Atheist position: some phenomena perceived correspond to reality
Theist position: some phenomena perceived correspond to reality + my God is real
I do not see how the theist position solves anything or is better. It is in fact worse as it adds next to the presuppositions we all use not to be a solipsist additional presuppositions about their God.
By Occam's razor the theist position can be discarded.
Paleocrat gives no acount for how he knows God is providing for uniformity in nature. He merely assumes it. Paleocrat cannot even know the bible exists if he does not accept the atheist aproach to phenomenology. His view is worse than assuming uniformity based on emperical experience. This whole argument leads nowhere and only shows that the theist worldview is far more lacking than the atheist worldview. But we already knew that off course.
Excellent video. I wonder what the justification was for 60% of people to give this a thumbs down? "THAT MAN'S USIN' ALL DEM FANCY ARGUMENTS, BUT HOW CAN YOU TALK ABOUT GOD WITHOUT MENTIONING UNICORNS OR SANTA CLAUS HURR DURR DURR..."
TAG assumes that God provides consistency in this universe.
This assumption is based on a sample size of zero!
Thus TAG is self refuting.
Atheist (and theist even if they won't admit it) base the validity of induction on the practical success it has. It works. That is all you need to know.
Logical deduction works to, we learn that a little later in childhood.
Blind faith, no, does not work at all except in the phase you are dependent on the ones that raise you.
You have the presupposition that God exists and cannot prove it and don't even try yet you complain that atheists are doing the same thing. Pot meet kettle.
That's not the point, dumbass. The point is that it's all faith. At least religious people are honest about the fact that they have faith in something. Atheists go around acting like they have access to a purely reason-based mode of knowledge. They don't. Read David Hume and get over it.
@RealCrusadeHistory Not reason but evidence based. You want to prove that your god is real then provide evidence. Until such time be quite about your god's existance.
Okay I stopped at your definition of "Presupposition." Its pretty obvious to me that you seem to think you can pick and choose the evidence that equals truth. The reality of the matter is that you can't. Evidence points to a conclusion that can not be changed unless you alter the evidence itself. Or in your case simply ignore it. If there is evidence that your beliefs are not correct then your beliefs simply need to change. Do you still think the Sun revolves around the Earth?
@redchango Actually the guy is smart; he's just a misguided, angry Christian who is desperately trying to use logic to prove the existence of his god. Truth is I have no problem with that. What make this guy look the fool is he completely forgets that the source of HIS god and associated belief system is the Bible. And not a single human being in history has been able to prove the Bible is packed with the actual dictations of a supernatural being and justify its supremacy over all others beliefs
@RealCrusadeHistory - Oh yea? How so? He's the one who's doing mental gymnastics so he can continue pretending as if ancient Bronze Age mythology is true, HOW is that even more intelligent then a fifth grader defending Santa Clause, let alone me?
1. Santa Clause is the reason for presents under the Christmas tree on Christmas morning.
2. There are presents under the Christmas tree on Christmas morning.
How does TAG demonstrate that God sacrificed His Son/Himself, to Himself, as the only means to forgive His creation, who was cursed with "sin" thousands of years before when a woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating fruit from a magical tree?
How does TAG prove that God sacrificed His Son/Himself, to Himself, as the only means to cleanse humanity of a curse that He put on mankind when a woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating fruit from a magical tree? Pray tell.
Anyone who believes that the ruling force of nature is not capable of putting facts together (intelligence), is automatically out as far as I'm concerned.
Are atheists out? Keep dreaming! You blame them for prejudging facts? Wrong; I would be the first to admit god's existence if given evidence; you pray and believe jesus is standing next to you; well then, ask him to show himself, to become visible and I would repent ON THE SPOT! No, it is religion who is prejudging facts, resorts to circular logic for lack of arguments.
It's utterly devastating to the atheist position. In fact, I think it's hilarious that every atheist who has commented or responded in videos misunderstands at least half of what you say.
THINK FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE... don't just listen to Richard Dawkins because everyone else thinks he's awesome
What does the size of my town have to do with this? You don't know where I live, obviously. Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about. He can't even answer the simplest question "where did matter come from?".
You could say what exact same thing? I don' t think there is a need for bad language. Please, act like an adult.
@leviksu why would Dawkins know anything about particle theory? He's a Zoologist... your argument if fallacious and disingenuous... he does however make an excellent argument for the god of the gaps...
Just because we might not know the answer to where matter came from now... we have some excellent ideas that are even now being tested... it's a matter of time... but even if it isn't... and we do not get an answer... there is no reason to stick anyone's god as the creator of anything.
@leviksu we do think for ourselfs thats how most became atheist he didnt show ANYTHING against us or for u hes like hovind a fucking idiot think for urselfs look for the evidence of christianity
You have set up your argument in such a way that circular reasoning doesn't even begin to describe it. You have set up your "world view" so that your circular reasoning covers any and everything possible. You, like a mentally ill person, have made a world that cannot be refuted because you require no proof of it's exhistence. Are you saying faith is no longer necessary? You attack presupposition, but that is what your argument is based upon. Confused.
c) it makes predictions that are verified through experiment (restating the 'it works' answer really but hey... started on the a,b,c thing so...)
d) whoever said it WAS binding? I only sai it is as true as it can be. It's you that say it is valid beyond doubt! It is cogent but not binding, but how is this possibly a proof of god?
Do muslims believe in the Trinity? or a trinity of somesort? and How did you get baptized if you believe in it? The trinity baptism or the Jesus name baptism or by another mean?
Everyone resorts to the transcendental argument when defending their most ruling assumptions or presuppositions. It is never really a matter of whether or not one employs the argument (as it is the only way to provide an account for one's presuppositions) between TA and no TA, but what follows the TA.
'instead of approaching everything with severe skepticism, David Hume advocated a practical skepticism based on common sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted'
You are presupposing that inductive reasoning is unquestionable. It is as much a fact that i am sitting here. I can't prove it but i can prove that the alternatives are vanishingly, infintessimally small!
Inductive reasoning works and that is all the proof needed. It is not totally logically sound, but it is practically sound. it is cogent but not binding.
Also, how does your theory prove the existence of a creator?
This is too big a presupposition for me to swallow.
Your worldview makes way too many assumptions for me.
1) that there is a god and he needs not the explanation that you seem to think the universe does (that there must have been a creator)
2) that it is the God of the christians.
3) that this god sat with folded arms for over 100thousand years only to reveal himself to some illiterate arabs, missing out the world superpower of the time, China, who's citizens could read and who had telescopes etc.
Give us atheists an example of a presupposition that is entirely dependent upon a theistic God? That is to say it is impossible to hold such a presupposition were it to be otherwise; with out which (a god) believers and non-believers alike would not be capable of attaining.
Friend, you fail to understand, perhaps purposely, that TAG is still reliant upon an assertion that the existence of, say for example and discussion sake, logical absolutes, is contingent upon a God; you go on so far as to assert (a very important word) not that this God a deistic one, but a theistic one. As if not you have not been riding the dead TAG horse too far already, you ride further and give near pathological reasons as to why it is the God of Christianity.
Just because Catholics have employed certain apologetics methods throughout history does mean that, by necessity, those are the only methods they may use. I have argued for some time that Catholics have used TAG many times over, though mainly when dealing with heretics and schismatics.
I think I have a short video on why I believe Protestantism cannot provide the necessary preconditions for the presuppositional method. I wrote about it extensively as well. A series critiquing Van Til.
Any historian can point you to Pope Leo XIII and his August 4th 1879 Encyclical. Leo XIII endorsed the theological teachings of Thomas Aquinas: they were made mandatory by that pope. Where's your obedience?
Were your invented teachings made mandatory by any pope?
I understand your need for a new apologetic method. David Hume and Immanuel Kant refuted Thomas Aquinas long ago. So returning to Calvinism (Biblical Christianity), in order to protect your heathen theism, speaks volumes.
Where he says "Whence it clearly follows that human reason finds the fullest faith and authority united in the word of God"?
Where he quote Clement of Alexandria as the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God. And the assistance of the Greek philosophy maketh not the truth more powerful; but, inasmuch as it weakens the contrary arguments of the sophists and repels the veiled attacks against the truth"?
"But, since it is established that those things which become known by revelation have the force of certain truth, and that those things which war against faith war equally against right reason, the Catholic philosopher will know that he violates at once faith and the laws of reason if he accepts any conclusion... opposed to revealed doctrine."
"Those, therefore, who to the study of philosophy unite obedience to the Christian faith, are philosophizing in the best possible way"
"...the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who well understood that, according to the divine plan, the restorer of human science is Christ, who is the power and the wisdom of God,[27] and in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge"
I would like for you to point out where a faithful Catholic must adhere to the Thomistic method, and it alone, when engaging in apologetics.
Pot-shots and jabs like the ones you gave are for the weak. Says more about you than me.
This is Chewbacca hes from kassack, but he lives on Endor, it doesn't make any sense! Why an I talking about Chewbacca during a debate on Christianity? It doesn't make any sense!
All one can really say is that both Hume and Bertrand Russell used the logic that you just bastardized to demonstrate that not only is religion false, but potential dangerous.
Both were not just anti-Christian but one was an atheist and the other probably was an atheist.
I was unaware of having forced you to click on the video and watch it in its entirety.
EXTRA! EXTRA! Someone without the motor skills or freedom of choice to refrain from watching videos that result in his having a sense of just having wasted his time!
Then again, maybe you have some mental disorder where you are addicted to punishing yourself by watching things you despise? Given your reply, this certain appears to be a reasonable possibility.
Pardon me for being an open-minded enough person to have given you the benefit of the doubt as far as your video actually having a point to make is concerned.
You could have just masturbated on your camera and accomplished just as much as this video did.
You start off with a nice dose of intellectual masturbation, reassuring yourself of being open-minded and given me the benefit of the doubt. I am skeptical as to the truth of either self-assertion.
At any rate, even the more "open minded" ought to have a certain degree discernment. If the video was a complete waste of time, then waiting the entire ten minutes was you choosing to meaninglessly, albeit willingly, put yourself through a form of self-torture. Poor you...
If we have faith in something that claims to be metaphysical, we don't use a petri dish or microscope to prove it. If you believe in something physical, you should be able to prove it using the scientific method. We both make observations. Evolution in the grand scheme of things has no scientific evidence to support it, but it should. It's not metaphysical. Yet all you have is evidence of minor genetic changes and Nothing more. I believe in adaptation. That's NOT evolution. Thank God for science
Faith is not evidence. You don't use a microscope because you can't. You cannot observe faith and spirituality. Evolution has TONS of evidence to back it up. Solid, concrete evidence that Can be tested (yes, with petri dishes and microscopes) and has yet to be falsified. A series of minor genetic changes over millions of years IS evolution. Adaptation IS what Darwin was talking about...it's called Natural Selection.
You are very well spoken and your logic is close, but you are incorrect. Your facts are jumbled up and stop short of how things (as far as the scientific community is concerned) actually are.
small genetic mutations are observable facts. That's the same as me pointing out small feats of "miraculess" healings and attributing them to evidence for God. Would you let that fly..I don't think so. We have not in the Lab or in the Fossil record, observed evolution. You can't point to ANY evidence for origins of mammals from anything, reptiles or amphibeans from anything etc. Finding them already in the record does however help I.D.'s interpretation of how they got there abruptly.
Wow...ok. First off, I don't know what the word "miraculess" is. So, I can't really comment on that. Very good, Genetic Mutations ARE observable facts. This is what we call evidence of something. Mutations over time is what evolution is. You are digging your own grave here....
Wow, Simple spelling errors are too hard for you to decipher? Genetic mutations do NOT prove or demonstrate Evolution accuring in the model of darwinism, because they have not (in lab or fossil record) created ANY new organism or apendage, or organ that a species could even use to "better" itself in the theory of evolution. I could just as well say the brililant genetic variables allow for perseverance of a species under many circumstances and mutations have never given rise to new kinds.
Good, then i'm a VERY lucky Christian, because I understand him. Do you like picking and choosing which Christians you hold arguments with, or do you just like to make fun of all of them? I haven't seen you "argue" anything come to think of it.
It doesn't matter if Christians use complicated phrases to tell me:
There is a guy living in heaven,who has mythical powers,created something out of nothing,kills humans with floods,tortures us after we are dead,loves us anyway,and send us a son who is his own father.
You have a very adolecent and ignorant understanding of theology if you really believe that. If you really were concerned, you would learn from a theologian regarding those statements. God doesn't torture people, people choose to be absent from him. Justice actually DOES glorify him. If there was no justice for those who are evil and have sin (everyone)? He is trancendant and dwells in eternity. A concept you can't understand. Every knee WILL bow and tongue confess. Including YOURS when you die.
...exist. Knowledge does not have to be absolute, which was Russells point. Secondly, how do you believe in this creator God, did you learn it from experience? Would you know the word God without having heard it? We can rely on memories because of the arrow of thermodynamics. Time is not unidirectional, you just remember the past because of the conservation of energy.
3. Your "best argument for the existence of God" is circular reasoning - think about it dopey.
Why does circular reasoning bother you? After all, the foundation of your philosophy is based on circular reasoning. The only point we Christians want to make is that you so called geniuses have no business saying we are stupid for believing, because the reality is you can only think your right, one could never absolutely know at this point of humanity. So since you know there is no God, I guess it sounds stupid to you. You have some good points, but on the big picture, you are deluded brother.
Firstly, atheism is not a philosophy, it is merely the lack of belief in a God.
Secondly, atheism is not circular. There is no argument to be positively proved by an atheist. An atheist merely rebuts the arguments made by theists.
If you admit to circular reasoning then you must admit that your argument is not logical to the extent of that circularity because the premises of your argument do not independently support your thesis. In other words, your argument is as good as opinion.
By that logic you could claim allah created the universe. In fact, since you cannot actually identify the act of creation - that verse holds the same weight as saying the universe spontaneously and without cause came into existence.
Romans 1:20 is just another example of the argument from incredulity - you do not understand how the universe came into existence thus you claim "goddidit" - of course, that is also the argument from ignorance.
1. In regards to the one and the many - your argument presupposes the existence of God, Jesus, etc.
There is no problem with the atheist worldview. I believe in a grand unified theory of physics that unites all things. I can consider general and acute things without problem - next.
2. Bertrand Russell would turn in his grave if he heard you misuse his statements in this way. Induction only prevents absolute knowledge - but that does not prevent us making a statement that God does not
if a miracle happens then it exists, if it exists then it's not a miracle.
if it's impossible4 it 2exist, then it happens against KNOWN laws of physics, not against laws of physics.
If god MIRACULOUSLY created a simple blue marble, atheist scientists would not say "we refuse 2 believe "; they would be all over it with their periscopes, books and drawing tables saying "i can't wait to learn EVERYTHING my mind can grasp about this miracle".
if u study biology and physics u'd know that the existence of matter and the passing on of hereditary information r nothing short of miracles.
imagine god creates the world, wraps it up as a present and says
"open it, it's full of love and harmony, i'm sure you'll love it"
the scientist: thx. and starts unwrapping.
the dogmatic: no need2,i BELIEVE u, i'll just put it here on a shelf. now2get practical; want me 2hate a whore4u? a fagot? a pagan? or can i hate myself 4u? i AM a sinner after all.
seriously dude, try these standards on your own worldview. All you have is "another step", no more, once you give that "God" is the account for your foundation, you have to ask "what's the foundation for God", your answer is no less circular than somebody presupposing that "logic just is".
Only worse! At least all people can agree logic is a useful tool, not all people can agree God is a useful answer for everything.
This guy has been reading too much creationist propaganda. He's basically saying that he doesn't need proof for miracles. It's the sceptics that have to prove that miracles DON'T occur. Great logic. Hey, I saw Abraham Lincoln yesterday. He's alive again - it's a miracle! Don't belive me? Well, prove me wrong. Again, great logic.
"Atheists need to disprove all miracles. Christians do not need to prove any miracle."
G. K. Chesterton
A miracle would disprove an atheist immediately, thus when a miracle takes place they have an obligation to disprove it. However, that does not mean that a Christian doesn't have an obligation to prove that a miracle is truly a miracle, it is only that to us it doesn't matter if it is a miracle or not, for to an atheist a miracle is a death blow, to a Christian a false miracle is a lie.
No, again: the burden of evidence lies on the person making the claim. Since even Christians agree that miracles (if they occur) are rare (otherwise what would be miraculous about them) the reasonable default position must be that natural events are far more likely than miracles. Thus, since the suspending of natural laws is unlikely, claims of such cases must be supported by compelling evidence.
To say that the laws of logic need justification is to deny that the law of identity and excluded-middle are not self-evident.
I take these as self-evidently true. I PRESUPPOSE them (zomg!)
Presuppers presuppose a god, and also that the laws of logic are contingent upon that god's existence. How are they contingent? I have yet to see any good justification.
You're assuming that a comletely objective standpoint isn't possible! All it would take to prove an objective standpoint is to ask oneself: what would a completely objective viewpoint look like? In the case of the existence of God, it would be that one should not affirm nor deny this being's existence until you have convincing evidence either supporting the affirmative or the neagative. There's no presupposition involved there, and if it's possible to imagine such a view, one can adopt it too.
he brings logically thought out problems to the table, don't discard them out of hand, especially when all of his arguements rely on there being a metaphysical trinitarian deity that must be much more complex and improbable than its supposed creation, and assume this as an axiom, without questioning the metaphysical in the same way he just questioned the physical. by the way, bertrand russel was an atheist.
an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, i dont think a metaphysical trinity is an axiom by any stretch of the imagination. you cannot prove religion, give it up, you know it makes sense
What does dogma contribute to society?: Holy wars Crusades Spanish Inquisition Ku Klux Klan Nazism Intolerance Discrimination Hundreds of years of witch burnings Manifest Destiny False premise arguments A non-linear view of the divine (How many religious interpretations are there?) Even the invasion of Iraq Nazis were killing PEOPLE with "God with them".
fool's logic. asserting that all other world views are wrong doesn't prove yours right. in order to prove something you actually have to provide some evidence to support it.
oh would you all just shut up!!! i hate all this arguement rubbish.
im an athiest, not because i dont believe in god ( well wait i dont believe in god but whatever) its mainly because religion is the worst thing in the world. its the biggest killer in the history of man. fact.
but at the end of the day , wither you want to believe or not. we all die, our bodies decompose and plants feed off our nutrients. we'll either meet our maker or wont. move on with your life and stop pretending to care!!
Don't be fooled. This Paleocrat guy isn't as smart as the big words he uses in his comment-fights.
"Onanist"? "Quadriplegic"? Way to use dictionary dott com to seem like an intellectual. I've seen your other videos and your use of vocabulary is rather primitive.
Paleocrat, you are a fucking joke.. I suggest you watch the videos of Rabidape and get your lame arguments schooled by a true intellectual.
/watch?v=Z0ELfmfrQ4M&feature=user
Watch that and stop putting your garbage on YouTube.
How can you validate your argument, and call yourselves "rational" while you believe that a cracker is the body of Jesus. Haha do you also believe in fairies and unicorns??
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
This video is pretty trite. You're up your ass with your linguistic ability, constantly repeating your opinions which lack any philosophical/physical/spiritual evidence, but at the end, feel that you have locked down something that no one has been able to to (or will for that matter). If its your opinion that there is a creator, good for you. You might as well have just said " I believe in god because I do". I challenge you to disprove the validity of any other religion or theory for existence.
the difference btw science and religion is when we all go home and try the experiment for ourselves we'll get the same result. religion and god are the ones leaving things up to interpretation, your view is no more accurate or valid than any other religion's view, even lolcat's ceiling cat bible.
If you are agitated now that a simple question has been raised about your argument, that is not my problem. Do not shift the burden to me to defend your argument. I am no expert.
And I don't even know what "onanist" means. But I'll look it up, rather than blaming you for my ignorance.
I am not agitated, just pointing out that you wish me to do the very thing you criticized me for having done. Rather strange.
Give me time to put together an entire video on the matter. I have a list of videos to do, but this is a good one. I'll take ten minutes (still insufficient) over the character limits of comments sections any day of the week.
Not an expert? But the time and effort you've put into it! You can't be a petty novice like me... pitiable me.
I said I would do so. In fact, I dedicated myself to providing an 10 minute video to the matter! Amazingly, after having said I would do as much, you still complain. Truly amazing.
How is choosing to do so in a video, which just so happens to be far more efficient and visible, diversionary?
I wish, even for a moment, that I could take you serious...
I say that God's uniformity, and that alone, solved the problem? Hmm... you're a few bucks short and a few days behind on this one.
Once again, rather than critique me, why don't you actually make yourself useful by giving a greater clarification to the claims typically made by presuppositionalists. As of right now, you are about as useful as a quadriplegic valet driver.
You are an Intellectual Onanist if I have ever met one. But no worry, you aren't alone... the world is full of them.
You are the professional, explain to those of us down in the real world why Bahnsen, Van Til, and Rushdoony would insist that the ontological Trinity resolves the difficulty posted by the One and the Many. Surely I could never wish to detail it in a manner even close to one of your expertise. Please, do the world a favor, and explain this for all us simpletons.
You are rather strange. On the one hand, you are upset that a novice as I would dare to speak out on such matters. Then, in a strange twist of events, you wish for me go into detail as to how presuppositionalists argue that the ontological trinity provides the answer for the difficulty of the one and the many. It is a lose-lose with your type. You want one thing, and then demand something altogether different!
And the point of this exercise? Knowledge for knowledge sake? Typical of your type.
The only way the events could seem strangely twisted were if you assumed that your views require no further elaboration; that they should be swallowed by your viewers and conversion commence.
I have merely asked you a very obvious question that is bound to come in light of the claim you make in your video.
You're merely being diversionary now. Your viewers are within their rights to ask you about your reasoning. That is what I've done.
A handful of presuppositionalists trying to handle a horde of atheists. I make a claim that Van Til insisted was central to presuppositionalism. You, then, come in here, amidst the horde, to see if I can go beyond an assertion that (presumably) even you endorse!
c) I demonstrate that my position is not at variance with you.
Here is where things get sad. Let's say that my view of the matter reflects that found in the works of Bahnsen, Van Til, and Rushdoony. All you have done is waste time, stroke your ego, and potentially embolden covenant breakers. This is rather sad... and reveals who you are and what you're about.
Also, you say that you cannot use an axiom without justifying it...that's completely retarded, axioms are by definition inexplicable, they're assumptions we use as a starting point to define our 'world view.' We are comfortable "begging the question" because we have to. You do, in assuming there is a God to create things, that's you're axiom which you don't/can't logically justify.
So...the best evidence to support the existence of god which is that there is a universe here that we exist in where we can argue about the best evidence to support the existence of god which is that there is a universe here that we exist in where we can argue about the best evidence......seems a little circular to me there bub. Seems like you're BEGGING THE QUESTIONS which you say is INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE.
Are you saying that without X you could not talk about the existence of X or are you saying that without X there can be no platform on which you could talk about the existence of X because X provides that platform?
The first one is circular logic.
For the second one, where is your evidence for that? Why couldn't we have any uniformity without X making it uniform with intention?
Christians can account for the uniformity of nature?
Um, light didn't get split into it's constituent colors by water droplets in the air before the flood, right? It was after the flood that God created rainbows. How can you be sure that God won't similarly change the laws of physics again?
you just said god had a mind you fucking moron. Islam has overtaken Roman Catholicism to become the world's largest single religious denomination, according to L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.
Epistemologically no, in order to have knowledge you must be falsifiable, that is the nature of truth. If you have a mindset that a scientist has, you are prepared to change your views to match the empirical evidence. Knowledge is when truth and belief overlap. Humes is accurate when describing the absolute degree of knowledge, science only addresses the practicality of knowledge. No scientist claims absolute certainty, simply the most plausible explanation. The chances of god are minimal.
by the way, the world outnumbers christians, and the islamic movement happening perceives this "christian" religion as god forsaken and completely satanic in nature. thats why these groups have moved from the vanities of our everyday life and are willing to sacrifice everything because of their sacred beliefs. these people have the knowledge of the sacred ancient books. READ THEM.
I would hurt you. Your arguements are bullshit. why dont you look at the root of the problem instead of pointless shit. your christian people are shitting all over the world with a moral crusade, look at the dollar...yeah vote mccain...yeah more moral crusade...FUCK YOU and your family and your kids!!! you deserve a fucking bomb. read the books that were banned from the bible- your entire life and brain and monarchy controlled existance stems from the tribe of daan from israel. booyah nigger.
"Your Christian people are shitting all over the world with a moral crusade."
And then you go on to undertake a moral crusade by posting an offensive and pointless rant under someone's video in youtube, which should be realm of free expression and discussion. Sounds to me like you're something of a hypocrite.
Even if you were actually able to prove that reality couldn't exist without a God (which of course you can't) that wouldn't mean that your God is the right one.
----------------------------------------------
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
ok, we all have 5 senses, and the only thing these senses do is send signals to our brain about the PHYSICAL things around us, all our inductive reasoning is based on our experiences through these senses. given that these are the only tools we have to understand the world around us, we can and do accept them as valid. Given that all your arguments are from METAPHYSICAL philosophy, they cant by definition be understood by any of the senses.
atheist, by default believe in the physical world around them that they can experience through senses. theist on the other hand believe in the metaphysical world described in ancient books. The very fact that we do live in a physical world that I experience everyday automatically tips the scale in atheist favor because there's nothing in atheistic belief that cant be physically experienced first hand, where as theism demands belief without physical experience.
The angels said "Peace to men of good will." Good will. The soul is composed of intellect and will - but which is in charge? The will should be subordinate, but is it? Always? Jesus said that Pilate couldn't hear the truth. Is it that he was a man of bad will? Is this the problem with intellectual arguments?
Maybe it is simply the laws of physics, and not because God said, let there be quarks, wait, God doesn't even know of quarks... odd that he didn't know how he created matter.
this is an assumption that begs the question no less than me stating that nature simply has rhythm and design. All you do is push the question back one step.
Is it not reasonable to conclude based on induction that things don't come back from the dead? If so, the miracle of the resurrection would violate this principle of induction.
Apparently you answer my questions somewhere in this video, at least you said you did.
For someone who spends so much time saying that his opponents don't defend their pre-suppositions you don't defend a single pre-supposition of yours. Not only that but the idea that atheist world view precludes evidence is a straw-man. You also simply plug your ears and say there are no other explanations or logical inconsistencies within Christianity.
I would say the weakness of presuppositionalism rests on its claim that it makes more sense to hold the view that "The Bible is true" as a presupposition as it does to hold the view "inductive/deductive reasoning is valid."
Now, on the surface, this is false: these two make AT LEAST equal amounts of sense. Either it's impossible to account for the biblical veracity (it's a presupposition) or it's impossible to account for inductive/deductive reasoning (it's also a presupposition).
But we can take this further: if it were somehow demonstrated based on undeniable evidence (whatever that might be; even a Christian should concede that this scenario is conceivable) that the bible were NOT the truth, then what would Christians accept? What would they reject? Would they reject their inductive/deductive reasoning, and maintain that the bible is true despite the evidence? Or would they reject the bible, thereby proving their reasoning was more properly called a presupposition?
TAG: Welcome to Begging the Question 101. Christianity can account for the uniformity of nature? How? Because the Bible says so? And how can we be sure that the Bible is true? Because it's the Word of God! And how do we know that it's the Word of God? Because it says so in the Bible!
Oh, like you have a reasonable expectation that your keys wont turn into a gila lizard, or thats sticks won't turn into snakes, Or that oceans will part for your your timely escape from Egyptian Pharaohs, or that 2 fish and a loaf of bread could feed a 'multitude'.
Atheist position: some phenomena perceived correspond to reality
Theist position: some phenomena perceived correspond to reality + my God is real
I do not see how the theist position solves anything or is better. It is in fact worse as it adds next to the presuppositions we all use not to be a solipsist additional presuppositions about their God.
By Occam's razor the theist position can be discarded.
killer4hire 3 months ago
Paleocrat gives no acount for how he knows God is providing for uniformity in nature. He merely assumes it. Paleocrat cannot even know the bible exists if he does not accept the atheist aproach to phenomenology. His view is worse than assuming uniformity based on emperical experience. This whole argument leads nowhere and only shows that the theist worldview is far more lacking than the atheist worldview. But we already knew that off course.
killer4hire 4 months ago
Excellent video. I wonder what the justification was for 60% of people to give this a thumbs down? "THAT MAN'S USIN' ALL DEM FANCY ARGUMENTS, BUT HOW CAN YOU TALK ABOUT GOD WITHOUT MENTIONING UNICORNS OR SANTA CLAUS HURR DURR DURR..."
stallion4life 4 months ago
TAG assumes that God provides consistency in this universe.
This assumption is based on a sample size of zero!
Thus TAG is self refuting.
Atheist (and theist even if they won't admit it) base the validity of induction on the practical success it has. It works. That is all you need to know.
Logical deduction works to, we learn that a little later in childhood.
Blind faith, no, does not work at all except in the phase you are dependent on the ones that raise you.
killer4hire 5 months ago
Great video! Atheists really annoy me with their belief in this fantasy of objective rationality. Everything is faith, morons!
RealCrusadeHistory 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What's your problem?
mirabilis 7 months ago
You have the presupposition that God exists and cannot prove it and don't even try yet you complain that atheists are doing the same thing. Pot meet kettle.
lautz73 1 year ago
@lautz73
That's not the point, dumbass. The point is that it's all faith. At least religious people are honest about the fact that they have faith in something. Atheists go around acting like they have access to a purely reason-based mode of knowledge. They don't. Read David Hume and get over it.
RealCrusadeHistory 6 months ago
@RealCrusadeHistory Not reason but evidence based. You want to prove that your god is real then provide evidence. Until such time be quite about your god's existance.
lautz73 6 months ago
the invisible and the non-existent look very similar does it not?
coolshit321 1 year ago
Okay I stopped at your definition of "Presupposition." Its pretty obvious to me that you seem to think you can pick and choose the evidence that equals truth. The reality of the matter is that you can't. Evidence points to a conclusion that can not be changed unless you alter the evidence itself. Or in your case simply ignore it. If there is evidence that your beliefs are not correct then your beliefs simply need to change. Do you still think the Sun revolves around the Earth?
Bromopar 1 year ago
I like how Christians wear funny outfits and pretend to be smart. I think I just got a douche chill when I watched this.
redchango 1 year ago
@redchango Actually the guy is smart; he's just a misguided, angry Christian who is desperately trying to use logic to prove the existence of his god. Truth is I have no problem with that. What make this guy look the fool is he completely forgets that the source of HIS god and associated belief system is the Bible. And not a single human being in history has been able to prove the Bible is packed with the actual dictations of a supernatural being and justify its supremacy over all others beliefs
nosajj12345 1 year ago
@redchango
That douche chill is because you're a douche. This guy is considerably more intelligent than your illiterate ass.
RealCrusadeHistory 6 months ago
@RealCrusadeHistory - Oh yea? How so? He's the one who's doing mental gymnastics so he can continue pretending as if ancient Bronze Age mythology is true, HOW is that even more intelligent then a fifth grader defending Santa Clause, let alone me?
1. Santa Clause is the reason for presents under the Christmas tree on Christmas morning.
2. There are presents under the Christmas tree on Christmas morning.
3. Therefore, there is a Santa Clause.
The same critique of the above applies to TAG.
redchango 6 months ago
How does TAG demonstrate that God sacrificed His Son/Himself, to Himself, as the only means to forgive His creation, who was cursed with "sin" thousands of years before when a woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating fruit from a magical tree?
redchango 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How does TAG prove that God sacrificed His Son/Himself, to Himself, as the only means to cleanse humanity of a curse that He put on mankind when a woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating fruit from a magical tree? Pray tell.
redchango 1 year ago
i like using the vuvuzela button for this video
ImaWatchAVideo 1 year ago
Don't get your conclusion ahead of your investigation.
Khyrid 1 year ago
What a load of who ha, i think you need to get out more buddy
robpolidori 1 year ago
Fantastic video. Thank you.
NihilNominis 1 year ago
pwned by that guy that did a response then you whined about him for another video. paleocrat your such a bitch did you know that?
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
Anyone who believes that the ruling force of nature is not capable of putting facts together (intelligence), is automatically out as far as I'm concerned.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 year ago
Are atheists out? Keep dreaming! You blame them for prejudging facts? Wrong; I would be the first to admit god's existence if given evidence; you pray and believe jesus is standing next to you; well then, ask him to show himself, to become visible and I would repent ON THE SPOT! No, it is religion who is prejudging facts, resorts to circular logic for lack of arguments.
auriciangelescu 2 years ago
Fantastic vid, Paleocrat.
It's utterly devastating to the atheist position. In fact, I think it's hilarious that every atheist who has commented or responded in videos misunderstands at least half of what you say.
THINK FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE... don't just listen to Richard Dawkins because everyone else thinks he's awesome
leviksu 2 years ago
@leviksu Huh, thats funny, i could say the exact same thing to fkin Jesus or your molesting catholic pedo in your little redneck town.
Valkyrie116 2 years ago
@Valkyrie
What does the size of my town have to do with this? You don't know where I live, obviously. Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about. He can't even answer the simplest question "where did matter come from?".
You could say what exact same thing? I don' t think there is a need for bad language. Please, act like an adult.
leviksu 2 years ago
@leviksu why would Dawkins know anything about particle theory? He's a Zoologist... your argument if fallacious and disingenuous... he does however make an excellent argument for the god of the gaps...
Just because we might not know the answer to where matter came from now... we have some excellent ideas that are even now being tested... it's a matter of time... but even if it isn't... and we do not get an answer... there is no reason to stick anyone's god as the creator of anything.
chyrd 1 year ago
@leviksu we do think for ourselfs thats how most became atheist he didnt show ANYTHING against us or for u hes like hovind a fucking idiot think for urselfs look for the evidence of christianity
patrickledford420 2 years ago
You have set up your argument in such a way that circular reasoning doesn't even begin to describe it. You have set up your "world view" so that your circular reasoning covers any and everything possible. You, like a mentally ill person, have made a world that cannot be refuted because you require no proof of it's exhistence. Are you saying faith is no longer necessary? You attack presupposition, but that is what your argument is based upon. Confused.
cherrymiss72 2 years ago 2
so... if he's got it so obvoiusly wrong, why don't you point out all his flaws!?
leviksu 2 years ago
You are saying it is anassumption to think that inductive reasoning is true unless you posit a god!
Well a) Inductive reasoning works and this is proof enough
b) Why does god explain it, how is this not an assumption (an assumption with 1 extra problem, god!)
seansalvador1 2 years ago
How can you know inductive reasoning works?
leviksu 2 years ago
c) it makes predictions that are verified through experiment (restating the 'it works' answer really but hey... started on the a,b,c thing so...)
d) whoever said it WAS binding? I only sai it is as true as it can be. It's you that say it is valid beyond doubt! It is cogent but not binding, but how is this possibly a proof of god?
seansalvador1 2 years ago
Where did my comment go?
seansalvador1 2 years ago
watch?v=0PRjhRRgzDo
here's a protracted conversation i had with him. You'll have to be quick
seansalvador1 2 years ago
Do muslims believe in the Trinity? or a trinity of somesort? and How did you get baptized if you believe in it? The trinity baptism or the Jesus name baptism or by another mean?
superjam18 2 years ago
No they don't. I think the koran even specifically says it's wrong.
rotcafarg 2 years ago
TAG makes perfect sense. Just so long as you presuppose that the Christian Bible is true.
But if you do that, what do you even need TAG for?
What a waste of firing neurons.
coldspringhead 2 years ago 4
Everyone resorts to the transcendental argument when defending their most ruling assumptions or presuppositions. It is never really a matter of whether or not one employs the argument (as it is the only way to provide an account for one's presuppositions) between TA and no TA, but what follows the TA.
paleocrat 2 years ago
'instead of approaching everything with severe skepticism, David Hume advocated a practical skepticism based on common sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted'
You are presupposing that inductive reasoning is unquestionable. It is as much a fact that i am sitting here. I can't prove it but i can prove that the alternatives are vanishingly, infintessimally small!
seansalvador1 2 years ago
Inductive reasoning works and that is all the proof needed. It is not totally logically sound, but it is practically sound. it is cogent but not binding.
Also, how does your theory prove the existence of a creator?
This is too big a presupposition for me to swallow.
seansalvador1 2 years ago 2
Your worldview makes way too many assumptions for me.
1) that there is a god and he needs not the explanation that you seem to think the universe does (that there must have been a creator)
2) that it is the God of the christians.
3) that this god sat with folded arms for over 100thousand years only to reveal himself to some illiterate arabs, missing out the world superpower of the time, China, who's citizens could read and who had telescopes etc.
and so on (ad nauseum as you like to say)
seansalvador1 2 years ago 2
@seansalvador1 What is 100 thousand- or 100 million- years to an eternal God?
How did "illiterate Arabs" write the Bible if they weren't literate? (Hint: They weren't Arabs, either)
God missed an opportunity to send the Savior to China? How much of Chinese culture from that time survives to the present?
stallion4life 4 months ago
You also have to assume that inductive reasining is also beyond doubt
seansalvador1 2 years ago
There is no god. This is a simple fact that is easily understood.
All god figures are projections of the human imagination.
All religion is inept puppetry, and the puppeteers are ALWAYS people.
When the puppeteers dwindle to nothing, so do the gods they once animated.
It is simple to see that this is so.
Why dignify the theist's arguments by delving into the abyss of their ontological squirmings?
Debunking the idea of god is easy, and requires no ore eloquence than this.
Oceanus57 2 years ago
Give us atheists an example of a presupposition that is entirely dependent upon a theistic God? That is to say it is impossible to hold such a presupposition were it to be otherwise; with out which (a god) believers and non-believers alike would not be capable of attaining.
bryansteeksma 2 years ago
Can you explain to everyone, given that there are logical absolutes, why God is an antecedent necessity in order for logic to exist?
Pertaining to your specific example: Why is the existence of a presupposition, insofar as it is conceptual, contingent upon the existence of God.
bryansteeksma 2 years ago
Friend, you fail to understand, perhaps purposely, that TAG is still reliant upon an assertion that the existence of, say for example and discussion sake, logical absolutes, is contingent upon a God; you go on so far as to assert (a very important word) not that this God a deistic one, but a theistic one. As if not you have not been riding the dead TAG horse too far already, you ride further and give near pathological reasons as to why it is the God of Christianity.
bryansteeksma 2 years ago
You say that now, but the Ragnorok...
Armistance 2 years ago
A Roman Catholic Van Tillian!
Keep up the good work.
I am a former Roman Catholic who is now a member of a Reformed Church and I love Van Tillian thought.
Don't get discouraged by these Reformed bigots.
I pray that God will raise up a lot more Catholics like you.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
The papacy supports evidentialism, not presuppositionalism.
ClarkApologetics 3 years ago
Just because Catholics have employed certain apologetics methods throughout history does mean that, by necessity, those are the only methods they may use. I have argued for some time that Catholics have used TAG many times over, though mainly when dealing with heretics and schismatics.
I think I have a short video on why I believe Protestantism cannot provide the necessary preconditions for the presuppositional method. I wrote about it extensively as well. A series critiquing Van Til.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Any historian can point you to Pope Leo XIII and his August 4th 1879 Encyclical. Leo XIII endorsed the theological teachings of Thomas Aquinas: they were made mandatory by that pope. Where's your obedience?
Were your invented teachings made mandatory by any pope?
I understand your need for a new apologetic method. David Hume and Immanuel Kant refuted Thomas Aquinas long ago. So returning to Calvinism (Biblical Christianity), in order to protect your heathen theism, speaks volumes.
ClarkApologetics 3 years ago
Where he says "Whence it clearly follows that human reason finds the fullest faith and authority united in the word of God"?
Where he quote Clement of Alexandria as the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God. And the assistance of the Greek philosophy maketh not the truth more powerful; but, inasmuch as it weakens the contrary arguments of the sophists and repels the veiled attacks against the truth"?
(cont.)
paleocrat 3 years ago
"But, since it is established that those things which become known by revelation have the force of certain truth, and that those things which war against faith war equally against right reason, the Catholic philosopher will know that he violates at once faith and the laws of reason if he accepts any conclusion... opposed to revealed doctrine."
"Those, therefore, who to the study of philosophy unite obedience to the Christian faith, are philosophizing in the best possible way"
paleocrat 3 years ago
"...the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who well understood that, according to the divine plan, the restorer of human science is Christ, who is the power and the wisdom of God,[27] and in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge"
I would like for you to point out where a faithful Catholic must adhere to the Thomistic method, and it alone, when engaging in apologetics.
Pot-shots and jabs like the ones you gave are for the weak. Says more about you than me.
paleocrat 3 years ago
My critique of Protestant's use of presuppositionalism is readily available online. It is on my old Xanga. (Paleocrat_etc)
There is also a video here (or on that Xanga) dealing with it in brief. The critique was rather extensive, broken into parts.
Deal with the arguments there. No character limit.
paleocrat 3 years ago
This is Chewbacca hes from kassack, but he lives on Endor, it doesn't make any sense! Why an I talking about Chewbacca during a debate on Christianity? It doesn't make any sense!
All one can really say is that both Hume and Bertrand Russell used the logic that you just bastardized to demonstrate that not only is religion false, but potential dangerous.
Both were not just anti-Christian but one was an atheist and the other probably was an atheist.
ZarathustraW 3 years ago
THERE IS NO TRUE ANSWER!
why otherwise are you one of the 3 sects from Judaism?
that's 3 + (whatever number of sects you 3 each have withing your ranks) "true" answers you got there.
thinkppl 3 years ago
Thank you for wasting 10 minutes of my life.
theunforgivn81 3 years ago
I was unaware of having forced you to click on the video and watch it in its entirety.
EXTRA! EXTRA! Someone without the motor skills or freedom of choice to refrain from watching videos that result in his having a sense of just having wasted his time!
Then again, maybe you have some mental disorder where you are addicted to punishing yourself by watching things you despise? Given your reply, this certain appears to be a reasonable possibility.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Pardon me for being an open-minded enough person to have given you the benefit of the doubt as far as your video actually having a point to make is concerned.
You could have just masturbated on your camera and accomplished just as much as this video did.
theunforgivn81 3 years ago
You start off with a nice dose of intellectual masturbation, reassuring yourself of being open-minded and given me the benefit of the doubt. I am skeptical as to the truth of either self-assertion.
At any rate, even the more "open minded" ought to have a certain degree discernment. If the video was a complete waste of time, then waiting the entire ten minutes was you choosing to meaninglessly, albeit willingly, put yourself through a form of self-torture. Poor you...
paleocrat 3 years ago
You rock the house, this was utterly awesome!
ChronicPhilosopher 3 years ago
if you're invoking some kind of god to explain the uniformity/order seen in nature, how do you explain the alleged uniformity/order in god?
ATL45 3 years ago
A whole lot of rhetoric...and still no proof.
Masher88 3 years ago
If we have faith in something that claims to be metaphysical, we don't use a petri dish or microscope to prove it. If you believe in something physical, you should be able to prove it using the scientific method. We both make observations. Evolution in the grand scheme of things has no scientific evidence to support it, but it should. It's not metaphysical. Yet all you have is evidence of minor genetic changes and Nothing more. I believe in adaptation. That's NOT evolution. Thank God for science
violetember 3 years ago
Faith is not evidence. You don't use a microscope because you can't. You cannot observe faith and spirituality. Evolution has TONS of evidence to back it up. Solid, concrete evidence that Can be tested (yes, with petri dishes and microscopes) and has yet to be falsified. A series of minor genetic changes over millions of years IS evolution. Adaptation IS what Darwin was talking about...it's called Natural Selection.
Masher88 3 years ago
You are very well spoken and your logic is close, but you are incorrect. Your facts are jumbled up and stop short of how things (as far as the scientific community is concerned) actually are.
Masher88 3 years ago
small genetic mutations are observable facts. That's the same as me pointing out small feats of "miraculess" healings and attributing them to evidence for God. Would you let that fly..I don't think so. We have not in the Lab or in the Fossil record, observed evolution. You can't point to ANY evidence for origins of mammals from anything, reptiles or amphibeans from anything etc. Finding them already in the record does however help I.D.'s interpretation of how they got there abruptly.
violetember 3 years ago
Wow...ok. First off, I don't know what the word "miraculess" is. So, I can't really comment on that. Very good, Genetic Mutations ARE observable facts. This is what we call evidence of something. Mutations over time is what evolution is. You are digging your own grave here....
Masher88 3 years ago
Wow, Simple spelling errors are too hard for you to decipher? Genetic mutations do NOT prove or demonstrate Evolution accuring in the model of darwinism, because they have not (in lab or fossil record) created ANY new organism or apendage, or organ that a species could even use to "better" itself in the theory of evolution. I could just as well say the brililant genetic variables allow for perseverance of a species under many circumstances and mutations have never given rise to new kinds.
violetember 3 years ago
"You are very well spoken..."
Yes,he is.
"...and your logic is close..."
Nope.
I compare him with a tire.
Outside tough with a good grip.
Inside hollow.
When air is out,only plain, flat and formless.
gotohellfast 3 years ago
Good work brother. Very cogent and edifying for Christians. Bullet proof against foolish atheism.
shanebo99 3 years ago
"Very cogent and edifying for Christians."
Nope,only 1 out of 50000 Christians can understand him.
gotohellfast 3 years ago
Good, then i'm a VERY lucky Christian, because I understand him. Do you like picking and choosing which Christians you hold arguments with, or do you just like to make fun of all of them? I haven't seen you "argue" anything come to think of it.
violetember 3 years ago
I just like to make fun of all of them.
It doesn't matter if Christians use complicated phrases to tell me:
There is a guy living in heaven,who has mythical powers,created something out of nothing,kills humans with floods,tortures us after we are dead,loves us anyway,and send us a son who is his own father.
My not so intelligent sounding answer is:
God is as real and useful as nightmares are.
gotohellfast 3 years ago
You have a very adolecent and ignorant understanding of theology if you really believe that. If you really were concerned, you would learn from a theologian regarding those statements. God doesn't torture people, people choose to be absent from him. Justice actually DOES glorify him. If there was no justice for those who are evil and have sin (everyone)? He is trancendant and dwells in eternity. A concept you can't understand. Every knee WILL bow and tongue confess. Including YOURS when you die.
violetember 3 years ago
"Every knee WILL bow and tongue confess. Including YOURS when you die."
After I'm dead,only if YOUR God is the right one AND a soul exist.
You assume their is a soul...(evidence?)
My tongue will be rotten and a soul has no tongue.A soul has no body and can have no pain receptors(burning in hell?).
But why showing you the fallacies of your believe,using your unproven assumptions?
Any child can see your simple minded logic,no higher intelligence needed.
gotohellfast 3 years ago
...exist. Knowledge does not have to be absolute, which was Russells point. Secondly, how do you believe in this creator God, did you learn it from experience? Would you know the word God without having heard it? We can rely on memories because of the arrow of thermodynamics. Time is not unidirectional, you just remember the past because of the conservation of energy.
3. Your "best argument for the existence of God" is circular reasoning - think about it dopey.
CASEwithscience 3 years ago
Why does circular reasoning bother you? After all, the foundation of your philosophy is based on circular reasoning. The only point we Christians want to make is that you so called geniuses have no business saying we are stupid for believing, because the reality is you can only think your right, one could never absolutely know at this point of humanity. So since you know there is no God, I guess it sounds stupid to you. You have some good points, but on the big picture, you are deluded brother.
easymoney4ever 3 years ago
Firstly, atheism is not a philosophy, it is merely the lack of belief in a God.
Secondly, atheism is not circular. There is no argument to be positively proved by an atheist. An atheist merely rebuts the arguments made by theists.
If you admit to circular reasoning then you must admit that your argument is not logical to the extent of that circularity because the premises of your argument do not independently support your thesis. In other words, your argument is as good as opinion.
CASEwithscience 3 years ago
Read Romans 1:20-...
violetember 3 years ago
By that logic you could claim allah created the universe. In fact, since you cannot actually identify the act of creation - that verse holds the same weight as saying the universe spontaneously and without cause came into existence.
Romans 1:20 is just another example of the argument from incredulity - you do not understand how the universe came into existence thus you claim "goddidit" - of course, that is also the argument from ignorance.
I hope you escape your ignorance - doubt it tho.
CASEwithscience 3 years ago
1. In regards to the one and the many - your argument presupposes the existence of God, Jesus, etc.
There is no problem with the atheist worldview. I believe in a grand unified theory of physics that unites all things. I can consider general and acute things without problem - next.
2. Bertrand Russell would turn in his grave if he heard you misuse his statements in this way. Induction only prevents absolute knowledge - but that does not prevent us making a statement that God does not
CASEwithscience 3 years ago
on miracles, if i may:
if a miracle happens then it exists, if it exists then it's not a miracle.
if it's impossible4 it 2exist, then it happens against KNOWN laws of physics, not against laws of physics.
If god MIRACULOUSLY created a simple blue marble, atheist scientists would not say "we refuse 2 believe "; they would be all over it with their periscopes, books and drawing tables saying "i can't wait to learn EVERYTHING my mind can grasp about this miracle".
lake7less 3 years ago
if u study biology and physics u'd know that the existence of matter and the passing on of hereditary information r nothing short of miracles.
imagine god creates the world, wraps it up as a present and says
"open it, it's full of love and harmony, i'm sure you'll love it"
the scientist: thx. and starts unwrapping.
the dogmatic: no need2,i BELIEVE u, i'll just put it here on a shelf. now2get practical; want me 2hate a whore4u? a fagot? a pagan? or can i hate myself 4u? i AM a sinner after all.
lake7less 3 years ago
can' believe i said "periscopes" don't forget your submarines, scientists:)) mea culpa, i meant microscopes.
lake7less 3 years ago
There is order in the universe (with wide deviations)---> therefore the Christian God must have created the Universe. hahaha.
wizardbrandon 3 years ago
seriously dude, try these standards on your own worldview. All you have is "another step", no more, once you give that "God" is the account for your foundation, you have to ask "what's the foundation for God", your answer is no less circular than somebody presupposing that "logic just is".
Only worse! At least all people can agree logic is a useful tool, not all people can agree God is a useful answer for everything.
funwjoshnjenn 3 years ago
This guy has been reading too much creationist propaganda. He's basically saying that he doesn't need proof for miracles. It's the sceptics that have to prove that miracles DON'T occur. Great logic. Hey, I saw Abraham Lincoln yesterday. He's alive again - it's a miracle! Don't belive me? Well, prove me wrong. Again, great logic.
gluemoae 3 years ago
"Atheists need to disprove all miracles. Christians do not need to prove any miracle."
G. K. Chesterton
A miracle would disprove an atheist immediately, thus when a miracle takes place they have an obligation to disprove it. However, that does not mean that a Christian doesn't have an obligation to prove that a miracle is truly a miracle, it is only that to us it doesn't matter if it is a miracle or not, for to an atheist a miracle is a death blow, to a Christian a false miracle is a lie.
ApostleofMary 3 years ago
No, again: the burden of evidence lies on the person making the claim. Since even Christians agree that miracles (if they occur) are rare (otherwise what would be miraculous about them) the reasonable default position must be that natural events are far more likely than miracles. Thus, since the suspending of natural laws is unlikely, claims of such cases must be supported by compelling evidence.
gluemoae 3 years ago
To say that the laws of logic need justification is to deny that the law of identity and excluded-middle are not self-evident.
I take these as self-evidently true. I PRESUPPOSE them (zomg!)
Presuppers presuppose a god, and also that the laws of logic are contingent upon that god's existence. How are they contingent? I have yet to see any good justification.
plumpis 3 years ago
You're assuming that a comletely objective standpoint isn't possible! All it would take to prove an objective standpoint is to ask oneself: what would a completely objective viewpoint look like? In the case of the existence of God, it would be that one should not affirm nor deny this being's existence until you have convincing evidence either supporting the affirmative or the neagative. There's no presupposition involved there, and if it's possible to imagine such a view, one can adopt it too.
rls0263 3 years ago
what a waste of time, pseudo intellectual doubletalk
tyroy57 3 years ago 2
he brings logically thought out problems to the table, don't discard them out of hand, especially when all of his arguements rely on there being a metaphysical trinitarian deity that must be much more complex and improbable than its supposed creation, and assume this as an axiom, without questioning the metaphysical in the same way he just questioned the physical. by the way, bertrand russel was an atheist.
nanotech22 3 years ago
an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, i dont think a metaphysical trinity is an axiom by any stretch of the imagination. you cannot prove religion, give it up, you know it makes sense
tyroy57 3 years ago
everythingExposed 3 years ago
Read more history, start with the Nazis and Bullocks book on Hitler and Stalin
traviskurtz 3 years ago
Read more history? Explain why the Nazi belt bucket read "Gott Min Uns", translating to "god With Us".
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
everythingExposed 3 years ago
fool's logic. asserting that all other world views are wrong doesn't prove yours right. in order to prove something you actually have to provide some evidence to support it.
A7Xskier 3 years ago 2
Wow, are you a Kirk Cameron understudy?
BobbyFromNJ 3 years ago
Some people presuppose an invisible super daddy. I don't. You are stupid. =D
theshredator 3 years ago 2
oh would you all just shut up!!! i hate all this arguement rubbish.
im an athiest, not because i dont believe in god ( well wait i dont believe in god but whatever) its mainly because religion is the worst thing in the world. its the biggest killer in the history of man. fact.
but at the end of the day , wither you want to believe or not. we all die, our bodies decompose and plants feed off our nutrients. we'll either meet our maker or wont. move on with your life and stop pretending to care!!
geetarwanabe 3 years ago
What is true Freedom.
Freedom from all things that attempt to make you beleive in anything but yourself.
dangusdoug 3 years ago
Don't be fooled. This Paleocrat guy isn't as smart as the big words he uses in his comment-fights.
"Onanist"? "Quadriplegic"? Way to use dictionary dott com to seem like an intellectual. I've seen your other videos and your use of vocabulary is rather primitive.
Paleocrat, you are a fucking joke.. I suggest you watch the videos of Rabidape and get your lame arguments schooled by a true intellectual.
/watch?v=Z0ELfmfrQ4M&feature=user
Watch that and stop putting your garbage on YouTube.
xstrat101x 3 years ago
You Christians are funny.
How can you validate your argument, and call yourselves "rational" while you believe that a cracker is the body of Jesus. Haha do you also believe in fairies and unicorns??
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
I commiserate people like you.
-_-
xGAYSareBAD46x 3 years ago 2
@xGAYSareBAD46x :If the Bible be true, and Christ be the Son of God, where is the difficulty?" -Pascal on the Eucharist
NihilNominis 1 year ago
This video is pretty trite. You're up your ass with your linguistic ability, constantly repeating your opinions which lack any philosophical/physical/spiritual evidence, but at the end, feel that you have locked down something that no one has been able to to (or will for that matter). If its your opinion that there is a creator, good for you. You might as well have just said " I believe in god because I do". I challenge you to disprove the validity of any other religion or theory for existence.
camshaft96 3 years ago
the difference btw science and religion is when we all go home and try the experiment for ourselves we'll get the same result. religion and god are the ones leaving things up to interpretation, your view is no more accurate or valid than any other religion's view, even lolcat's ceiling cat bible.
kapwns 3 years ago 2
Mind is not a thing.
-Ryle
NeoConvert 3 years ago
Paleo,
If you are agitated now that a simple question has been raised about your argument, that is not my problem. Do not shift the burden to me to defend your argument. I am no expert.
And I don't even know what "onanist" means. But I'll look it up, rather than blaming you for my ignorance.
NeoConvert 3 years ago
I am not agitated, just pointing out that you wish me to do the very thing you criticized me for having done. Rather strange.
Give me time to put together an entire video on the matter. I have a list of videos to do, but this is a good one. I'll take ten minutes (still insufficient) over the character limits of comments sections any day of the week.
Not an expert? But the time and effort you've put into it! You can't be a petty novice like me... pitiable me.
paleocrat 3 years ago
That is inaccurate.
I am asking you to show me wrong.
In your present diversionary mode, you're hardly doing so. My claim was that you make philosophical claims you can't defend.
How is making philosophical claims you cannot defend admirable? Or, if you can defend them, just do so.
But don't get mad that your knock-down method actually be questioned.
NeoConvert 3 years ago
I said I would do so. In fact, I dedicated myself to providing an 10 minute video to the matter! Amazingly, after having said I would do as much, you still complain. Truly amazing.
How is choosing to do so in a video, which just so happens to be far more efficient and visible, diversionary?
I wish, even for a moment, that I could take you serious...
paleocrat 3 years ago
Likewise, you've "solved" the uniformity of nature/induction problem by appealing to the uniformity of God?
How is that helpful?
NeoConvert 3 years ago
I say that God's uniformity, and that alone, solved the problem? Hmm... you're a few bucks short and a few days behind on this one.
Once again, rather than critique me, why don't you actually make yourself useful by giving a greater clarification to the claims typically made by presuppositionalists. As of right now, you are about as useful as a quadriplegic valet driver.
You are an Intellectual Onanist if I have ever met one. But no worry, you aren't alone... the world is full of them.
paleocrat 3 years ago
So you've solved the "one and many" problem in the universe by asserting that the same problem exists in God?
How is that helpful?
NeoConvert 3 years ago
You are the professional, explain to those of us down in the real world why Bahnsen, Van Til, and Rushdoony would insist that the ontological Trinity resolves the difficulty posted by the One and the Many. Surely I could never wish to detail it in a manner even close to one of your expertise. Please, do the world a favor, and explain this for all us simpletons.
paleocrat 3 years ago
No sir,
This is your argument. You leveled it. Tell us how it works. There seems to be an obvious difficulty. I have pointed to it. Please explain it.
NeoConvert 3 years ago
You are rather strange. On the one hand, you are upset that a novice as I would dare to speak out on such matters. Then, in a strange twist of events, you wish for me go into detail as to how presuppositionalists argue that the ontological trinity provides the answer for the difficulty of the one and the many. It is a lose-lose with your type. You want one thing, and then demand something altogether different!
And the point of this exercise? Knowledge for knowledge sake? Typical of your type.
paleocrat 3 years ago
The only way the events could seem strangely twisted were if you assumed that your views require no further elaboration; that they should be swallowed by your viewers and conversion commence.
I have merely asked you a very obvious question that is bound to come in light of the claim you make in your video.
You're merely being diversionary now. Your viewers are within their rights to ask you about your reasoning. That is what I've done.
NeoConvert 3 years ago
The irony is that you:
a) claim to be a Christian
b) claim to be a presuppositionalist
A handful of presuppositionalists trying to handle a horde of atheists. I make a claim that Van Til insisted was central to presuppositionalism. You, then, come in here, amidst the horde, to see if I can go beyond an assertion that (presumably) even you endorse!
(Cont.)
paleocrat 3 years ago
(Cont.)
All of this for what? What is proven?
a) I am a phony (whatever that would mean)
b) I am not as smart as you
c) I demonstrate that my position is not at variance with you.
Here is where things get sad. Let's say that my view of the matter reflects that found in the works of Bahnsen, Van Til, and Rushdoony. All you have done is waste time, stroke your ego, and potentially embolden covenant breakers. This is rather sad... and reveals who you are and what you're about.
*sigh*
paleocrat 3 years ago
You need to go back to your Epistemology or Metaphysics class and revamp your understanding of fundamental principles.
Abrah555 3 years ago
Also, you say that you cannot use an axiom without justifying it...that's completely retarded, axioms are by definition inexplicable, they're assumptions we use as a starting point to define our 'world view.' We are comfortable "begging the question" because we have to. You do, in assuming there is a God to create things, that's you're axiom which you don't/can't logically justify.
Abrah555 3 years ago
So...the best evidence to support the existence of god which is that there is a universe here that we exist in where we can argue about the best evidence to support the existence of god which is that there is a universe here that we exist in where we can argue about the best evidence......seems a little circular to me there bub. Seems like you're BEGGING THE QUESTIONS which you say is INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE.
Abrah555 3 years ago
Are you saying that without X you could not talk about the existence of X or are you saying that without X there can be no platform on which you could talk about the existence of X because X provides that platform?
The first one is circular logic.
For the second one, where is your evidence for that? Why couldn't we have any uniformity without X making it uniform with intention?
teenspirit1 3 years ago
Christians can account for the uniformity of nature?
Um, light didn't get split into it's constituent colors by water droplets in the air before the flood, right? It was after the flood that God created rainbows. How can you be sure that God won't similarly change the laws of physics again?
riversonthemoon 3 years ago
stop making love to yourself and using cheap philosophy
BlueDesertScorpion 3 years ago
Amen!
NeoConvert 3 years ago
PS -
This is not a response to your video, but rather to the comment on your video which read "stop making love to yourself and using cheap philosophy."
NeoConvert 3 years ago
Amen!
NeoConvert 3 years ago
you just said god had a mind you fucking moron. Islam has overtaken Roman Catholicism to become the world's largest single religious denomination, according to L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.
lycanthropydm 3 years ago
And I don't know why it posted all of my comments in a row, because I clicked "reply" under each comment down below.
MovieBuzzReviewDude 3 years ago
Epistemologically no, in order to have knowledge you must be falsifiable, that is the nature of truth. If you have a mindset that a scientist has, you are prepared to change your views to match the empirical evidence. Knowledge is when truth and belief overlap. Humes is accurate when describing the absolute degree of knowledge, science only addresses the practicality of knowledge. No scientist claims absolute certainty, simply the most plausible explanation. The chances of god are minimal.
madman0000004 3 years ago
by the way, the world outnumbers christians, and the islamic movement happening perceives this "christian" religion as god forsaken and completely satanic in nature. thats why these groups have moved from the vanities of our everyday life and are willing to sacrifice everything because of their sacred beliefs. these people have the knowledge of the sacred ancient books. READ THEM.
lycanthropydm 3 years ago
Sorry, the world doesn't outnumber Christians. Do some research, yeesh.
MovieBuzzReviewDude 3 years ago
Ummm... Yes it does.
CausticColostomy 3 years ago
I would hurt you. Your arguements are bullshit. why dont you look at the root of the problem instead of pointless shit. your christian people are shitting all over the world with a moral crusade, look at the dollar...yeah vote mccain...yeah more moral crusade...FUCK YOU and your family and your kids!!! you deserve a fucking bomb. read the books that were banned from the bible- your entire life and brain and monarchy controlled existance stems from the tribe of daan from israel. booyah nigger.
lycanthropydm 3 years ago
"Your Christian people are shitting all over the world with a moral crusade."
And then you go on to undertake a moral crusade by posting an offensive and pointless rant under someone's video in youtube, which should be realm of free expression and discussion. Sounds to me like you're something of a hypocrite.
"Booyah nigger."
MovieBuzzReviewDude 3 years ago
Even if you were actually able to prove that reality couldn't exist without a God (which of course you can't) that wouldn't mean that your God is the right one.
----------------------------------------------
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
-Bertrand Russell
adimare0 3 years ago
you lose
s2000r1titan 3 years ago
I couldn't even force myself to watch this crap! Stop trying to sound smart and just say what the Hell it is that you want to say...
royalandonyx 3 years ago
i agree. blah blah blah blah im going to accuse atheists of doing everything that i'm doing in this video.. blah blah blah blah blah.
tetsuo2112 3 years ago
ok, we all have 5 senses, and the only thing these senses do is send signals to our brain about the PHYSICAL things around us, all our inductive reasoning is based on our experiences through these senses. given that these are the only tools we have to understand the world around us, we can and do accept them as valid. Given that all your arguments are from METAPHYSICAL philosophy, they cant by definition be understood by any of the senses.
dhartin 3 years ago
atheist, by default believe in the physical world around them that they can experience through senses. theist on the other hand believe in the metaphysical world described in ancient books. The very fact that we do live in a physical world that I experience everyday automatically tips the scale in atheist favor because there's nothing in atheistic belief that cant be physically experienced first hand, where as theism demands belief without physical experience.
dhartin 3 years ago
"Nothing in atheistic belief that can't be physically experienced first hand."
I'm sorry, but that's just naive. Did you actually just say that? Please tell me you didn't.
MovieBuzzReviewDude 3 years ago
yup, I just said that like a month ago, but either way it still stands, how is that naive?
dhartin 3 years ago
This god fanasty(delusion) evolved from the gods man created throughout the ages.
The Romans and their church ruled that this god was the true god.
Their laws against other religions and their gods were violent and deadly.
maurieer 3 years ago
The angels said "Peace to men of good will." Good will. The soul is composed of intellect and will - but which is in charge? The will should be subordinate, but is it? Always? Jesus said that Pilate couldn't hear the truth. Is it that he was a man of bad will? Is this the problem with intellectual arguments?
bammbamm12 3 years ago
Paleo, Sir,
You seem to be confused regarding the coherence of your theology with your methodology. What's all this presuppositionalism you're pantomiming?
Are you aware that it's completely incompatible with Thomism and scholastic theology?
Also, you should cite the people whom you're blatantly plagiarizing.
Bad form Sir.
NeoConvert 3 years ago
Maybe it is simply the laws of physics, and not because God said, let there be quarks, wait, God doesn't even know of quarks... odd that he didn't know how he created matter.
XythAdar 3 years ago
"God is a god of rhythm and design"
this is an assumption that begs the question no less than me stating that nature simply has rhythm and design. All you do is push the question back one step.
Is it not reasonable to conclude based on induction that things don't come back from the dead? If so, the miracle of the resurrection would violate this principle of induction.
Apparently you answer my questions somewhere in this video, at least you said you did.
ConstantlyQuestion 3 years ago
For someone who spends so much time saying that his opponents don't defend their pre-suppositions you don't defend a single pre-supposition of yours. Not only that but the idea that atheist world view precludes evidence is a straw-man. You also simply plug your ears and say there are no other explanations or logical inconsistencies within Christianity.
Sorry, you haven't convinced me.
friartuck000 4 years ago 4
Very clearly presented.
patrissimo 4 years ago
"The One and the Many" is a very interesting book.
patrissimo 4 years ago
I would say the weakness of presuppositionalism rests on its claim that it makes more sense to hold the view that "The Bible is true" as a presupposition as it does to hold the view "inductive/deductive reasoning is valid."
Now, on the surface, this is false: these two make AT LEAST equal amounts of sense. Either it's impossible to account for the biblical veracity (it's a presupposition) or it's impossible to account for inductive/deductive reasoning (it's also a presupposition).
jwdink 4 years ago
But we can take this further: if it were somehow demonstrated based on undeniable evidence (whatever that might be; even a Christian should concede that this scenario is conceivable) that the bible were NOT the truth, then what would Christians accept? What would they reject? Would they reject their inductive/deductive reasoning, and maintain that the bible is true despite the evidence? Or would they reject the bible, thereby proving their reasoning was more properly called a presupposition?
jwdink 4 years ago
TAG: Welcome to Begging the Question 101. Christianity can account for the uniformity of nature? How? Because the Bible says so? And how can we be sure that the Bible is true? Because it's the Word of God! And how do we know that it's the Word of God? Because it says so in the Bible!
Christians... sheesh!
sackman11 4 years ago 3
Oh, like you have a reasonable expectation that your keys wont turn into a gila lizard, or thats sticks won't turn into snakes, Or that oceans will part for your your timely escape from Egyptian Pharaohs, or that 2 fish and a loaf of bread could feed a 'multitude'.
Revyloution 4 years ago 3
This is nine minutes and 46 seconds of freshly baked dumb.
kiwitamer 4 years ago 4