cdk, you didn't explore the nature of his comment as well as you could have. If our thoughts cannot be trusted because of an accident and he claims the Bible can, then we are not the product of an accident. This means we can trust our thoughts about the bible. But this means you can trust your thoughts about evolution being true. But if evolution is true, then you can no longer trust your thoughts about evolution being true and you must go to the bible. But then it's not an accident .. (repeat)
@sk8teh14 I'm not sure precisely what factorandrew (or whatever his name is) said, but the argument he is probably paraphrasing is Plantinga's. It states that given evolution alone, we cannot trust our mental faculties because natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms only deal with causing an organism to survive and reproduce, not with establishing true beliefs about the world.
@semperveritatem Plantinga points out that, for every situation in which a true belief would enhance an organisms survival/reproduction chances, there are multiple false beliefs that would do the same thing. For example, the belief that tigers are dangerous and will probably kill you for food is a true belief which would enhance a human's chances of surviving, but so would the belief that a divine being has commanded that humans stay
@semperveritatem away from tigers or the belief that if one gets too close to any orange object one will spontaneously combust. But if God exists, Plantinga claims, then we can trust our mental faculties because he would have guided evolution so as to produce trustworthy mental faculties which create true beliefs in us because he wants us to know the world and to know him.
@semperveritatem I don't think the argument works either, but I figured it would be better for you to know the actual argument instead of some weak straw man.
Establishing true beliefs about the world and being able to survive and reproduce are perfectly correlated. No organism survives very long believing that tigers are bunnies now do they?
I see two stupid sides. one argue about the science as if they understand it (99.99% of ppl just blindly believe what is taught by school and from so called science publications, which they cannot even validate for themselves about the claims from experimental data gathered). The other side argue about the religion as if they understand God (99.99% again cannot think outside what was taught by society and have half baked so called spiritual experiences.
@aaronbcj why yes people which are taught at school can validate about the claims from experimental data... science is testable observable and REPEATABLE
@randallfe I agree, science is testable observable and REPEATABLE BUT only when an expert in that field does that. A biologist cant calculate energy waves in sun or a physicist can dissect a gene. To carry out an experiment, one needs access to knowledge about the subject, a proper measurement instrument, test cases and a test procedure. The point is, being a scientist, it will be impossible for you to test "God" aka religion because you lack the above mentioned requirements to validate God.
@aaronbcj i can get into a plane, turn on my computer, and get rid of my headache by taking medication. science. i can also get on my knees and pray without any result or read the bible without finding any validation for it in reality. religion. you see, understanding science and understanding the scientific method are two different things. i don't know physics, but i know how physicists work and test their theories. and, as i said, i can see the validations of their efforts everywhere.
@topperheartramada For now, think of religion as a difficult subject, it has got its own rules and you need to study and follow them to understand it and it will reveal how it works internally and also why it works for only few. And it is repeatable and testable again and again just as any scientific law if and only if you understand and follow its rules with all your heart, all the time - just like you will test and measure any other scientific law but the instrument to measure is called faith.
@aaronbcj well, faith is belief in stuff without evidence. so with it you can 'prove' anything. besides, proof that is not public is no real proof. i can prove the laws of gravity to anyone. to have mysterious 'proof', say 'in your heart' doesn't work for me. proof is something that is so obvious that even if you try you cannot deny it. proof that exists only if you really try hard and apply some mysterious internal mechanism apart from your senses is rubbish.
@topperheartramada Faith is NOT belief in stuff without evidence, it is believing in stuff based on past experience that happened before and likely to happen now (aka probability). Science assumes a lot first before deriving equations or arriving at solution. How do we measured the speed of light.. isn't done for a small distance between pair of sample coordinates in universe and we extrapolated? Is it consistent across every pair of coordinates in the universe, you sure? by hope n faith we live
@topperheartramada Past experience of things that happened to you or those you know, which defied your logic.
Some theorems are never proved unless we first assume it to be true and then try to solve. Believing in God is like that but at end you get more than just an answer. Even if it is hard for you today, one day you will understand.
@aaronbcj Yeah, but the idea with hypotheses is that you can actually test them. To test god you have to die first, apparently. There is no testable hypothesis about god that you can make. So god is unprovable. What's the point of having a 'god hypothesis' then?
@topperheartramada It depends on how you define God. If you think He is living at some distant planet waiting for you to die, then you will never find him while you are here. Fortunately it is untrue, you only have to understand how He dwells in you, to find and test before accepting Him. It is His work that reflects through you when you are pious and you will reach the pinnacle and still stay humble and will not be ashamed to admit that none of those works are truly yours. Good bye.
@aaronbcj Why do you need to believe this? Isn't it enough that our species has learned and advanced so much since we first stood upright? I find nothing humble about religion, most theists are unbelievably arrogant and smug in their confidence that they have it right and milions of starving children in underprivileged countries are suffering because either they have it wrong or it's part of "god's perfect plan". God never did or made anything, we did.
@8698gil : theists are not God, so if you found them arrogant/incomplete, don't blame God for it :) .. actually theists and atheist are same in eyes of God.. Who is God then? He is the loving caring peaceful thoughts we carry in our consciousness that works for humanity and carries on, even after we die, by our deeds. We all have some of it in us rite? Then why this world is torn by war disasters? We all have "less" godliness in us than "worldliness"/Satan in our thoughts so world belongs 2 him.
@aaronbcj : Actually, debate like God vs Science is utterly wrong. Science is just a tool you can unlock mysteries and use it to practice godliness (good inventions) or worldliness (disasters) for mankind. But using it as a tool to trace God is like taking a sample from ocean and tracing it back to the river/tributary it came from. It's all mixed already, you will get different answers but none of them concrete, bcoz the question is wrong.
@topperheartramada True Faith comes when you know the past. God don't demand "Blind faith", actually He challenges us to "test" him. He scorns those who choose to remain idiots. He can show us more truth in a glimpse of time than science can reveal in 100 yrs making this world an instant boring for you. Man made religions are only the board-ways that lead half way to God, the narrowest of road only you have to find and continue your journey towards Him.
@aaronbcj I can't help but wonder where you get all these claims from. And I haven't noticed that religious societies have been more advanced than irreligious ones. I mean, with everyone so religious and god revealing so much science through faith, the middle ages would have been the most technologically advanced period in history. But god doesn't reveal science, does he? If anything, religion reveals itself to be man-made.
@topperheartramada You are absolutely correct. In my opinion, God =/= Man-made religion. There are two kinds of people, those who serve God (pious) and those who follow religion (mass). It's same as those who serve science (scientist) and those who follow science (gadget users). When God reveals His truth (need not be just science but revelation about past/future and eternal plans) to pious, they surpass all this world ever knows from recorded knowledge (means, including Bible/Kuran/Gita so on)
@aaronbcj well that is just you making things up with nothing to back it up with. anyone can do that and make up any story they fancy. and they do, as all the religions in existence testify.
Science is limited by evidence, hence it can only investigate the past part of God.
Maths allows assumptions and free to explore future but only when past is known.
You are asking me evidence, possibly some fossil from past (science can get you)? possibly some "outside" knowledge from future (maths can do rite)? About God revealing truth to his Pious - Why don't you find it yourself :)
@evanbellen As long as their beliefs *solely* lead them to being happy, then so be it. The reason why people speak out against ridiculous and unjustified beliefs such as this is because they are utterly subversive to our *overall* well being- they have adverse affects on the society surrounding those with these ridiculous and unjustified beliefs. Hopefully you realize that this is of far more importance than "let[ting]'em believe what they want."
@LeonhardEuler1 Yes, you have a point. But these ppl are very weak in their minds. I gave up starting arguments because is useless. Jewish hate muslims that hate christians... and all hate atheists.
My only concearn is a person like Sarah Palin (that believes in creationism, shooting guns) becoming the president of USA.
@evanbellen :) I should say that your last comment is really the context in which I meant what I said. I don't particularly care what someone else believes, so long as the recognize that it is a belief, and do not use it as a basis upon which to enact some sort of societal change- then you're stuck with the horrendous prospect of what you mentioned. ;)
This video was an accident!! Wasn't the Bible also written by man???? Probably a man that had some kind of "thought" process when writing it, unless he was a mindless slave. It is ignorant to completely cast asside science simply bc you don't understand it. Its possible to believe in god and science
You mean nature is an entity who actively selects?...
Your only case for non accidental processes would be some act of will or determination. 'Survival of the fittest' is obsolete, since fitness is relative to natural environment. Leaving only the chaotic natural forces as the arbiter of survival. Nature knows only how to kill, not to save.
Wow, so we've established that pain and murder are completely reasonable according to your logic. Outstanding.
@knowwaie "Wow, so we've established that pain and murder are completely reasonable according to your logic. Outstanding." lol, so this is the foundation of your logical arguement......lol, sounds like frustration to me which usually manifests itself in a personal attack at the intelligence of the opponent. Very tacky ....
In conclusion, the natural man should be thoughtless. If none of us 'thinks' but only follows then there will be unity in our divided world. Reject any thought which has not been given you by the established science hierarchy. Accept our logic and have no other logics before ours. Nature is the only logic.
---
Only scientific journals can determine truth, therefor, have no thoughts of your own. Now, this would be an accurate representation of an atheist's argumentation.
@knowwaie There you go again. What you are doing is like me saying there goes a thiest blowing himself up for his god, therfore all thiests believe it is a virtue to blow yourself up in gods name and are therfore dangerous. Which is clearly a flawed arguement (I hope).
At this point in time, in our society, atheists generally lean to the left. Socialism, totalitarianism, collectivism if you will. That may change at some point in time. It clearly has in the past. The trouble with conservatism is we rarely specify what is being 'conserved'. And liberalism has no bounds to begin with.
You've actually proved my point in saying "I think its dangerous not opposing religion". So religion should be governed? That is fascism. And exactly what you want.
@knowwaie "At this point in time, in our society, atheists generally lean to the left. Socialism, totalitarianism, collectivism if you will.
So if I dont believe in a god, I am a conservative (which is dynamically oppossed to Liberalism)?. Some religions lean more to the right and some more to the left alla "Bible Belt US" or "Radical Islamics" v Anglican or Judaism, but suggesting someone has political leanings because of a belief in a creator is perpostorous. You must be American.
@knowwaie "I think its dangerous not opposing religion". So religion should be governed? That is fascism. And exactly what you want." No, I have no problem you believing what you like and will defend your right to do so, but when it is taught as fact rather than faith, when ID wants to stand in the classroom along side Physics and Evolution, I do have an issue. We have a robust system that filters very well what is fact and what is belief, Religion should be subjected to that system.
Would you ever admit that it is true that you fall into this category?
I'm familiar with those religious leftists. And there are some atheists on the right. These people will rarely debate because they know they are not consistent. As i'm sure you fully understand.
Politics and the political parties are only an image of the real philosophies. Politics are driven by the wind. But the philosophies are absolutely solid.
I don't even want theology taught in school. That is ridiculous. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what the subject entails.
What you're talking about is not just individual 'filtering' but an authority over it. In other words, a hierarchy of intellectual dictation. You are talking like a fascist but you don't even know it because you have no idea what fascism means.
You believe religion to be brainwashing. Do you honestly believe that this is a right?
@knowwaie What we have is text written by men during the bronze age as an explanation for the Universe. We teach it to our kids as fact on mass. Tell them its a virtue to believe without proof (have faith). We teach them if they question its a sin and results in eternal fire and brimstone. We teach them its knoble to die for that belief and often they do..If thats not brainwashing, please define brainwashing.
@knowwaie "What you're talking about is not just individual 'filtering' but an authority over it. " Really? Other than peer review, what facist heirarchy governs scientific discovery? What I am talking about is the scientific method of determining fact from ficition. It is so successful, it has taken us to the point where I can argue with someone I have never met from another country using a keyboard and a screen. How is that fascist again?
You're not seriously arguing that evolution theory made computers. I've only seen children attempt such a claim. You really want to argue that? Well, IBM's success in Nazi Germany is the closest you will ever get to such a feat.
Do you not know what the word science means? Science is the 'knowable', not the 'theoretical'. You're so brainwashed that you don't even realize that you're arguing philosophy in the name of science. It is the progressive ideology that is fascist and even rules science.
@knowwaie Using the scientific method is why IBM helped the Nazi's. Or evolution invented computers? I just realised. You think the world came from the talking snake theory. Oh OK....Its a more rational theory than evolution, hehe.
By the way, since the mappining the human gene and the discovery of hundreds of fossils since Darwin, Evolution by natural selection is regarded as fact by most intelligent people.
Computers have nothing to do with evolution. In fact i searched all the people who contributed to the invention of the computer and almost all of them were professed religious.
We don't believe that snakes talk. It is no more significant than a God talking. You've only parroted that statement, which hurts you more than me. Don't be a parrot.
Evolution by natural selection is only regarded as fact by parrots. People who actually study it know that there is no evidence, nor could possibly be.
@knowwaie Where did I say evolution has anything to do with computers other than it created creatures with largwe brains to invent it.
"Evolution by natural selection is only regarded as fact by parrots. People who actually study it know that there is no evidence, nor could possibly be" Is that why over 98% of Scientists believe in evolution?
@knowwaie I have a request for you- give me a brief explanation of what the basic claims of evolutionary biology are, and what mechanisms they propose justify these claims. The reason I request this is because I have yet to talk to, read from a book written by, nor heard in a discussion/debate a single person who claims there is no evidence for evolution who has even a cursory understanding of what evolution is. Perhaps you will be the first, but I'm honestly not holding my breath- wow me.
I, nor anyone that i have ever heard, have argued what was mentioned in this video. This argument of 'unreliable mind there for God' is only an invented misrepresentation of two arguments.
I wouldn't even call this an argument, only an insight into your philosophy.
From an atheistic perspective, not only are our minds not trust worthy but no mind has ever been, nor could be, since there is no 'truth' in the conceptual world. The past, present, and ALL thoughts would be inherited delusion.
@TheJamieLoveday Did you even watch the video? He spent 5 minutes explaining how they were not "just accidents". Social services should confiscate your brain, you don't deserve it.
"If our thoughts cannot be trusted, we cannot trust what we read." I'd like to add that we REALLY can't trust any INTERPRETATION of what we read in that case.
"our thoughts are a product of an accident==> we can't trust our thoughts ==> one of our thoughts is not to trust accidents." -.-! so us not trusting in accidents can't be trusted.
So what can you trust? Bronze age theory passed on through generations as reason for our being? We have evolved to make sense of the Universe, and are exponentionally gaining more knowledge of how it works. You reading this is a product of Centuries of that accumalted knowledge. First, language, then writing, then hundreds of years of scientific theory that led to the PC, then a cenetury of the World Wide Web brings you to this video. Religion has only slowed the process down.
What slows the 'evolutionary process' is totalitarianism. Which is exactly what you're advocating. You may think it is harmless opposition to religious principle but you're also talking about an unchallengeable ideology.
You haven't noticed that all inventions are made by average people? The PC wasn't developed by Ford company. So the advent of electric cars would render gas motors Victorian age theories?
It is freedom that brings development. You want submission.
@knowwaie@knowwaie lol, you seem to know so much about my philosophy from 283 characters. You think atheism = Totallitarianism? I not have heard that arguement before. Not only do I think its harmless opposing religion, History has shown religion to be; the false hope of necrophobes, the tool of manipulating governments and power brokers to justify control the masses and fight to wars, and a safe haven for dangerous zealots. I think its dangerous not opposing religion.
we actually know we cannot 'trust' our thoughts in the sense of really knowing something for sure. but it has nothing to do with religion, but is instead a philosophical problem.
@MrHobiecat In order for an action to be "wrong", there should be a way to determine what's "right". But if you can't trust your thoughts, the required outsider-perspective doesn't exist.
@CDK007 Using straw men&false comparisons are logical fallacies.Atheists are the ones arguing that matter,scientific laws,life,etc. came into being without intelligence.If that's true,we have far less reason to trust our thoughts. Creationists DO NOT claim what atheists do.We claim that all those things came into being from INTELLIGENCE,which means our thoughts while not infallible are good tools to discover truth.Christians do NOT think that ONLY GOD-the Bible have knowledge. Sigh.
We have to trust our thoughts. What alternative is there? But to believe your thoughts are right because we must trust them ....is such flawed logic I can't believe you suggested it.
things start to become a problem if you no longer can trust your thoughts. When nothing is what you think it is you will most likely get yourself killed very soon.
Identification with thoughts is called the Ego. You are not Ego nor are you your thoughts. You are simply an observer, no judgement, no right, no wrong. Let go of your Ego and you can become fully aware of Who and What you are...
@r1a2b3b4i5t Umm go to video "Can you trust your thoughts" and look what you said and re-watch the -->(FULL movie)<-- ;) OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN TRUST YOUR THOUGHTS that's what he said!! you idiot DON'T STOP AT 1:13 WHICH YOU CLEARLY DID. he tells you the bullshit of how that works making their retarded statements sound even less RETARDED than yours!!
@firemonkey16 your thoughts come from your mind..You are NOT your mind, you are Being...If you are thinking, then who is it thats aware that you are thinking? Thoughts have created every problem that exist in our universe...People reach spiritual enlightenment by "watching" their thoughts and disconnecting from them..It is a very complex idea. The ego will try to trick you into believing you are what you think...
How has he jumped from, we and our brains are products of accidents to then say our thoughts are not reliable or trustworthy because our brain is an accident?! It doesn't follow that are thoughts are unreliable because our brain is an accident, thats like saying the functions of my body are unreliable because the controller of my body, actions, thoughts (the brain) is an accident! "Science and logic are invention of humans so unreliable... we can only trust the knowledge of god" What an idiot!
This video does not make sense. When a Creationist says that they can trust their brain to tell them that the Bible is true it is because they are using their worldview, but if someone is coming from the evolutionary mindset then of course it will seem like a Creationist is dumb because they are using their evolutionary mindset. Do you see how that argument does not work? It is self-defeating. You have to be able to get yourself into the other side of the argument to make a meaningful assertion
I like these videos! are you yourself a christian?
I think you keep repeating yourself but maybe this is good because it ingrains it into your brain! You make sense but i would like to see a movie on your idea of God so i can try to intellect more in these videos.
First of randomness is impossible. Everything is the result of physics. Please try and not use 'random' either. It is as much of a delusion as god. By the way I'm an athiest.
Human beings ARE subject to faulty thinking. That's why we created the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is the best way we have to compensate for our own flaws in our thinking process.
come on, dude, you have no good points, christains dont think that all facts come from the bible moron, only insane ones, there goes your whole video lol, dont debate with me, i am a very open minded person, way past what you can understand lol, and yes, you think it was all an accident dont deny it, the hawk didnt decide to have better eyesight, it happended because he used his eyes alot, that is accidental, the hawk didnt intend on having better eyesight, it just happended,
@doyce1000 Do you believe a child of poverty dying at a young age will go to "hell" because he doesn't believe in Jesus? Probably not. Yet the bible claims the only way to salvation is through Jesus. So if you dismiss parts of the bible as false, does that not challenge its credibility as a whole? And ponder this. God didn't pick up a pen and write the bible, men who claimed to be spoken to by God did. Each book is one man's interpretation of "God", not YOUR interpretation! Think for yourself.
come on, dude, you have no good points, christains dont think that all facts come from the bible moron, only insane ones, there goes your whole video lol, dont debate with me, i am a very open minded person, way past what you can understand lol
ehh i agree with pretty much everything, EXCEPT for the idea that our senses can be trusted. thats a common assumption that cant possibly ever be actually proven, ever. philosophers have been grappling with that theory for millennia.
I think you still cannot entirely trust your thoughts - most of them are intuitive responses to patterns. Our brains are not well suited for reason and logic.
The Creationist makes a very good point that logic and science cannot be trusted, and that only -- supernatural knowledge can be said to be absolutely true. However, as you rightly point out, he loses all credibility when he cites the Bible as the unshakable foundation of truth.
1. It's not a choice to trust logic, you either do or you dont, and even if you think God provides logic you still have to trust your own mind first to believe that.
2. If the basis for our thoughts is provided by a supernatual being, then how do we know we can trust what it allows us to percieve? What if God wanted us to be fooled? Again, you must ultimately trust your own thoughts without knowing where they come from, it's unavoidable.
1. There is a choice involved in how you weight logic when you are considering factors. You give it supreme importance over all other factors in terms of belief and mental analysis of the world, or you can not. It's a choice if you recognize it.
Logic is not the same as knowledge; I know things because I perceive them and I further know things because logic supports my perceptions (or, nothing I see is ILlogical).
Not saying religion is unimportant btw. Just saying its pointless to talk about it to someone who doesn't care about it or doesn't believe in it. Which just ends up in wasted time. Time that could've been used to better the human race.
Eh God didn't write the bible, humans did. They used thoughts to write it as well. The way I see it, Religious people should just stop arguing their religion is real or not. For one, that shows insecurity in the religion and convincing a man/woman of science that your religion is the way to go is just like them telling you that God isn't real. Best thing for us humans to do to advance, is to just try to avoid the subject and focus on more important things.
We can't fully trust our thoughts as individuals. Note that biases, context and a slew of fallacies can cloud our thoughts. We must be aware that we can only trust our senses to a certain degree because it is common that our mind may interpret what we perceive to be quite different from reality. What we can do though is to not solely depend and rely on our own thoughts as individuals but consider what others have in mind when interpreting facts. In short, the scientific method.
the devil's advocate would say: that if we follow your entire string of reasoning, that we cannot essentially trust what we are understanding from your theory, thus your own words cannot be trusted, and so maybe what one would deduce not to be trustworthy material may in fact be so, and that goes for anything, science or religion - i suppose ... :) - so believe what you will - is that not the moral of this whole argument ?
but i believe and i no some are with me on this ...that what we see as a random event has its reasons for happening ..for i believe in fate and destiny ...its like this your thoughts deside your path and for each path a fate awates ..
i strongly suggest you watch the biology of belief, by bruce lipton
youd probably find it very interesting
he explains only with science how the control of our genes over our bodies has been greatly misunderstood, and furthermore how we ARE, and are a PRODUCT OF, the environment. He dares notion to the extent of answering our question is there life after death?
It is not even possible to address any of the author's points, because he uses each term ('thought', 'accident', etc.) one way in the citing examples, and then in a very different way to make his next point. For example, he uses the word 'thought' to mean, in turn, perception, verbal description, reaction, experience and cognition. He uses the word 'accident' to mean, variously, random, unintended, unforseen or simply not-understood. Etc. This is a common logical and rhetorical error.
I used to hate that term too, but "evolutionist" is a real word, with a real definition. It simply means "a student of the theory of evolution." Not such a bad thing, and it implies more than mere passive acceptance of the theory. I am not a physicist, but I accept atoms. I am not a doctor, but I accept germs. I am an evolutionist, however, because I study and accept evolution.
Discovered in 2003: The underlying law of nature. . Discovered in 2008: The empirical process by which one may identify the underlying law of nature first hand, for oneself. . This knowledge comes with no middleman wearing a fancy hat, cape, scarf, ring or necklace to obey and pay. . Think about it. . The underlying law of nature is the observable, constant, most fundamental way of all things -- all matter, energy, forms, forces, thoughts, behaviour, events and conditions. . Google it.
why try to convince people to believe god is not real? if they are not someone on the same intellectual level as others, but carry a moral code that makes them act in society as a productive non violent manner, why stop the cause of there acceptable behavior? they are not furthering contemporary thought on the design of humans but they are not damaging society or holding back the productivity of the society being created of new science, they find ways to update their beliefs while upholding law.
@0arikreich0 Look up the Dover trials in Pennsylvania. That is very much holding back the productivity of society. In most cases its harmless but when abortion doctors are being murdered by over the top pro-lifers it is very destructive. What about Jihads? It can be a very harmful thought process that is not backed up by any testable evidence. Just a book and a gut feeling. I realize that most people don't take it that far but there is a huge potential for abuse.
@silviasr20det i see your point, i also think that people like that are just crazy. i often wonder if they were not acting in the name of their religion if they would be acting out in the name of something else or if its just the religious beliefs taken too far.i just now read your reply and havent had a chance to look up the Dover trials in Pennsylvania.but i will be sure to do so.
Well if you're an idiot than you really can't trust your thoughts until you gain knowledge. There are some people out there who are very delusional and hear voices inside their heads, I'm sure you'll agree that these individuals should not trust their thoughts lol. You should clarify more and say "if you're a sane individual with a basic understanding of the world, most likely you can trust your thoughts".
Is it an accident my brain releases chemical molecules(neurotransmitters) to travel across synapses to receptors to a specific part of the brain to invoke an action created by what ever lobe is stimulated? If we can't trust our thoughts, how can we trust that statement? If we can't trust that statement, can we trust our distrust to be distrusting? LOL
cdk, you didn't explore the nature of his comment as well as you could have. If our thoughts cannot be trusted because of an accident and he claims the Bible can, then we are not the product of an accident. This means we can trust our thoughts about the bible. But this means you can trust your thoughts about evolution being true. But if evolution is true, then you can no longer trust your thoughts about evolution being true and you must go to the bible. But then it's not an accident .. (repeat)
sk8teh14 1 month ago
@sk8teh14 I'm not sure precisely what factorandrew (or whatever his name is) said, but the argument he is probably paraphrasing is Plantinga's. It states that given evolution alone, we cannot trust our mental faculties because natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms only deal with causing an organism to survive and reproduce, not with establishing true beliefs about the world.
semperveritatem 1 month ago
@semperveritatem Plantinga points out that, for every situation in which a true belief would enhance an organisms survival/reproduction chances, there are multiple false beliefs that would do the same thing. For example, the belief that tigers are dangerous and will probably kill you for food is a true belief which would enhance a human's chances of surviving, but so would the belief that a divine being has commanded that humans stay
semperveritatem 1 month ago
@semperveritatem away from tigers or the belief that if one gets too close to any orange object one will spontaneously combust. But if God exists, Plantinga claims, then we can trust our mental faculties because he would have guided evolution so as to produce trustworthy mental faculties which create true beliefs in us because he wants us to know the world and to know him.
semperveritatem 1 month ago
@semperveritatem I don't think the argument works either, but I figured it would be better for you to know the actual argument instead of some weak straw man.
semperveritatem 1 month ago
@semperveritatem
Establishing true beliefs about the world and being able to survive and reproduce are perfectly correlated. No organism survives very long believing that tigers are bunnies now do they?
sk8teh14 4 weeks ago
i can always trust a creationist to come up with some rubbish argument.
topperheartramada 1 month ago
cdk007 is obsessed with 'votebots' even thought he has the clear majority of green votes
EvolutionDismantled 2 months ago
I see two stupid sides. one argue about the science as if they understand it (99.99% of ppl just blindly believe what is taught by school and from so called science publications, which they cannot even validate for themselves about the claims from experimental data gathered). The other side argue about the religion as if they understand God (99.99% again cannot think outside what was taught by society and have half baked so called spiritual experiences.
aaronbcj 3 months ago
@aaronbcj why yes people which are taught at school can validate about the claims from experimental data... science is testable observable and REPEATABLE
randallfe 3 months ago
@randallfe I agree, science is testable observable and REPEATABLE BUT only when an expert in that field does that. A biologist cant calculate energy waves in sun or a physicist can dissect a gene. To carry out an experiment, one needs access to knowledge about the subject, a proper measurement instrument, test cases and a test procedure. The point is, being a scientist, it will be impossible for you to test "God" aka religion because you lack the above mentioned requirements to validate God.
aaronbcj 1 month ago
@aaronbcj i can get into a plane, turn on my computer, and get rid of my headache by taking medication. science. i can also get on my knees and pray without any result or read the bible without finding any validation for it in reality. religion. you see, understanding science and understanding the scientific method are two different things. i don't know physics, but i know how physicists work and test their theories. and, as i said, i can see the validations of their efforts everywhere.
topperheartramada 1 month ago
@topperheartramada For now, think of religion as a difficult subject, it has got its own rules and you need to study and follow them to understand it and it will reveal how it works internally and also why it works for only few. And it is repeatable and testable again and again just as any scientific law if and only if you understand and follow its rules with all your heart, all the time - just like you will test and measure any other scientific law but the instrument to measure is called faith.
aaronbcj 1 month ago
@aaronbcj well, faith is belief in stuff without evidence. so with it you can 'prove' anything. besides, proof that is not public is no real proof. i can prove the laws of gravity to anyone. to have mysterious 'proof', say 'in your heart' doesn't work for me. proof is something that is so obvious that even if you try you cannot deny it. proof that exists only if you really try hard and apply some mysterious internal mechanism apart from your senses is rubbish.
topperheartramada 1 month ago
@topperheartramada Faith is NOT belief in stuff without evidence, it is believing in stuff based on past experience that happened before and likely to happen now (aka probability). Science assumes a lot first before deriving equations or arriving at solution. How do we measured the speed of light.. isn't done for a small distance between pair of sample coordinates in universe and we extrapolated? Is it consistent across every pair of coordinates in the universe, you sure? by hope n faith we live
aaronbcj 1 month ago
@aaronbcj so belief in jesus is based on past experience of what? of believing in jesus?
topperheartramada 1 month ago
@topperheartramada Past experience of things that happened to you or those you know, which defied your logic.
Some theorems are never proved unless we first assume it to be true and then try to solve. Believing in God is like that but at end you get more than just an answer. Even if it is hard for you today, one day you will understand.
aaronbcj 1 month ago
@aaronbcj Yeah, but the idea with hypotheses is that you can actually test them. To test god you have to die first, apparently. There is no testable hypothesis about god that you can make. So god is unprovable. What's the point of having a 'god hypothesis' then?
topperheartramada 1 month ago
@topperheartramada It depends on how you define God. If you think He is living at some distant planet waiting for you to die, then you will never find him while you are here. Fortunately it is untrue, you only have to understand how He dwells in you, to find and test before accepting Him. It is His work that reflects through you when you are pious and you will reach the pinnacle and still stay humble and will not be ashamed to admit that none of those works are truly yours. Good bye.
aaronbcj 1 month ago
@aaronbcj Why do you need to believe this? Isn't it enough that our species has learned and advanced so much since we first stood upright? I find nothing humble about religion, most theists are unbelievably arrogant and smug in their confidence that they have it right and milions of starving children in underprivileged countries are suffering because either they have it wrong or it's part of "god's perfect plan". God never did or made anything, we did.
8698gil 1 month ago
@8698gil : theists are not God, so if you found them arrogant/incomplete, don't blame God for it :) .. actually theists and atheist are same in eyes of God.. Who is God then? He is the loving caring peaceful thoughts we carry in our consciousness that works for humanity and carries on, even after we die, by our deeds. We all have some of it in us rite? Then why this world is torn by war disasters? We all have "less" godliness in us than "worldliness"/Satan in our thoughts so world belongs 2 him.
aaronbcj 1 month ago
@aaronbcj : Actually, debate like God vs Science is utterly wrong. Science is just a tool you can unlock mysteries and use it to practice godliness (good inventions) or worldliness (disasters) for mankind. But using it as a tool to trace God is like taking a sample from ocean and tracing it back to the river/tributary it came from. It's all mixed already, you will get different answers but none of them concrete, bcoz the question is wrong.
aaronbcj 1 month ago
@topperheartramada True Faith comes when you know the past. God don't demand "Blind faith", actually He challenges us to "test" him. He scorns those who choose to remain idiots. He can show us more truth in a glimpse of time than science can reveal in 100 yrs making this world an instant boring for you. Man made religions are only the board-ways that lead half way to God, the narrowest of road only you have to find and continue your journey towards Him.
aaronbcj 1 month ago
@aaronbcj I can't help but wonder where you get all these claims from. And I haven't noticed that religious societies have been more advanced than irreligious ones. I mean, with everyone so religious and god revealing so much science through faith, the middle ages would have been the most technologically advanced period in history. But god doesn't reveal science, does he? If anything, religion reveals itself to be man-made.
topperheartramada 1 month ago
@topperheartramada You are absolutely correct. In my opinion, God =/= Man-made religion. There are two kinds of people, those who serve God (pious) and those who follow religion (mass). It's same as those who serve science (scientist) and those who follow science (gadget users). When God reveals His truth (need not be just science but revelation about past/future and eternal plans) to pious, they surpass all this world ever knows from recorded knowledge (means, including Bible/Kuran/Gita so on)
aaronbcj 1 month ago
@aaronbcj well that is just you making things up with nothing to back it up with. anyone can do that and make up any story they fancy. and they do, as all the religions in existence testify.
topperheartramada 1 month ago
@topperheartramada
Science is limited by evidence, hence it can only investigate the past part of God.
Maths allows assumptions and free to explore future but only when past is known.
You are asking me evidence, possibly some fossil from past (science can get you)? possibly some "outside" knowledge from future (maths can do rite)? About God revealing truth to his Pious - Why don't you find it yourself :)
aaronbcj 1 month ago
not acident, natural selection, moron. -.-
and about your bible...just google for the council of nicaea (hope I spelled that right). it was about 300-400 AD.
GalliadII 3 months ago
Lack of any credible science in these arguments.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@PlasteredDragon
Well then I guess we shouldn't care what they think. :-)
Primalxbeast 4 months ago
Comment removed
HIGHzONzLIFE 4 months ago
It has been proven that pain is all in the mind.
LLOYD19851012 5 months ago
ow my hand lol
DarkTwin567 5 months ago
cdk007, I love you! <3
laDy8A5737 5 months ago
291 people have thoughts that can't be trusted.
PlasteredDragon 5 months ago
You actually heard this argument from someone? Wow.... that is astoundingly bad...
LeonhardEuler1 5 months ago
Man, listen, Im atheist but leave this people alone. Let'em believe what they want.
You are using the same aproach bad religious people do to prey and brainwash others.
If their belief make them happy, so be it.
evanbellen 5 months ago
@evanbellen As long as their beliefs *solely* lead them to being happy, then so be it. The reason why people speak out against ridiculous and unjustified beliefs such as this is because they are utterly subversive to our *overall* well being- they have adverse affects on the society surrounding those with these ridiculous and unjustified beliefs. Hopefully you realize that this is of far more importance than "let[ting]'em believe what they want."
LeonhardEuler1 5 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1 Yes, you have a point. But these ppl are very weak in their minds. I gave up starting arguments because is useless. Jewish hate muslims that hate christians... and all hate atheists.
My only concearn is a person like Sarah Palin (that believes in creationism, shooting guns) becoming the president of USA.
evanbellen 5 months ago
@evanbellen :) I should say that your last comment is really the context in which I meant what I said. I don't particularly care what someone else believes, so long as the recognize that it is a belief, and do not use it as a basis upon which to enact some sort of societal change- then you're stuck with the horrendous prospect of what you mentioned. ;)
LeonhardEuler1 5 months ago
Absurd.
jijilamorosso 6 months ago
This video was an accident!! Wasn't the Bible also written by man???? Probably a man that had some kind of "thought" process when writing it, unless he was a mindless slave. It is ignorant to completely cast asside science simply bc you don't understand it. Its possible to believe in god and science
Godjeff 6 months ago
The problems i found were....
1. if you can't trust ur thoughts then how can you trust ur comprehension over the bible.
2. Trust is loosely related with existence and facts.
thts all i got.
robobrain10000 6 months ago
On the subject of 'accidental evolution'..
You mean nature is an entity who actively selects?...
Your only case for non accidental processes would be some act of will or determination. 'Survival of the fittest' is obsolete, since fitness is relative to natural environment. Leaving only the chaotic natural forces as the arbiter of survival. Nature knows only how to kill, not to save.
Wow, so we've established that pain and murder are completely reasonable according to your logic. Outstanding.
knowwaie 6 months ago
@knowwaie "Wow, so we've established that pain and murder are completely reasonable according to your logic. Outstanding." lol, so this is the foundation of your logical arguement......lol, sounds like frustration to me which usually manifests itself in a personal attack at the intelligence of the opponent. Very tacky ....
Botie2 6 months ago
In conclusion, the natural man should be thoughtless. If none of us 'thinks' but only follows then there will be unity in our divided world. Reject any thought which has not been given you by the established science hierarchy. Accept our logic and have no other logics before ours. Nature is the only logic.
---
Only scientific journals can determine truth, therefor, have no thoughts of your own. Now, this would be an accurate representation of an atheist's argumentation.
knowwaie 6 months ago
@knowwaie There you go again. What you are doing is like me saying there goes a thiest blowing himself up for his god, therfore all thiests believe it is a virtue to blow yourself up in gods name and are therfore dangerous. Which is clearly a flawed arguement (I hope).
Botie2 6 months ago
At this point in time, in our society, atheists generally lean to the left. Socialism, totalitarianism, collectivism if you will. That may change at some point in time. It clearly has in the past. The trouble with conservatism is we rarely specify what is being 'conserved'. And liberalism has no bounds to begin with.
You've actually proved my point in saying "I think its dangerous not opposing religion". So religion should be governed? That is fascism. And exactly what you want.
knowwaie 6 months ago
@knowwaie "At this point in time, in our society, atheists generally lean to the left. Socialism, totalitarianism, collectivism if you will.
So if I dont believe in a god, I am a conservative (which is dynamically oppossed to Liberalism)?. Some religions lean more to the right and some more to the left alla "Bible Belt US" or "Radical Islamics" v Anglican or Judaism, but suggesting someone has political leanings because of a belief in a creator is perpostorous. You must be American.
Botie2 6 months ago
@knowwaie "I think its dangerous not opposing religion". So religion should be governed? That is fascism. And exactly what you want." No, I have no problem you believing what you like and will defend your right to do so, but when it is taught as fact rather than faith, when ID wants to stand in the classroom along side Physics and Evolution, I do have an issue. We have a robust system that filters very well what is fact and what is belief, Religion should be subjected to that system.
Botie2 6 months ago
Would you ever admit that it is true that you fall into this category?
I'm familiar with those religious leftists. And there are some atheists on the right. These people will rarely debate because they know they are not consistent. As i'm sure you fully understand.
Politics and the political parties are only an image of the real philosophies. Politics are driven by the wind. But the philosophies are absolutely solid.
"Religion should be subjected to that system"
That's very authoritarian.
knowwaie 6 months ago
@knowwaie "Religion should be subjected to that system. That's very authoritarian."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Botie2 6 months ago
I don't even want theology taught in school. That is ridiculous. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what the subject entails.
What you're talking about is not just individual 'filtering' but an authority over it. In other words, a hierarchy of intellectual dictation. You are talking like a fascist but you don't even know it because you have no idea what fascism means.
You believe religion to be brainwashing. Do you honestly believe that this is a right?
You're not thinking properly
knowwaie 6 months ago
@knowwaie What we have is text written by men during the bronze age as an explanation for the Universe. We teach it to our kids as fact on mass. Tell them its a virtue to believe without proof (have faith). We teach them if they question its a sin and results in eternal fire and brimstone. We teach them its knoble to die for that belief and often they do..If thats not brainwashing, please define brainwashing.
Botie2 6 months ago
@knowwaie "What you're talking about is not just individual 'filtering' but an authority over it. " Really? Other than peer review, what facist heirarchy governs scientific discovery? What I am talking about is the scientific method of determining fact from ficition. It is so successful, it has taken us to the point where I can argue with someone I have never met from another country using a keyboard and a screen. How is that fascist again?
Botie2 6 months ago
You're not seriously arguing that evolution theory made computers. I've only seen children attempt such a claim. You really want to argue that? Well, IBM's success in Nazi Germany is the closest you will ever get to such a feat.
Do you not know what the word science means? Science is the 'knowable', not the 'theoretical'. You're so brainwashed that you don't even realize that you're arguing philosophy in the name of science. It is the progressive ideology that is fascist and even rules science.
knowwaie 6 months ago
@knowwaie Using the scientific method is why IBM helped the Nazi's. Or evolution invented computers? I just realised. You think the world came from the talking snake theory. Oh OK....Its a more rational theory than evolution, hehe.
By the way, since the mappining the human gene and the discovery of hundreds of fossils since Darwin, Evolution by natural selection is regarded as fact by most intelligent people.
Botie2 6 months ago
Computers have nothing to do with evolution. In fact i searched all the people who contributed to the invention of the computer and almost all of them were professed religious.
We don't believe that snakes talk. It is no more significant than a God talking. You've only parroted that statement, which hurts you more than me. Don't be a parrot.
Evolution by natural selection is only regarded as fact by parrots. People who actually study it know that there is no evidence, nor could possibly be.
knowwaie 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie Where did I say evolution has anything to do with computers other than it created creatures with largwe brains to invent it.
"Evolution by natural selection is only regarded as fact by parrots. People who actually study it know that there is no evidence, nor could possibly be" Is that why over 98% of Scientists believe in evolution?
Botie2 6 months ago
@knowwaie I have a request for you- give me a brief explanation of what the basic claims of evolutionary biology are, and what mechanisms they propose justify these claims. The reason I request this is because I have yet to talk to, read from a book written by, nor heard in a discussion/debate a single person who claims there is no evidence for evolution who has even a cursory understanding of what evolution is. Perhaps you will be the first, but I'm honestly not holding my breath- wow me.
LeonhardEuler1 5 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1
Organisms have heritable traits.
They pass on those traits with varying degrees of success.
The allele frequency in a population of organisms is dynamic over time (generations) do to this.
This leads to changes in genotype/phenotype over time.
odinata 5 months ago
I, nor anyone that i have ever heard, have argued what was mentioned in this video. This argument of 'unreliable mind there for God' is only an invented misrepresentation of two arguments.
I wouldn't even call this an argument, only an insight into your philosophy.
From an atheistic perspective, not only are our minds not trust worthy but no mind has ever been, nor could be, since there is no 'truth' in the conceptual world. The past, present, and ALL thoughts would be inherited delusion.
knowwaie 6 months ago
While thoughts may be reliable, they are not transferable.
Keyfaze 6 months ago
common sense
ProwerlessThrone 7 months ago
great..thx..hehe
lowrider692 8 months ago
beaker!!
TYMENIOUS 8 months ago
so you think that the most complex of ecosystems are JUST accidents. man im no biologist but that just doesnt seem like something correct.
TheJamieLoveday 8 months ago
@TheJamieLoveday Did you even watch the video? He spent 5 minutes explaining how they were not "just accidents". Social services should confiscate your brain, you don't deserve it.
ShavedKnuckle 7 months ago
"If our thoughts cannot be trusted, we cannot trust what we read." I'd like to add that we REALLY can't trust any INTERPRETATION of what we read in that case.
tifforo1 8 months ago
"our thoughts are a product of an accident==> we can't trust our thoughts ==> one of our thoughts is not to trust accidents." -.-! so us not trusting in accidents can't be trusted.
claw7755 8 months ago
sensing trait... a lot of people lack that
beerhead32 8 months ago
So what can you trust? Bronze age theory passed on through generations as reason for our being? We have evolved to make sense of the Universe, and are exponentionally gaining more knowledge of how it works. You reading this is a product of Centuries of that accumalted knowledge. First, language, then writing, then hundreds of years of scientific theory that led to the PC, then a cenetury of the World Wide Web brings you to this video. Religion has only slowed the process down.
Botie2 8 months ago
What slows the 'evolutionary process' is totalitarianism. Which is exactly what you're advocating. You may think it is harmless opposition to religious principle but you're also talking about an unchallengeable ideology.
You haven't noticed that all inventions are made by average people? The PC wasn't developed by Ford company. So the advent of electric cars would render gas motors Victorian age theories?
It is freedom that brings development. You want submission.
knowwaie 6 months ago
@knowwaie @knowwaie lol, you seem to know so much about my philosophy from 283 characters. You think atheism = Totallitarianism? I not have heard that arguement before. Not only do I think its harmless opposing religion, History has shown religion to be; the false hope of necrophobes, the tool of manipulating governments and power brokers to justify control the masses and fight to wars, and a safe haven for dangerous zealots. I think its dangerous not opposing religion.
Botie2 6 months ago
all you have is in your own fallacious way try to somehow nlp people??? either way i see know more time spent here.... good day sir
rnballs2 8 months ago
Great!
titochion 9 months ago
You cannot even trust about your knowledge of the bible either, according to this logic... Yeh, it was an epic fail :3
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 9 months ago
The bible is the only true source of knowledge. Lol wow your funny
jeezusallahchrist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I do not trust your thought
szlagjasny 9 months ago
@cdk007 This is also good rebuttal to the "documentary" the secret beyond matter
Mitche23 9 months ago
You just created a time paradox. Nice going.
PikKirby 9 months ago
everybody says, subscribe and watch this and that.. WTF??
WHYYYY???? what is the point?
alxwm 9 months ago
we actually know we cannot 'trust' our thoughts in the sense of really knowing something for sure. but it has nothing to do with religion, but is instead a philosophical problem.
Ensiferu 10 months ago
If you cant trust your own thougths then nothing else really matters
because no matter what you do, follow a religion, dont follow it, go your own way, if you are in effect "crazy", no matter what you do, its wrong.
MrHobiecat 10 months ago
@MrHobiecat In order for an action to be "wrong", there should be a way to determine what's "right". But if you can't trust your thoughts, the required outsider-perspective doesn't exist.
Zendrig 10 months ago
@Zendrig Kinda like asking a crazy person if they are ok?
MrHobiecat 10 months ago
@CDK007 Using straw men&false comparisons are logical fallacies.Atheists are the ones arguing that matter,scientific laws,life,etc. came into being without intelligence.If that's true,we have far less reason to trust our thoughts. Creationists DO NOT claim what atheists do.We claim that all those things came into being from INTELLIGENCE,which means our thoughts while not infallible are good tools to discover truth.Christians do NOT think that ONLY GOD-the Bible have knowledge. Sigh.
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
that first part was the stupidest shit i ever heard
JOHNNYTORTILLA9 10 months ago
I can't trust my thoughts. They still owe me $15.00
LiveTheWild 10 months ago
do you make podcasts or something?
ipilincoln1515 11 months ago
creationists are the lowest form of life on the planet
LifeDoesEvolve 11 months ago
I just hit really hard my hand with the hammer and it didn't hurt
videofonico 11 months ago
Can I trust my thoughts about trusting my thoughts?
Alaric11 11 months ago
We have to trust our thoughts. What alternative is there? But to believe your thoughts are right because we must trust them ....is such flawed logic I can't believe you suggested it.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
The Bible is the only book Ur' need to read in life, Yes!!
i agree.... everyone who the Lord speak to get a hold of a copy of the Hebrew Bible too! bcuz that was the first laugo know to man in the Beganing
Plus.... In the lasts days men i will be corrupt ....duh
so trust no man as well as da Antichrist && fine a way to live without the Mark of the Beast! Amen & God bless
DanteXLz 1 year ago
@DanteXLz Learn how to spell words right.
gtaPeoPLehunT3R 10 months ago
@gtaPeoPLehunT3R Wtf, Since when youtube actully become a spelling correction test!
Oh! i get it jus incase they do Ur' be the first inline to becum da' ricjest in history uh
Gett da' fuc' out of here u lil' dumb shit!
DanteXLz 10 months ago
@DanteXLz No. I'm not a 'dumb shit' because I know how to write with proper grammer. Also, what about the richest in history? Your just rambling.
gtaPeoPLehunT3R 9 months ago
OW! MY HAND!
cruciphile 1 year ago
The question is "What is the real table?"
logic is just one tool to bridge the chasm between sensory perception and consciousness.
the idea that the world of the senses is reality is itself flawed.
hence the limitations in logic itself.
the reality is just as much in the knower as what is observed.
Science tries to ignore this fact by putting undue emphasis on what is observed while relegating the importance of consciousness which comes first.
Jonchess 1 year ago
Are you calling me an accident!!!!!!
TomBTV1 1 year ago
What is more retarded?
The elaborate response to debunk a profoundly weak and retarded argument about not trusting thoughts?
Or
Me wasting my retarded time watching someone else waste their retarded time on something beyond stupid.
DAMN IT! I can't trust my own thoughts!
batfly 1 year ago
@batfly
Lmao... thanks for the chuckle. :)
JulyForToday 11 months ago
Dude, i just have to say your videos are not only hilarious, but very clear, and easy to follow.
thank you
dunolar1 1 year ago
things start to become a problem if you no longer can trust your thoughts. When nothing is what you think it is you will most likely get yourself killed very soon.
timonix2 1 year ago
@timonix2
If you can't trust your own thoughts... then the thought that you can't trust your own thoughts can't be trusted.
Therefore we can trust our own thoughts or not.
batfly 1 year ago
Identification with thoughts is called the Ego. You are not Ego nor are you your thoughts. You are simply an observer, no judgement, no right, no wrong. Let go of your Ego and you can become fully aware of Who and What you are...
kevo795 1 year ago
@r1a2b3b4i5t Umm go to video "Can you trust your thoughts" and look what you said and re-watch the -->(FULL movie)<-- ;) OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN TRUST YOUR THOUGHTS that's what he said!! you idiot DON'T STOP AT 1:13 WHICH YOU CLEARLY DID. he tells you the bullshit of how that works making their retarded statements sound even less RETARDED than yours!!
Satonator 1 year ago
if the idea that you can't trust your thoughts is true then wouldn't the thought that we can't trust our thoughts be a thought that we can't trust?
firemonkey16 1 year ago
@firemonkey16 your thoughts come from your mind..You are NOT your mind, you are Being...If you are thinking, then who is it thats aware that you are thinking? Thoughts have created every problem that exist in our universe...People reach spiritual enlightenment by "watching" their thoughts and disconnecting from them..It is a very complex idea. The ego will try to trick you into believing you are what you think...
kevo795 1 year ago
NNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDD
Gwapboy21 1 year ago
@Gwapboy21
And your point by putting this comment is?
honorship 1 year ago
@honorship your point of replying to my comment is.......
Gwapboy21 1 year ago
@Gwapboy21
why you delete your comment??
honorship 1 year ago
u my friend, are a true genius. Your like a jesuit but without the religion
thedeadhalo 1 year ago
u can trust your though.
masterprey1 1 year ago
How has he jumped from, we and our brains are products of accidents to then say our thoughts are not reliable or trustworthy because our brain is an accident?! It doesn't follow that are thoughts are unreliable because our brain is an accident, thats like saying the functions of my body are unreliable because the controller of my body, actions, thoughts (the brain) is an accident! "Science and logic are invention of humans so unreliable... we can only trust the knowledge of god" What an idiot!
r1a2b3b4i5t 1 year ago
This video does not make sense. When a Creationist says that they can trust their brain to tell them that the Bible is true it is because they are using their worldview, but if someone is coming from the evolutionary mindset then of course it will seem like a Creationist is dumb because they are using their evolutionary mindset. Do you see how that argument does not work? It is self-defeating. You have to be able to get yourself into the other side of the argument to make a meaningful assertion
searchingfortruth100 1 year ago
2:32 ROFL
89Duo 1 year ago
I like these videos! are you yourself a christian?
I think you keep repeating yourself but maybe this is good because it ingrains it into your brain! You make sense but i would like to see a movie on your idea of God so i can try to intellect more in these videos.
Mayalunapaste 1 year ago
First of randomness is impossible. Everything is the result of physics. Please try and not use 'random' either. It is as much of a delusion as god. By the way I'm an athiest.
purplederple 1 year ago
Comment removed
purplederple 1 year ago
to come up with that argument in the first place you'd have to be thinking, serious herp derp on their part
mangalink25 1 year ago
I accidentally crapped my pants but since it was an accident I can't trust that it happened.
JohnPorkLord 1 year ago
AHHH! TOO MANY FLAWS!
Gerstein1 1 year ago
Human beings ARE subject to faulty thinking. That's why we created the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is the best way we have to compensate for our own flaws in our thinking process.
AlphonsusPeck 1 year ago
@AlphonsusPeck But there may be a day when we have to update it, if we find some errors in it. I guess so far it is useful for now.
TheMattanAge 1 year ago
"Our neurons reliably transmit information, therefore our thoughts can be trusted."
How do you know neurons reliably transmit information? Your thoughts and perceptions told you. But your thoughts can't be trusted. ;)
sk8teh14 1 year ago
sounds like this guy thinks too much lol jp
doyce1000 1 year ago
I don't trust bacon.
BMWMarv 1 year ago
come on, dude, you have no good points, christains dont think that all facts come from the bible moron, only insane ones, there goes your whole video lol, dont debate with me, i am a very open minded person, way past what you can understand lol, and yes, you think it was all an accident dont deny it, the hawk didnt decide to have better eyesight, it happended because he used his eyes alot, that is accidental, the hawk didnt intend on having better eyesight, it just happended,
doyce1000 1 year ago
@doyce1000 Shut up.
Aurelovanovalopta 1 year ago
@Aurelovanovalopta i have the freedom of my opinion
this video just kinda clicked something that made me want to say what i thought
doyce1000 1 year ago
@Aurelovanovalopta even if i didnt put it exactly as i should
doyce1000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@doyce1000 Do you believe a child of poverty dying at a young age will go to "hell" because he doesn't believe in Jesus? Probably not. Yet the bible claims the only way to salvation is through Jesus. So if you dismiss parts of the bible as false, does that not challenge its credibility as a whole? And ponder this. God didn't pick up a pen and write the bible, men who claimed to be spoken to by God did. Each book is one man's interpretation of "God", not YOUR interpretation! Think for yourself.
kapohn 1 year ago
come on, dude, you have no good points, christains dont think that all facts come from the bible moron, only insane ones, there goes your whole video lol, dont debate with me, i am a very open minded person, way past what you can understand lol
doyce1000 1 year ago
ehh i agree with pretty much everything, EXCEPT for the idea that our senses can be trusted. thats a common assumption that cant possibly ever be actually proven, ever. philosophers have been grappling with that theory for millennia.
storksforever2000 1 year ago
I have another answer:
"Hey, theist. Your argument obviously originated from your thoughts, therefore it cannot be trusted!!"
chrisxy123 1 year ago
why do people belife in god?
theorigamistofdoom 1 year ago
I think you still cannot entirely trust your thoughts - most of them are intuitive responses to patterns. Our brains are not well suited for reason and logic.
lodevijk 1 year ago
logic without proof is bullsht!
u cnt just make a logic and say " hey u cnt answer my logic therefore my god exist! "
stupid theist!
saibotmark 1 year ago
if you define "accident" as random circumstances, then i would agree. but so what? accidents happen
robertwc82 1 year ago
The Creationist makes a very good point that logic and science cannot be trusted, and that only -- supernatural knowledge can be said to be absolutely true. However, as you rightly point out, he loses all credibility when he cites the Bible as the unshakable foundation of truth.
wwwaldo333 1 year ago
1. It's not a choice to trust logic, you either do or you dont, and even if you think God provides logic you still have to trust your own mind first to believe that.
2. If the basis for our thoughts is provided by a supernatual being, then how do we know we can trust what it allows us to percieve? What if God wanted us to be fooled? Again, you must ultimately trust your own thoughts without knowing where they come from, it's unavoidable.
Staunts 1 year ago
@Staunts You see, you have made a mistake.
1. There is a choice involved in how you weight logic when you are considering factors. You give it supreme importance over all other factors in terms of belief and mental analysis of the world, or you can not. It's a choice if you recognize it.
Logic is not the same as knowledge; I know things because I perceive them and I further know things because logic supports my perceptions (or, nothing I see is ILlogical).
2. Moot point: I agree with you.
wwwaldo333 1 year ago
But this sounds like John Locke.
Actually, you've made a logical error here. The sensation of pain does not imply "real."
yogurtking 1 year ago
Loved this video my friend. Make em think about it!
BlueEdgeRadio 1 year ago
just be fucking happy your alive you ungracious prick
TheAlbino508ISBACK 1 year ago
Not saying religion is unimportant btw. Just saying its pointless to talk about it to someone who doesn't care about it or doesn't believe in it. Which just ends up in wasted time. Time that could've been used to better the human race.
BlueKeyNotesTen 1 year ago
Eh God didn't write the bible, humans did. They used thoughts to write it as well. The way I see it, Religious people should just stop arguing their religion is real or not. For one, that shows insecurity in the religion and convincing a man/woman of science that your religion is the way to go is just like them telling you that God isn't real. Best thing for us humans to do to advance, is to just try to avoid the subject and focus on more important things.
BlueKeyNotesTen 1 year ago
this vid maker is making an epic mistake :
science = it is untrue untill it is proven true ....
get aducated retard.
goenteman 1 year ago
We can't fully trust our thoughts as individuals. Note that biases, context and a slew of fallacies can cloud our thoughts. We must be aware that we can only trust our senses to a certain degree because it is common that our mind may interpret what we perceive to be quite different from reality. What we can do though is to not solely depend and rely on our own thoughts as individuals but consider what others have in mind when interpreting facts. In short, the scientific method.
LameCrippled 1 year ago
I didn't get my hammer because i thought i knew were it was but i can't trust my thoughts. XD
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
the devil's advocate would say: that if we follow your entire string of reasoning, that we cannot essentially trust what we are understanding from your theory, thus your own words cannot be trusted, and so maybe what one would deduce not to be trustworthy material may in fact be so, and that goes for anything, science or religion - i suppose ... :) - so believe what you will - is that not the moral of this whole argument ?
cashox3 1 year ago
but i believe and i no some are with me on this ...that what we see as a random event has its reasons for happening ..for i believe in fate and destiny ...its like this your thoughts deside your path and for each path a fate awates ..
ukrainman20 1 year ago
i strongly suggest you watch the biology of belief, by bruce lipton
youd probably find it very interesting
he explains only with science how the control of our genes over our bodies has been greatly misunderstood, and furthermore how we ARE, and are a PRODUCT OF, the environment. He dares notion to the extent of answering our question is there life after death?
yes.
fatwadmcskylar 1 year ago
It is not even possible to address any of the author's points, because he uses each term ('thought', 'accident', etc.) one way in the citing examples, and then in a very different way to make his next point. For example, he uses the word 'thought' to mean, in turn, perception, verbal description, reaction, experience and cognition. He uses the word 'accident' to mean, variously, random, unintended, unforseen or simply not-understood. Etc. This is a common logical and rhetorical error.
troimille 1 year ago
I used to hate that term too, but "evolutionist" is a real word, with a real definition. It simply means "a student of the theory of evolution." Not such a bad thing, and it implies more than mere passive acceptance of the theory. I am not a physicist, but I accept atoms. I am not a doctor, but I accept germs. I am an evolutionist, however, because I study and accept evolution.
littlebier8 1 year ago
youre arguments are fallacies in themselves
correll28 1 year ago
I love your mind.
VeritasTruthEmet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
fuck your voice is annoying
jakesrveillance 1 year ago
We are a long way from knowing all. To 'conclude' there is no God based on such minuscule evidence, is simply 'unscientific'.
classicvox 1 year ago
i believe there is nothing random or accidental because everything follows physics, including the electrons running through our brains and bodies
ZenGuy12 1 year ago
love science,ur vid are awsum
tigno 1 year ago
What an asshole
AlphaBolt 1 year ago
why try to convince people to believe god is not real? if they are not someone on the same intellectual level as others, but carry a moral code that makes them act in society as a productive non violent manner, why stop the cause of there acceptable behavior? they are not furthering contemporary thought on the design of humans but they are not damaging society or holding back the productivity of the society being created of new science, they find ways to update their beliefs while upholding law.
0arikreich0 1 year ago
@0arikreich0 Look up the Dover trials in Pennsylvania. That is very much holding back the productivity of society. In most cases its harmless but when abortion doctors are being murdered by over the top pro-lifers it is very destructive. What about Jihads? It can be a very harmful thought process that is not backed up by any testable evidence. Just a book and a gut feeling. I realize that most people don't take it that far but there is a huge potential for abuse.
silviasr20det 1 year ago
@silviasr20det i see your point, i also think that people like that are just crazy. i often wonder if they were not acting in the name of their religion if they would be acting out in the name of something else or if its just the religious beliefs taken too far.i just now read your reply and havent had a chance to look up the Dover trials in Pennsylvania.but i will be sure to do so.
0arikreich0 1 year ago
Well if you're an idiot than you really can't trust your thoughts until you gain knowledge. There are some people out there who are very delusional and hear voices inside their heads, I'm sure you'll agree that these individuals should not trust their thoughts lol. You should clarify more and say "if you're a sane individual with a basic understanding of the world, most likely you can trust your thoughts".
Kixerus 1 year ago
I'm having brain orgasms all night long watching cdk's vids LOL
TuscanWonder995 1 year ago
Is it an accident my brain releases chemical molecules(neurotransmitters) to travel across synapses to receptors to a specific part of the brain to invoke an action created by what ever lobe is stimulated? If we can't trust our thoughts, how can we trust that statement? If we can't trust that statement, can we trust our distrust to be distrusting? LOL
HybridD91 1 year ago
I like your video :-)
prisonshadows 1 year ago