago
@1tmoch Well I admire your skepticism; however, my "assertions" are backed by peer reviewed science, INDEPENDENTLY verified by scientists seeking desperately to outdue each other, and thus skeptically interrogate each other's work and arrived at the same evidenced based conclusions. That is why the scientific method can NEVER be placed on a par with the extraordinary claims of any "bible." Now I've read the bible, and it no better matches with the observable world than the chronicles of narnia.
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23 Blah, blah, cop out. If it is so established, it should be overwhelmingly easily to present.
1tmoch 1 month ago
@1tmoch And it is effortlessly easy as I've just done in the meager characters of the above posts. Now if you relax your confirmation bias, pick up one of the literally hundreds of books written on the subject, and watch your magic centered position on morality slowly unravel.
arich23 1 month ago
@arich23 Ok, morons who like to get snarky, while not putting out when the screws are held to him, get shut out. You're officially blocked for being yet another blind faithing atheist troll.
1tmoch 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tmoch "Ok, morons who like to get snarky, while not putting out when the screws are held to him, get shut out." Sha-zam! I love it! 'not putting out when the screws are tightly turned'. What a wheenie! I'm still waiting for a description of the 'environment' he so desperately believes 'happened' with greater faith than those who believe in the reality of 'Noah's Ark'. LOL!! It's so hilarious they don't realize they are exercising more faith than Bible believers.
TroddinSod 4 weeks ago
"Atheists... morons... and I use these terms synonymously" HAHAH! thats good stuff brother!
astherrien 1 month ago
@astherrien Yes, insults always indicate the highest of wits.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine Hey, truth is truth. It's not for any display of "wits" as you say. Ad hom is perfectly ok, if it is not used IN PLACE OF an argument. A crash course in logic and you'd know this.
1tmoch 1 month ago
@1tmoch Did I accuse you of an ad hominem fallacy? Better check yourself, you're beginning to respond to accusations that don't exist as well as believing in things that don't exist. One can address an insult on its own (lack of) merit.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine Well, then why would it lack merit or indicate low wits to insult in and of itself? Seems an empty and arbitrary claim unless you were trying to say it was a fallacy.
1tmoch 1 month ago
@1tmoch Pointing out that insults are not a high level of discourse is not pointless, it is what it says it is. Besides if I was addressing logical flaws in your argument, I would have addressed the comment to you, not astherrien.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine In your opinion. I tend to think that being as descriptively accurate as possible is quite high on the discourse meter, no matter if it hurts someones sensibilities in the process. But i can appreciate that we can be more friendly with one another also (from my worldview only of course can that really carry any weight).
1tmoch 1 month ago
@1tmoch Unless you really think that only atheists can be morons, you weren't really being accurate. But I agree that sometimes the truth hurts. There's really no nice way to tell someone they are delusional, especially when they've concocted a whole faulty rationale to protect their delusion from falsification.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
How can you make an induction about the probability of something being true from an infinite amount of possibilities? Is your memory reliable? Is nature uniform? How do you determine the probability of these things? without first being certain about them?
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
you want to find an atheists moral compass ,corner them on an issue and stand back
roxfoot 1 month ago
@roxfoot You need to corner them first though, which is quite harder, even if we don't have the advantage of punting to the will of a mysterious entity that cannot be questioned.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
what is a corner ,i mean if you are just electric impulses and biological matter intent on reproduction ,why should you believe your own definition ,your mind has no basis for logic ,period
roxfoot 1 month ago
@roxfoot Logic is observed in the world around us. Biological matter using electric impulses seems to be quite good at observing things. Why shouldn't I believe that which is objectively evident ?
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
objective by what standard ,as such a position demand subjective perspective ,logic exist because of GOD ,without GOD theres none ,because you see logic matters not the question is its origin ,as an atheist you have no answer
roxfoot 1 month ago
@roxfoot Objective, as in verifiable through multiple different independant viewpoints.
Claiming to have an answer that you can't demonstrate is tantamount to having no answer at all. The claim "logic exists because of god" is worthless until you can show a god exists, otherwise you might as well admit to the god being fictional.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
please do not backtrack to that burden of proof nonsense to respond to a different topic ,try stay on point ,as an atheist whos "independant viewpoint" would you trust as without GOD there is no such thing as absolute truth ,and even one you trust ,you own mind may well be decieving you for some evolutionary process
roxfoot 1 month ago
@roxfoot How do you know god isn't deceiving you? If he does, it's by definition a good thing. If anything god is a terrible standard for truth. Reality is a much better standard for truth and its telling that many apologists denigrate it in the defense of their god.
"Absolute truth" is too often used as a crutch for people who don't like uncertainty, so they want someone to tell them what the truth is. In essence "absolute" is a code for "divine" which makes the circularity obvious.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine To evaluate anything you must begin with God so God is always necessary. You don't have absolute truth and you don't even have a probable truth because you need certainty to get a probability.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross I don't actually need God, so you need to validate that statement.
Also: "you need certainty to get a probability"
I'm sorry, but that last statement completely baffles me. Please explain it.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine What are you certain about to begin with? How can you say one thing is more probable than another when you cannot even establish a first truth?
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross Philosophically, I'm certain of nothing except my own existence. I have decreasing amounts of certainty for any other claim.
Probability is a logical inference based on past observation. A 'first truth' is unnecessary
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine What past observation?
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross All past observation. Everything people have observed. In a specific circumstance, the observations of the individual making the probability inference, which may include learning about observations of others. I don't see how the concept of a 'first truth' is even useful in this. Can you give an example?
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine BTW don't you hold your existence to be your foundational truth?
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@Cafeeine I think therefore I am? huh? problematic? Logic without God? Language? A bundle of chance in a chance universe.. OK
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross Random words accompanied by a question mark are not necessarily questions. Care to make a point?
Chance is not a tangible thing. Its a reflection of our ignorance of the actual causation.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine Is there such thing as causation? How do you know you did not just now begin to exist memories included just as you started reading this? How do you know the past has any bearing on the future? Is the universe logically necessary? How do you know what chance is then?
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross The problem with undisprovable claims is that we don't know. You have the exact same problem. What you've done is more or less arbitrarily selected one undisprovable claim and assert that it disproves all the rest.
In reality, there is no reason to assume such undisprovable claims are true, and until we have such reason there is no reason to consider them. Gods included.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine We believe what allows us to make sense of experience and the world. We hold it to be true because of the absurdity of the contrary. Start with God and things make sense. Start with self and all is absurd. You are left with radical skepticism and you cannot escape apart from just asserting yourself as if you arbitrate reality.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross Reality is not arbitrated by me, I don't see when you got that, my understanding of reality is. I start with asserting myself, as it is a necessary presupposition for me to think for me to exist. God claims are external to reality, so any sense they infer necessarily contradicts reality.
Thing is, you need to assert as many things as I do for your claims, but you also have to go a few steps further.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine First problem is you cannot assert yourself without being in relationship with something personal. God is not external to reality he is most fundamental to our reality. He reveals himself through all he has made you just try to shut him out. That you are a small part of an intelligible whole should tell you the self does not take primacy. The intelligence that governs and is communicating through creation allowing you to grasp truth should.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross There are too many unfounded assumptions in this to adequately address in a single comment. Of course I can assert myself. I never claimed that there is a primacy of self. I descrpibed the starting point of my investigation. You keep making claims about god that contradict our observations of reality. I don't see an intelligence governing reality.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine No self without other. No thought without intelligible reality. No ethics, universals or intelligibility without person. No primacy of self then no atheism or starting with self to investigate. You would see yourself as subject to the all controlling mind of God. Gods revelation in nature would to be your starting point.There is no imbetween here. Self or God. You cannot assume reality is intelligible because that presupposes intelligence. Judgement presupposes value.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross The intelligibility of nature, in the sense that it is consistent, doesn't require a governing intelligence, and indeed speaks out against such intelligence and in the sense that is can be intelligently observed, it is trivial, since we know this because human intelligences have done so. You need to start corroborating your claims rather than just making absolute dichotomies and expect me to accept them.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine Presupposing logic is a consistent universe logically necessary? Why would it be intelligible if it is not? Why can't it just disappear or turn into a frog? How can you know it without presupposing it is first? You believe the universe is intelligiable not because of your world view but inspite of it. Otherwise how would you know other than your assertion that it is trivial and others have done so? You need to realise your view cannot escape global skepticism.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross I believe the universe is intelligible because it consistently lives up to that standard. As far as we know the universe has never turned into a frog, so I have no reason to think it might. The consistency mentioned above doesn't need to be presupposed. There are more positions to be had than the binary of extreme skepticism and blind acceptance of a proposition.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine lol..How can you know it consistently live up to that standard? Begs the question! We know? l am not integral to your mind. You have no reason to think your thoughts are reliable. Ok. Give me one.. go on. Maybe you need to type it in capital letters to give it that epistmic force. No the positions are either reality arbirated by God or by you. If you insist you then I will continue to show you how inadequate such a position is for knowing anything epistemically.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross You can't 'continue' to do what you haven't done in the first place. Are you saying you have observed the universe turn into a frog? If not, my point stands.
Your epistemic certainty is only as strong as the god claim is, not vice versa. You seem to think that I think thoughts alone affect what reality is. They don't. Reality is what it is. The question is, how do we know about reality? The god claim is inconsequential to this question.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
Reality is a product of consciousness, it isn't synonymous with matter time or space. The question is who has determined reality. You - or an external consciousness in which you persist. If you cannot effect reality, I would expect the latter.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid That is not what I refer to as reality. Reality is everything that exists, regardless of observation of it. If you're saying that this reality requires a consciousness to create it, I must disagree.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
Then reality would contain absolutely nothing, as I previously stated - reality is not matter time or space - it is a product of consciousness.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid Can you corroborate your claim?
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
I personally cannot to any authoritative degree. However I will tell you that I do not find matter space or time to be reality.
There are real things which your consciousness experiences, it may involve matter space and time - but it isn't matter space or time.
What I wish to show you is that you may be looking at reality in the wrong way.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid So far you're not doing a very good job.
You can superimpose a filter on what you experience, claim that what you experience is some Matrix-analog, but unless you can demonstrate your case, no one has any reason to accept it.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
You cannot physically demonstrate consciousness - it is a matter of philosophy. If you want to know about matter space or time your position might be valid - but this is an entirely different matter.
Things aren't quite as simple as you might like them to be.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid But I don't think they are simple, I just don't think it behooves us to add complexities unnecessarily.
Philosophy is organized thought and has a lot to offer, but it what it tells us about reality must be consistent with it. I asked you corroborate your claim that reality is a product of consciousness. So far all you've said was the equivalent of 'its complicated'. If you are unwilling to expand, you shouldn't have made the claim to begin with.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
You don't even know what reality consists of my friend, you mistake it for matter time and space - but this is simply false.
It is complicated, and I am not an expect - but I can tell you that an apple floating in space is not "reality". It is the product of a consciousness.
You desire all things to be observable and testable, but they aren't. I'm sorry.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid Instead of feeling sorry for me and assuming my opinions & desires, try informing yourself on the philosophical theories you wish to adopt before bringing them up in a discussion. If your best argument is "It's complicated and untestable, but trust me on this, you're definitely wrong" how do you expect people to take you seriously?
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
As I stated previously my purpose is to show you that you may be looking at reality in the wrong way. I never claimed that I could provide for you an expert description of my position.
Even your position is unclear to me, seeing as how you somehow equate space time and matter with "reality" despite the experiences of my own consciousness.
Which is why I am having a discussion with you, but you take offense too easily.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid Im not offended, and I don't equate "reality" with space, time and matter. That was your assumption. However is it frustrating when you're making a definite claim and not backing it up with anything, not even the reasons that brought you to that conclusion, admit you're unclear about it, yet you can claim that you have a better understanding than me. Well, as the saying goes "put up or shut up" ;)
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
If reality is not space time and matter then what is it except the product of a consciousness? Reality is the product of consciousness, you cannot crack open an atom and find reality.
I never claimed that I necessarily had a "better understanding" than you. This is the third time which I have stated that my desire was to show you that you could be looking at reality in the wrong manner.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid Reality is the sum total of everything, which includes matter, space, time and any consciousness, and anything we have yet to uncover.
I am aware that I may be wrong. I have been wrong many times in my life, and I have subsequently changed my mind. This is why I am asking you to be concise. When you say I don't know what reality is, that is saying implicitly you know better than me what reality is.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
Ah but you cannot quantify consciousness, it is immeasurable just like you cannot quantify logic. There is no "reality" to the physical world, it is entirely physical. Reality is the product of a consciousness, you cannot locate it and measure it.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid Where do you get the idea that something quantifiable isn't real, or that the real isn't quantifiable?
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
Furthermore - you couldn't even quantify or measure matter space or time - without a consciousness. Hence the necessity. If all real things are a "sum total" a consciousness must sum it up.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid If it must be observed, yes a consciousness must do it, but observation is not a necessity. The universe existed for millions of years before we were here to observe it.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
Again, you're mistaking space time and matter for reality. Then you're assuming that man is the only consciousness from whence reality can arise. Rather, God was in the beginning and all real things were created by Him.
Well if everything that is true must be measured and observed, without anyone to measure or observe - nothing would have been true.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid That is the opposite of what I said. Reality exists, whether or not it is being observed or measured.
Give me an example of these real things, and please tell me how you know that God was there and created them
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
Then what could it possibly be? If it isn't being observed or measures - what is it? Nothing is the answer, it would be nothing.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid You didn't answer my question: What were the real things created by god and how do you know God created them?
I"ll respond tomorrow, goodnight.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
Well we've already been arguing the necessity of an independent consciousness to result in measurable and observable things in the past (that is real things). Apart from this consciousness there would be no form to any object (no real things). Just as we have seen - if you cannot observe or measure an apple - there is no intelligible form to an apple - hence there is no apple.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@Cafeeine Tell me how you know it has not existed for more than 5 mins?
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross We've been through this. I don't, for the same reason you don't.
I don't care because the claim has no evidence to back it and therefore it has no merit, you don't care because you have accepted an unfalsifiable claim that contradicts it.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine I have a solid foundation from which to form inferences. Given that I am working according to Gods design and God is revealing himself and controlling all things I have grounds for my confidence. God has revealed himself most clearly in the bible. The difference is you do not any such grounds. Only your big atheist mouth which cannot establish anything but rebels against God all the while relying upon him to do so.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@Cafeeine Did your beliefs and desires cause you to repsond after you experienced symbols and colours on the screen? Then the claim is corroborated unless you deny this.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross I deny that you've shown any connection between me responding to stimuli and reality being a product of consciousness.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
"me" is what you are forgetting.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid I have no desire to play a riddle game with someone who doesn't (or can't) explain their position clearly. Please do so, or have a good night talking to someone else.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine Oh so matter has the property of belief, desires qualia and language? If not then think about it. What are these the properties of? If it is not one then it's the other.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross Belief, desires, qualia are all properties that derive from a functioning brain. Language is the product of a society of individuals communicating. Why do you think think proves anything about your case?
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine You don't think things through. The brain is what? Material? Belief, desires and qualia are what? Immaterial? You writing your message was caused by someting immaterial not material or what? What is going though your head? Is saying a functioning brain an answer? Can I break your beliefs into atoms?
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross I think you haven't really thought things through, if you think that kind of naive materialism is in any case comparable towhat I'm saying.
Do you have a car? Whats the engine's horse power? Did they pour the horse power in there with a funnel like the gas? Can you extract the wetness from water?
There is no disconnect with material things having immaterial attributes emerging from their composition. There is however no precedent of consciousness divided from a material brain.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine Parrot! Immaterial attributes from matter jingling around. So is wetness deducible from the structure of water molecules? Are beliefs decucible from the arrangement of mass and motion? Sharp difference. One logically follows the other does not. How does something immaterial cause anything then? Futhermore wetness itself is dependant on the sensations of the mind. Our experience of all things is mind dependant so maybe idealism is the best approach.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross (: The difference may lay only in our current ignorance. Neuroscience is doing fantastic work in that domain. But your thoughts and beliefs are often affected by the amount of alcohol or LSD or cannabis in your body. Idealism ignores the intimate relationship of mind and brain and conflates personal experience of reality with reality.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine
Again you have two realities - your own - and an external source.
FillTheirVoid 1 month ago
@FillTheirVoid We have established that we mean different things by the word reality.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine Materialism ignores the causul efficacy of the mind. What matter is cannot be known if it exists independantly of the experience. It has no description so what can you say about it. In idealism the universe could be understood as the language God uses to reveal his attributes so brain and mind can be given an account.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross What makes you think there is a requirement for us to understand matter as more than the approximation of our experience? Your idealism here assumes a message and a messenger to offer an explanation that may not be needed.
materialism recognizes the causal efficacy of the mind, but it views it within the perspective of material interaction. The mind causes based on what the eyes & ears, the nerves transmit, and to the extent that the arms, legs, mouth etc. can act.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine What do you mean approximation of our experience? Message and messenger connect our truth with reality. How else? Whay assume otherwise? So the immaterial has causul efficacy? How do you propose interaction takes place?
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross We'll continue tomorrow, if you want, as Im tired. Goodnight.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine When will you learn? Skepticism always rears its head. You cannot win. How would you know regardless of what I tell you? I could be mistaken or I could be lying or I might be a figment of your imagination. Maybe you will misunderstand or something else will prevent you from even knowing my response. We know reality because God reveals it to us. We have been designed to think his thoughts after him.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross Then it seems god is having his self-effacing moments when I synv in, since I really don't think he exists.
You understand the epistemic problems of knowldge, yet you seem to think that claims of a god that magically overcomes these problems is enough to do so. You have only found the best way to fool yourself.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross My understanding of the world reflects what we can observe in it. Any kind of assertion of a "truth" that is not demonstrable in the world completely skews that perspective.
There are things I don't know. I prefer to say so rather than invent a solution, or accept one others have invented that has no reference to reality.
Cafeeine 1 month ago
@Cafeeine You cannot demonstrate anything without presupposing some truth about reality. We don't infer God, we start with God. I am trying to show you how your rejection of God leaves you with no viable foundation for knowledge. Observation on its own is inadequate. All knowledge must be grasped by the intellect through reason. If reason is not good enough to convince you of God then reason should not be good enough to convince you of anything and you should negate all beliefs.
BeholdTheCross 1 month ago
@BeholdTheCross My point is that god is not a viable foundation for knowledge, it is the illusion of such a basis, since there is no good reason to think it exists.
You claim is false, since I have been convinced of many things through reason, and the god claims are not of them. Once again, storytelling is not an argument.
Cafeeine 1 month ago