If i just tuned in and i didnt know he was speaking to Ray comfort i would have thought Matt was explaining the difference between nature and a painting to an 8 yr old child.
The problem with the "Are you a good person" test is that is is entirely based on the presumption that the 10 Commandments and the Bible are absolute truths. If you accept this to begin with, there's no argument. If you don't accept this, then Comfort has no real basis for his point. The reality is that all he does is parrot pre-scripted arguments over and over again verbatim. Whenever they're challenged, he derails, tunes everyone out, and steers back to script. That's all he's capable of.
It is very sad the Comfort actually thinks he won the argument. This man has no idea how to think scientifically and logically. For the sake of the future of humanity I truly hope people like Comfort are a dying breed.
Ray likes to argue against science by making referrals to the times when science knew much less than now and did not have the tools it does now. This is wishful thinking from the past and the way Ray presents it is essentially dishonest.
After all the dust settles, we have only two choices. Either the universe brought itself into existence, or something outside the universe, an external cause brought it into existence. The problem is how something could brought itself into existence? Isn't possible, therefore the cause must be external. The only thing present was energy. The God of the Bible is described with the same attributes of energy before energy was described. The existence of God is the best explanation. Open your eyes
@dejesusluisx "The problem is how something could brought itself into existence?"
The same could be said about the god of the bible or any god(s) for that matter. As for seeing something bring itself into existence crystals self replicate and build structures
@MsOneiroi77 "The same could be said about the god of the bible or any god(s) for that matter" God is energy and science had discovered that energy can't be created or destroyed, so energy is eternal, therefore God is eternal. "crystals self replicate and build structures" No, if the conditions that form crystals continue, more crystals are formed but the external conditions are what form the crystals not the crystals themselves. Where did you get that from? You need better sources.
@dejesusluisx "God is energy and science had discovered that energy can't be created or destroyed"
No if god exists outside of reality in the supernatural and cannot be measured by science he cannot be energy by religious definition. If god were energy man can manipulate it for his own devices therefore god is not energy.
@MsOneiroi77 ""if god exists outside of reality"" who said that? ""in the supernatural"" what is that? ""cannot be measured by science"" we don't know that. ""man can manipulate it for his own devices"" really? try to manipulate gravity, or dark energy, or the energy that makes entanglement possible, or the CMB. In the debating scale, from 1 to 10, you're on negative territory.
There is something about Ray Comfort's voice that makes him sound like honey to the ear but then turns to diarrhea once it reaches the brain. Has anyone else noticed that? :-/
@xm377Moyocoyatzin its prolly the accent....he sounds like he SHOULD sound intellectual (cuz for some reason, and i may be alone on this, british and aussie accents seem so intelligent) but in reality he isnt.....lol
All Comfort argument could be those of a deist, what I don't get is how he links a creator to the specific christian god when facing all the evidences that genesis is bogus, to say the least.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, couldn't have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
man there are two times where Ray says, well "you don't have enough evidence", or "how can you say you don't know"? God has sooo much less evidence, for one, and it's so much more rational to say you don't know, than to go from not knowing, to allowing yourself to use the pretext of an immortal omnipotent being to answer everything you can't answer (creation of universe, after death, how humans came about). ooo thunder, must be gods, nope... the wind? nope... coincidences? nope... the universe??
@s4m10sug1 Science never believed the earth was flat. That is a myth that will not die. Educated people throughout history knew that the earth was not flat. I know what you are saying but too many people believe the lie that everyone thought the earth was flat.
By the way, even atheists must admit that God is not undefined. If he were, they would have nothing to argue against. But, as it stands, when they say the word "God", they have a definite idea of what they are talking about in mind. They then proceed to argue against that idea with all of the craft available to them. So, clearly, God is not undefined.
Untrue. Anyone who believes in God is quite certain that he is something definite. God is hardly an undefined quantity. No one can claim to have exhaustive knowledge of him; the finite can never know the infinite exhaustively. But to say he's undefined is inaccurate at best. No one knows the universe exhaustively, but it is hardly undefined.
Ah. But if God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), then we have SOMEthing which is able to act and create everything, even out of nothing. By the very definition of the word, God, if he exists, would be able to create ex nihilo. If he couldn't, we wouldn't be God.
With regard to the hypothesis you mentioned, one must ask oneself, "Where did the singularity come from? Was it created by something else, or is it eternal and self-existant?"
What it sounds like to me is that you're saying, "Indeed. SOMEthing created the universe, and let us inquire as to what that SOMEthing may be; but let us agree at the outset that, whatever that SOMEthing may be, it CANNOT be God." This is an intellectually dishonest way to proceed, and I am of the opinion that, if we would know truth, we must not be intellectually dishonest. We must take it as we find it, however uncomfortable the discovery may be.
Ok. We have one point of agreement: something created this universe. We have not yet arrived at what that something may be, only that it is SOMEthing and not NOthing.
I have one question before we go on: why is it ipso facto ridiculous for that SOMEthing to be God. Of course, we have not yet established that it IS God, but it seems to me that a truly open-minded enquiry into the facts of the case cannot begin by ruling out a possible solution, unless one has an ideological reason for doing so.
We know two other things about the universe: it is not, itself, eternal and self-existant. It had a definite beginning. We also know that it could NOT have simply popped into existance out of nothing, without something causing it to. In other words, it cannot be an effect without a cause. Common sense tells you that, if you have nothing, you can only make nothing out of it.
@stormhawk31 No one says it popped into existence out of nothing. Well, thats not true. the biblical god says it popped into existence out of nothing.
Science thinks that it inflated from what is called the singularity. They think that the universe was once smaller than a grain of sand.
As I said, if we cannot know anything objectively true about this universe, well then, we cannot know anything objectively true about this universe. That invalidates all of the sciences and all of their products; indeed, it invalidates the totality of human knowledge. Thus, the proposition that we "cannot know" leads to a logical absurdity, and proves itself false.
I know of this hypothesis, but what you're not seeing as that it requires that there be something "in the beginning" to generate our universe, and that something is either itself a creation of something else, spontaneously self-generated ex nihilo (out of nothing), or is eternal and self-existant. Those are the only possibilities. Even M theory (the current front-running theory on universal origin) cannot avoid having something pre-exist the universe. The question then becomes, what was it?
@stormhawk31 I agree. Something caused this universe. But to name it God is ridiculous.
What if this universe is like a cell inside the body of some unimaginably large animal. This animal wouldn't know we are even here, it is just a cell inside it's body.
The possible explanations as to the truth of the universes origin are many.
Why limit our imagination by calling it God and saying it is the objective absolute truth.
Nope. It MUST be self-existant and eternal, because otherwise you get an infinite regress (a thing created by another thing, which was created by something else, ad infinitum), and, because there would be an infinite number of events before the creation of the universe, you would never actually get to the creation of the universe. Since there obviously IS a universe, the infinite regression is eliminated. The only other options are creation by something self-existant, or spontaneous generation.
If all truth is subjective, human reason cannot discover anything objectively true about the universe, since everything it discovers would only be true to the person discovering it. Thus, human reason becomes invalid. If human reason is invalid, science itself is invalid, since science is dependent upon the validity of human reason. If science is invalid, all of modern technology is impossible and, if that's "true", then we are NOT sitting here having this conversation, because it's impossible.
@stormhawk31 Like science which never claims to absolute truth on anything. Something is true until proven untrue. Subjective truth.
Until we observe from outside our universe or reality then we cannot objectively determine the truth of this universe. It is basically (Respect for the unknown)
I wish there was a neutral forum in which to discuss this, because YouTube does not provide enough space for one to give a comprehensive answer to some of the legitimate questions that have been presented!
There is an hypothesis that there may be multiverses. multiple universes.
Some physicists speculate that the other side of a black hole could be another universe.
Since there are millions of black holes in this universe, there is speculation that there could be millions of universes. To say that there are 2 explanations for the origin of the universe is not even close to understanding ALL the possible explanations.
Indeed, God (the one in the Bible) has left evidence of himself in creation - for starters, the very fact that there IS a creation. If you follow cosmology, as I do, you'll see that there are really only 2 foundational explanations for the origin of the universe: either it created itself from nothing, one fine morning, for no reason, or somethig created it - that something necessarily being self-existant and eternal. All origin theories are just variations on these two themes.
@Onetruthrgv Your channel page says "I am a born again christian, I believe jesus christ died for our sins on the cross, was buried and rose from the dead. I believe every word of the bible is true and believe the KJV is the best and most accurate version"
Argument from authority: "I am a born again christian" so everything I say must be true.
Argument from ignorance: Everything you said in the quote is an argument from ignorance.
The bible is true because the bible says it's true.
@Onetruthrgv According to your definition of argument from authority.
Yahweh is a god and he says that he created heaven and earth. Therefore he created heaven and earth because he is god.
Whose the dipshit now. I just demonstrated that your god is an argument from authority. Therefore scientific evidence is not required. Your god does not exist.
WE who exist in this universe cannot claim objective truth because we are inside the universe.
Any claim as to objective truth about the universe by anyone who has not seen the universe from the outside looking in is not in a position to view it objectively.
Simple logical critical thinking.
Read it and read it and read it again until you can understand.
@MyGodTheresNoGod He was not demonstrating that because he is a christian that whatever he says must be true because he is the authority and therefore he must be right. Rather, he was giving more detail as to what he means when he says he is a christian--it is a clarification of his view--not a justification of it.
Straw Man Fallacy--> Argument from authority: "I am a born again christian" so everything I say must be true.
Science DOES NOT and CANNOT prove that God either exists or doesn't. Science deals with the natural world ONLY, and cannot investigate something - God - which, by nature, TRANSCENDS nature. God is beyond the ability of science to investigate, but that does NOT mean he doesn't exist. The hubris of some "faith scientists" is amazing!
@Onetruthrgv I have given you the answer. AGAIN: Science confirms that your god does not exist. You are under the assumption that science is capable of giving you the answer in a 500 letter comment. Science doesn't work that way. The answer requires you to become knowledgable about science in order to get the confirmation you require. Instant gratification is not what is on offer. Nor revealed truth. The answer requires YOU to make the effort. Discovered truth is your pathway to enlightenment.
@Onetruthrgv 2000 years ago evidence of your gods existence was provided by the bible. Among the many things that discount the existence of your god, accepting that your god is based on logical fallacies. 1. Arguments from authority. 2. Arguments from ignorance, will help you to understand that evidence from science should not even be required by you. the understanding that the assertion of god itself is completely without merit.
Your god does not exist. The whole notion is without merit.
4.) You said something very funny that I want you to address. You said "That's right since god does not exist, all truth is subjective." So then let me ask you is the claim " all truth is subjective." subjective?
If so then why are you making an absolute truth statement? You are saying it is true that "all truth is subjective."
lolol Sorry kid you just did a little thing called "A self refuting statement" lolololol I love when atheist do that!
@Onetruthrgv We can say that all truth is subjective because we exist within the universe.
Anything in the way of knowledge from outside our universe is unknown. And since we cannot observe from outside our universe to discover objectively the truth of our existence then yes, all truth is subjective.
That's not a self refuting statement.
That's an acknowledgement of our place in this reality and a recognition of the questions that may never be answered
@MyGodTheresNoGod 4.) We can say that all truth is subjective because we exist within the universe.
This is why you keep refuting your self. Truth and subjective cannot exist with each other. How can something be true yet subjective? Its lkie me saying "x is more wrong" Notice something? Truth is an absolute while subjective is arguing the opposite!
This is not very hard man!
5.) quit dodging the question! I am waiting for you scientific evidence that god does not exist! This is the 6th time!
@Onetruthrgv Of course truth is subjective. What an idiotic thing to say. By your logic, Little Jimmy is confident in the absolute truth of Santa Claus' existence because Santa left presents for him on Christmas morning. This analogy can be appropriate to other things that are subjective also. What reason does Little Jimmy's claim have merit? Or yours for that matter?
@MyGodTheresNoGod 2.) "Of course truth is subjective." Is that statement true or false? If it is true then thats an objective truth and thus its self contradicting. Why can't you under stand what a self refuting statement is? You said "all truth is subjective" so if thats true then your claim " all truth is subjective." is subjective and that means it is not true lololol.
@Onetruthrgv All truth is subjective because there is much that is unknown.
Your lack of intellectual insight in accepting this fact is common among those that think that we are capable of seeing truth objectively.
Until all that can be discovered is discovered then truth will remain subjective.
By understanding that, from our point of view, all truth is subjective is a recognition and deference to the unknown. You myopic philosophy blinds you to reality. You fail again.
@DeityDestroyer 2.) DUDE LEARN WHAT ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY IS!!!!!!!
Citing an authority is not argument from authority!!!!!
Here is an argument from authority. "The bible is true because professor johnsn said so and since he has a degree in science he is correct on his words."
YOU ARE SO DAMN ANNOYING!
So I am still waiting for your scientific proof that There is no God!
You keep dodging the question!
Do you realize how bad you look by dodging the question on your own channel?
@Onetruthrgv Here is another argument from authority (appeal to authority) 1. a person or persons (P) makes claim X. Therefore X is true. A fallacious argument.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
The very first sentence of your book is a logical fallacy. HAHA The very first sentence!!!!!!!!
Who needs to learn what argument from authority is?
@MyGodTheresNoGod Dude I am getting tired of smacking you around on your own channel. If your next comment isn't the scientific proof that god doesn't exist then I will not respond.
You keep dodging the question. I am very busy with other atheist.
If we found a treasure chest and I said "there is Gold in it "and then you said "No there is no Gold in it." Is it up to me to prove you right? NO its up to both of us to prove our claims.
Please give me one philosophy text that agrees that only positive claims have burden of proof.
@podoau Dude are you completely stupid? THE GUY I AM TALKING TO (OP) IS SAYING THERE IS NO GOD! Honestly I think weak atheist are just a waste of mass, you guys have no relevance to theism whats ever. You guys don't even have a position on god's existence other than an autobiographical comment about your personal psychology. The only people worth my time are agnostics and strong atheist. Go back under your rock. Don't bother me again unless you are gonna take a position on god's existence.
@podoau "theism is a position that there is no god, because there is no proof that a god exists."
This is a logical fallacy called "Arguing from ignorance"
Argument from ignorance is when someone declares "If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false."
So now your quoting Wikipedia ?? That holds as much credibility as the bible.
Ive noticed you quote that before.. Instead of providing the proof that god exists, as asked, you simply argue semantics.. Then claim victory
Im of the beleif that your really shlockofgoob, becuae your responses follow the same pattern.. ie. avaoid the actual question, by changing the subject, then claiming victory
@podoau There was never an original question, I am not going to answer your question untill I get my answer from The OP.
Now If you would like to have a discussion on God's existence I would be more than happy to do so only IF you agree you will not commit any more logical fallacies.
@podoau I told you to PM me if you want to have a real debate. I am willing to ignore the fact that you are illogical (Judging by how many fallacies you just committed to support your position.).
Now you are committing another fallacy called moving to goal post on what is to be considered evidence for God existence.
You must be open to all logical forms of evidence. Science is only one way we can understand truth. We have many others!
@Onetruthrgv Im not going to PM you. This is a public forum.
I have not commited any fallacy. Your simply (again) trying to change the subject
Provide testable, repeatable, observable proof that your god exists. Thats has always been the question. nothing has changed. I just want you to provide the evidence
When are we going to see it. ?
Here is the question again.. Provide testable, repeatable, observable evidence that your god exists.
@Onetruthrgv Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy
@Onetruthrgv ont: This should not, however, be taken to mean that one can never possess evidence that something does not exist; an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars.
If you claim that your god exists simply because no one can prove he doesnt, them the Russells teapot also exists, as does the Flying Spagetti Monster
@podoau BTW I only debate strong atheist. I think weak atheist are a waste of debate. Strong atheist have more guts to step into the ring against an apologist.
Good luck! Better read up on your philosophy because you will need it.
@Onetruthrgv I can see why you say that you will only debate strong atheists. You consider it a waste because a weak atheist by definition puts the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders.
And as we all know. With you having the burden of proof you are burdened by UN-PROOF.
You don'y debate weak atheists because you have no defence.
@MyGodTheresNoGod 2.) Again you committed a logical fallacy by saying "You don'y debate weak atheists because you have no defense." You are saying I have no defense because I have not said it yet,
Remember arguing from silence is a conclusion based on silence.
@Onetruthrgv Like i said. It doesn't matter whether you think you have the evidence or not. Or whether you have declared the evidence or not.
With the burden of proof resting on your shoulders in debate with a weak atheist. Since there is not 1 fact in all of existence to support your god then you are forced to cower because you are burdened by UN-PROOF!!
@Onetruthrgv The only smacking you're doing is to yourself. A veritable pigeon knocking over the chess pieces then threatening to fly away to declare victory. Like I said in my first comment to you "Lets cut to the chase shall we". There is no reasonable logical premise in support of your god, and the only people who accept its existence are the believers who succumb to the argument from ignorance.
Why do you even believe when you know it has no merit?
@MyGodTheresNoGod 3.) You made the claim 'The Christian God doesn't exist" I am just asking for your evidence for that claim.
4.) Again you keep misrepresenting what arguing from ignorance is. Nowhere in the bible does it say "Christianity is true because nobody has proved it wrong yet" Please find 1 damn verse that commits the fallacy of arguing from ignorance! If you cannot then stop making the false claim that Christianity is committing that fallacy.
@Onetruthrgv I did not say the bible is an argument from ignorance. I said that the bible is an argument from authority. The followers who proselytize its message do so in the fallacy of an argument from ignorance.
AGAIN and AGAIN the evidence that the christian god does not exist is, among the many reasons to discount the notion of your god, to be found in science. The effort to understand science is YOUR burden.
Though it is impossible to do so perfectly, it is possible to create matter out of energy. There are laws on this, I can't go into them due to length. This debunks one of Comforts arguments about not being able to create that "grain of sand."
whats evidence do we have that humans have a soul,we can show an idea,but who have actually phyically seen a thought.I have never seen a soul,however I know that i have one.Alot of stuff goes unseen,does that mean that it does not exsist?atheist talk more about God than any other religion.seems to me their souls are crying out.You know to block my comments out because i work for God and I have the power to make atheist thoughts crumble.
If you and I were walking and we saw a treasure chest and you said "There is no gold in that chest"
and I replied "How do you know that?" Do you really think it would make sense for you to say "ITS NOT UP TO ME TO PROVE WHY I MAGICALLY KNOW IT DOESN'T EXIST!"
@podoau Now I know you will still assert "The one making the positive claim must still Go first"
Like I said this is irrelevant. The fact that you have no evidence for your conclusion tells me you are holding to an irrational belief. Now I am Not saying that's why its a false position but rather you have no rational reasoning to make the claim "It is a fact that God doesn't exist"
Remember you must provide evidence for a claim. Any claim to knowledge!
why do atheist always bring up God and rather or not he exist?Is it like a war within.I dont believe in fairytales and never argue about them.Because i know for sure they dont exist.What can atheist offer the world truth fully?If we change everything and put all our faith in atheist where would the world be?Do they even know?If atheist are so sure about their way,cant they buy a country and show the world how it should be done?Show us and stop jaw jacking.
Wow I knew ray comfort would lose but I am surprised he stumped Matt a couple of times.
The question with the grain of sand was heavily misrepresented by Matt but I am glad ray corrected him and immediately Matt made a failed attempt of trying to show rays analogy to be false with his cell phone analogy. He never answered the question.
I keep seeing people posting that Ray Comfort doesn't know what he's saying is wrong.
He knows he's wrong all right. The next video shows that he's more than willing to use science (medicine), TV, the internet, food, shelter, and more. All products of science. He even conceded Matt's point in the next video.
Ray is a con artist. A snake oil salesman. A liar.
And it's make him and Curt Cameron a lot of money.
I wish that in that moment I was Matt and I had the ability to punch somebody through the phone!
Dear creationists who believe that moustached moron, science corecting itself does not mean that in a hundred years some magic will destroy hundreds of thousands of instances where tenths of different methods have unanimously declared that the earth is NOT as old as the bible describe it to be.
The best you can hope for is the date becoming even more distant to what you say it should be.
The problem is that Ray has dug himself really fucking deep in his arguments, and is just to damned stupid and arrogant to listen to anyone who is telling him that he should stop, because he is digging himself to death. Amazing how standard that way of thinking has become among the religious debators.
@TheOptimistPrime Logic would say that predicting the odds would be difficult, but certain things are certain - during every round a certain amount of teams will win and lose culminating in 1 overall winner.
Things do happen that are unlikely and hard to predict, but not things that are contrary to logical laws.
I still can't even believe people like ray comfort even exist. It COMPLETELY blows my mind that people come to believe this crap late into their lives. Babies and toddlers being indoctrinated, aight. Sure. Grown ass men that believe this nonsense? LOLWUT.
Why assert that there was a "beginning"? The law of conservation of energy specifically states that energy cannot be destroyed, it only changes form. It is therefore ETERNAL. So if something in reality is demonstrably eternal, then reality has to be eternal, or energy would not have a place to exist in throughout eternity. In other words, reality CANNOT have had a beginning. The universe we now exist in can, and that is supported by evidence.
One thought that occurred to me is you shouldn't even assume that a painting had a creator. Follow me for a sec: A painter left his apartment midway through a painting. He's a messy guy, so he left the paint out along with canvas all over the place. An earthquake happens, or the paint can was unbalanced on the counter or whatever, and the paint falls on a blank canvas. Presto! A painting! Who created it? Does it have a creator, does it need one?
@TheFeralzebra The watch and the painting argument analogy fails because it utilizes non-natural materials that would never assemble themselves naturally. Chemicals, Metals, Paint, Paper etc..
A better argument from nature is the complex workings of a mud puddle. There is order and layering and textures and organisms all completely naturally formed.
The whole essence of Ray ComFort is that he is one giant contradiction.
I love how Matt brings up violence and atrocities found in the bible. Ray is like "I don't agree with everything in the bible"; "the bible is filled with very violent acts...you don't really believe it? do you?..just let people believe and read what they want!" and then latter goes back to quoting scripture as if it's proof of something.
If i just tuned in and i didnt know he was speaking to Ray comfort i would have thought Matt was explaining the difference between nature and a painting to an 8 yr old child.
DaAlphaOmega 6 days ago
The problem with the "Are you a good person" test is that is is entirely based on the presumption that the 10 Commandments and the Bible are absolute truths. If you accept this to begin with, there's no argument. If you don't accept this, then Comfort has no real basis for his point. The reality is that all he does is parrot pre-scripted arguments over and over again verbatim. Whenever they're challenged, he derails, tunes everyone out, and steers back to script. That's all he's capable of.
Soulvigilante 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from MyGodTheresNoGod
"No I didn't say that" "No I didn't say that" "No I didn't say that" Than what if you fucking point Comfort?
uniteordie1 3 weeks ago
He is such an idiot!
Kingucktoad 3 weeks ago
It is very sad the Comfort actually thinks he won the argument. This man has no idea how to think scientifically and logically. For the sake of the future of humanity I truly hope people like Comfort are a dying breed.
uniteordie1 3 weeks ago
Jesus Is God
SpcMedia21 1 month ago
@SpcMedia21 The Flying Spaghetti Monster is God. Bow down to his noodliness you blasphemer!
uniteordie1 3 weeks ago
@SpcMedia21 No he is not! The flying spaghetti monster is the Almighty God! Prove me wrong!
uniteordie1 3 weeks ago
Ray likes to argue against science by making referrals to the times when science knew much less than now and did not have the tools it does now. This is wishful thinking from the past and the way Ray presents it is essentially dishonest.
Tunnelfish2 2 months ago
Ray claims that you can infer a painter from a painting because it is organized and designed compared to a random, disordered nature.
Then, he claims that you can infer a creator because of whatever order and design exists in nature.
I'm confused. If this is so, does that make the painter superior to the creator/being of nature because the painting was more refined than nature?
curlew0609 2 months ago
After all the dust settles, we have only two choices. Either the universe brought itself into existence, or something outside the universe, an external cause brought it into existence. The problem is how something could brought itself into existence? Isn't possible, therefore the cause must be external. The only thing present was energy. The God of the Bible is described with the same attributes of energy before energy was described. The existence of God is the best explanation. Open your eyes
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx "The problem is how something could brought itself into existence?"
The same could be said about the god of the bible or any god(s) for that matter. As for seeing something bring itself into existence crystals self replicate and build structures
MsOneiroi77 3 months ago
@MsOneiroi77 "The same could be said about the god of the bible or any god(s) for that matter" God is energy and science had discovered that energy can't be created or destroyed, so energy is eternal, therefore God is eternal. "crystals self replicate and build structures" No, if the conditions that form crystals continue, more crystals are formed but the external conditions are what form the crystals not the crystals themselves. Where did you get that from? You need better sources.
dejesusluisx 2 months ago
@dejesusluisx "God is energy and science had discovered that energy can't be created or destroyed"
No if god exists outside of reality in the supernatural and cannot be measured by science he cannot be energy by religious definition. If god were energy man can manipulate it for his own devices therefore god is not energy.
You are the one who needs better sources
MsOneiroi77 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsOneiroi77 ""if god exists outside of reality"" who said that? ""in the supernatural"" what is that? ""cannot be measured by science"" we don't know that. ""man can manipulate it for his own devices"" really? try to manipulate gravity, or dark energy, or the energy that makes entanglement possible, or the CMB. In the debating scale, from 1 to 10, you're on negative territory.
dejesusluisx 2 months ago
God bless Ray Comfort.
IELTSExamination 3 months ago
just goes to show you cant fix stupid. why do you even bother with ray?
wanafly12 4 months ago
There is something about Ray Comfort's voice that makes him sound like honey to the ear but then turns to diarrhea once it reaches the brain. Has anyone else noticed that? :-/
xm377Moyocoyatzin 4 months ago 9
@xm377Moyocoyatzin its prolly the accent....he sounds like he SHOULD sound intellectual (cuz for some reason, and i may be alone on this, british and aussie accents seem so intelligent) but in reality he isnt.....lol
xIFORGOTTOPULLOUTx 2 months ago
All Comfort argument could be those of a deist, what I don't get is how he links a creator to the specific christian god when facing all the evidences that genesis is bogus, to say the least.
Acrimonator 4 months ago
So the limited human must have a limitless creator.
cynt123able 4 months ago
They need more of a challenge this dude ray doesn't even make debates interesting. Dr william lane craig would do better
MegaSleep1 4 months ago
I'm willing to bet that even the Pope thinks that Ray Comfort is a COMPLETE MORON!
BandOfAtheist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, couldn't have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
Matt's reasoning is like music to my ears..and ray comfort's crap is like nails scratching a chalk board..
MissPraecipua 6 months ago 2
Imbeciles lying for jesus are better known around the world as christians. If you see one please don't stare. This makes them unstable.
scotttebben 7 months ago
man there are two times where Ray says, well "you don't have enough evidence", or "how can you say you don't know"? God has sooo much less evidence, for one, and it's so much more rational to say you don't know, than to go from not knowing, to allowing yourself to use the pretext of an immortal omnipotent being to answer everything you can't answer (creation of universe, after death, how humans came about). ooo thunder, must be gods, nope... the wind? nope... coincidences? nope... the universe??
UnitedNewThinkers 8 months ago
jesus was not even a historical figure
mussonman 8 months ago
What a fucking retard, I just can't watch the other 3 vids.
marNLL 8 months ago
"RESURRECT YOURSELF FROM THE DEAD AND I WILL BELIEVE YOU!!!" YES!!!
PeanutButterGtr 8 months ago
these guys are way too patient
goofydog07 9 months ago
I found about 6 hang up the phone parts to this episode.
BunWackettBuzzard 9 months ago
Science shouldn't change things like that. I don`t like it. The earth should have remained FLAT.
s4m10sug1 9 months ago 4
@s4m10sug1 Science never believed the earth was flat. That is a myth that will not die. Educated people throughout history knew that the earth was not flat. I know what you are saying but too many people believe the lie that everyone thought the earth was flat.
uniteordie1 3 weeks ago
@uniteordie1
Maybe a handful of educated people knew the truth, but that doesn`t change the fact that most people thought the Earth was flat.
Today`s educated people know there are no gods, but that doesn`t stop the majority from believing insane things.
s4m10sug1 3 weeks ago
I have to admit, Comfort is a bit more interesting than their average caller.
BigJonBone 10 months ago
Matt would make a great teacher.
blarson12 10 months ago
Hahah they have a bannana on the table. LMAO
Wordlaw12 10 months ago
By the way, even atheists must admit that God is not undefined. If he were, they would have nothing to argue against. But, as it stands, when they say the word "God", they have a definite idea of what they are talking about in mind. They then proceed to argue against that idea with all of the craft available to them. So, clearly, God is not undefined.
stormhawk31 10 months ago
Untrue. Anyone who believes in God is quite certain that he is something definite. God is hardly an undefined quantity. No one can claim to have exhaustive knowledge of him; the finite can never know the infinite exhaustively. But to say he's undefined is inaccurate at best. No one knows the universe exhaustively, but it is hardly undefined.
stormhawk31 10 months ago
Ah. But if God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), then we have SOMEthing which is able to act and create everything, even out of nothing. By the very definition of the word, God, if he exists, would be able to create ex nihilo. If he couldn't, we wouldn't be God.
With regard to the hypothesis you mentioned, one must ask oneself, "Where did the singularity come from? Was it created by something else, or is it eternal and self-existant?"
stormhawk31 10 months ago
What it sounds like to me is that you're saying, "Indeed. SOMEthing created the universe, and let us inquire as to what that SOMEthing may be; but let us agree at the outset that, whatever that SOMEthing may be, it CANNOT be God." This is an intellectually dishonest way to proceed, and I am of the opinion that, if we would know truth, we must not be intellectually dishonest. We must take it as we find it, however uncomfortable the discovery may be.
stormhawk31 10 months ago
Ok. We have one point of agreement: something created this universe. We have not yet arrived at what that something may be, only that it is SOMEthing and not NOthing.
I have one question before we go on: why is it ipso facto ridiculous for that SOMEthing to be God. Of course, we have not yet established that it IS God, but it seems to me that a truly open-minded enquiry into the facts of the case cannot begin by ruling out a possible solution, unless one has an ideological reason for doing so.
stormhawk31 10 months ago
@stormhawk31 Because your god is undefined.
Why name something that is undefined as the cause of something unknown.
Ignorance is ignorance whether you call it ignorance or you call it god.
And then to worship it. Human beings are a pretty curious species when you think about it.
Looking for patterns in the chaos.
we don't find a pattern so we invent one to help deal with our our fears and ignorance.
I have to go know. Take care.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
We know two other things about the universe: it is not, itself, eternal and self-existant. It had a definite beginning. We also know that it could NOT have simply popped into existance out of nothing, without something causing it to. In other words, it cannot be an effect without a cause. Common sense tells you that, if you have nothing, you can only make nothing out of it.
stormhawk31 10 months ago
@stormhawk31 No one says it popped into existence out of nothing. Well, thats not true. the biblical god says it popped into existence out of nothing.
Science thinks that it inflated from what is called the singularity. They think that the universe was once smaller than a grain of sand.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
Again, I wish this forum provided more adequate space in which to post comments and really develop ideas.
stormhawk31 10 months ago
As I said, if we cannot know anything objectively true about this universe, well then, we cannot know anything objectively true about this universe. That invalidates all of the sciences and all of their products; indeed, it invalidates the totality of human knowledge. Thus, the proposition that we "cannot know" leads to a logical absurdity, and proves itself false.
stormhawk31 10 months ago
I know of this hypothesis, but what you're not seeing as that it requires that there be something "in the beginning" to generate our universe, and that something is either itself a creation of something else, spontaneously self-generated ex nihilo (out of nothing), or is eternal and self-existant. Those are the only possibilities. Even M theory (the current front-running theory on universal origin) cannot avoid having something pre-exist the universe. The question then becomes, what was it?
stormhawk31 10 months ago
@stormhawk31 I agree. Something caused this universe. But to name it God is ridiculous.
What if this universe is like a cell inside the body of some unimaginably large animal. This animal wouldn't know we are even here, it is just a cell inside it's body.
The possible explanations as to the truth of the universes origin are many.
Why limit our imagination by calling it God and saying it is the objective absolute truth.
Small minds indeed!
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
Nope. It MUST be self-existant and eternal, because otherwise you get an infinite regress (a thing created by another thing, which was created by something else, ad infinitum), and, because there would be an infinite number of events before the creation of the universe, you would never actually get to the creation of the universe. Since there obviously IS a universe, the infinite regression is eliminated. The only other options are creation by something self-existant, or spontaneous generation.
stormhawk31 10 months ago
If all truth is subjective, human reason cannot discover anything objectively true about the universe, since everything it discovers would only be true to the person discovering it. Thus, human reason becomes invalid. If human reason is invalid, science itself is invalid, since science is dependent upon the validity of human reason. If science is invalid, all of modern technology is impossible and, if that's "true", then we are NOT sitting here having this conversation, because it's impossible.
stormhawk31 10 months ago
@stormhawk31 Like science which never claims to absolute truth on anything. Something is true until proven untrue. Subjective truth.
Until we observe from outside our universe or reality then we cannot objectively determine the truth of this universe. It is basically (Respect for the unknown)
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
I wish there was a neutral forum in which to discuss this, because YouTube does not provide enough space for one to give a comprehensive answer to some of the legitimate questions that have been presented!
stormhawk31 10 months ago
@stormhawk31 I'll give you another possibility.
There is an hypothesis that there may be multiverses. multiple universes.
Some physicists speculate that the other side of a black hole could be another universe.
Since there are millions of black holes in this universe, there is speculation that there could be millions of universes. To say that there are 2 explanations for the origin of the universe is not even close to understanding ALL the possible explanations.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago 2
@MyGodTheresNoGod Now allow me to show you why you are soo damn off from what the fallacy really is.
By your logic if Isaac newton came up to you and said "Gravity exist" then he is wrong because he made the claim that x exist.
Now lets put it in the context of what you said
"The bible is wrong because god made a claim that he exist"
Now let me try
"I exist" omg I am wrong because I made a claim.
Your are such a dipshit. As long as I can demonstrate it its not a fallacy!
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Newton is wrong that gravity exists unless he demonstrates his assertion that gravity exists. Which he did by the way.
Where did your god demonstrate that he created the heaven and the earth. He didn't. So it is an argument from authority.
Boy your'e stubborn. Cant accept your error.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
Indeed, God (the one in the Bible) has left evidence of himself in creation - for starters, the very fact that there IS a creation. If you follow cosmology, as I do, you'll see that there are really only 2 foundational explanations for the origin of the universe: either it created itself from nothing, one fine morning, for no reason, or somethig created it - that something necessarily being self-existant and eternal. All origin theories are just variations on these two themes.
stormhawk31 10 months ago
@stormhawk31 "That something necessarily being self-existent and eternal."
That is one massive jump to a conclusion.
Wow that's really out there in lala land.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Your channel page says "I am a born again christian, I believe jesus christ died for our sins on the cross, was buried and rose from the dead. I believe every word of the bible is true and believe the KJV is the best and most accurate version"
Argument from authority: "I am a born again christian" so everything I say must be true.
Argument from ignorance: Everything you said in the quote is an argument from ignorance.
The bible is true because the bible says it's true.
CLASSIC!!!
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago 15
@MyGodTheresNoGod Dude Do you read what you are posting?
Argument from authority is claim a position is right because someone of authority is claiming it to be right WITHOUT DEMONSTRATION!
How stupid are you!?!
Let me show you a correct example of arguing from authority,
Dr Johnson is a scientist and he says the bible is true. Therefore the bible is true.
You are such a fucking dip shit. Its not hard to understand
I can demonstrate why it is true but I asked you to prove your position first!
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv According to your definition of argument from authority.
Yahweh is a god and he says that he created heaven and earth. Therefore he created heaven and earth because he is god.
Whose the dipshit now. I just demonstrated that your god is an argument from authority. Therefore scientific evidence is not required. Your god does not exist.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod Wait a minute. You haven't asked for me to demonstrate it yet. So its not an argument from authority.
Did you not read what I just said? Its only the fallacy WITHOUT DEMONSTRATION!
Which I can demonstrate it but I am still waiting for you to answer my question.
Dipshit ololololol PWNED!!!!
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv I don't have to ask you to demonstrate. It's a fallacious statement period.
Now your'e clutching at straws.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MyGodTheresNoGod "I don't have to ask you to demonstrate. It's a fallacious statement period."
OK then Gravity existing doesn't need to be demonstrated because I say it is a fallacious statement.
You are such a fucking dip shitlolololol I have never seen such bad logic!!!
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv you saying "your such a fucking dip shit" not very christian of you. but more importantly. Not civil enough to continue debate.
you just lost your commenting privileges.
Take care now.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod Now out of all the arguments I want you to adress the one.
You said "there are no objective truths" so then is that statement that "there are no objective truths" objectively true?
IF it is not true then that means the statement "The are no objective truths" is false and thus there are objective truths.
If it is objectively true then you just admitted to an objective truth.
I look forward to your response.
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Your'e being stubborn again.
WE who exist in this universe cannot claim objective truth because we are inside the universe.
Any claim as to objective truth about the universe by anyone who has not seen the universe from the outside looking in is not in a position to view it objectively.
Simple logical critical thinking.
Read it and read it and read it again until you can understand.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!
Is the statement "There is no objective truth" true?
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod yeah, classic
This Onetruthrgv person is simply avoiding the request to provide the proof.
Im convince d he is shlockofgood under another name.
He beleives every word of the bible. I guess that includes god murdering 2 million people.
I guess it also includes Noahs flood. great. lets see the evidence to suport these statements
podoau 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod He was not demonstrating that because he is a christian that whatever he says must be true because he is the authority and therefore he must be right. Rather, he was giving more detail as to what he means when he says he is a christian--it is a clarification of his view--not a justification of it.
Straw Man Fallacy--> Argument from authority: "I am a born again christian" so everything I say must be true.
Skywalker05088 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod isn't that evidence enough? spider-man is real because his comic says so... the comic is true because it tells me it is
mussonman 8 months ago
Science DOES NOT and CANNOT prove that God either exists or doesn't. Science deals with the natural world ONLY, and cannot investigate something - God - which, by nature, TRANSCENDS nature. God is beyond the ability of science to investigate, but that does NOT mean he doesn't exist. The hubris of some "faith scientists" is amazing!
stormhawk31 10 months ago
@stormhawk31 That depends on the god in question.
If we are talking about the god who left evidence of himself in the natural world (The Bible). then science can answer to the evidence he left.
If you are talking about some unknown god, then why call it god, we should just call it by its real name.
Ignorance.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago 6
@Onetruthrgv I have given you the answer. AGAIN: Science confirms that your god does not exist. You are under the assumption that science is capable of giving you the answer in a 500 letter comment. Science doesn't work that way. The answer requires you to become knowledgable about science in order to get the confirmation you require. Instant gratification is not what is on offer. Nor revealed truth. The answer requires YOU to make the effort. Discovered truth is your pathway to enlightenment.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago 3
@Onetruthrgv 2000 years ago evidence of your gods existence was provided by the bible. Among the many things that discount the existence of your god, accepting that your god is based on logical fallacies. 1. Arguments from authority. 2. Arguments from ignorance, will help you to understand that evidence from science should not even be required by you. the understanding that the assertion of god itself is completely without merit.
Your god does not exist. The whole notion is without merit.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
4.) You said something very funny that I want you to address. You said "That's right since god does not exist, all truth is subjective." So then let me ask you is the claim " all truth is subjective." subjective?
If so then why are you making an absolute truth statement? You are saying it is true that "all truth is subjective."
lolol Sorry kid you just did a little thing called "A self refuting statement" lolololol I love when atheist do that!
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv We can say that all truth is subjective because we exist within the universe.
Anything in the way of knowledge from outside our universe is unknown. And since we cannot observe from outside our universe to discover objectively the truth of our existence then yes, all truth is subjective.
That's not a self refuting statement.
That's an acknowledgement of our place in this reality and a recognition of the questions that may never be answered
Nice try but you fail. again.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod 4.) We can say that all truth is subjective because we exist within the universe.
This is why you keep refuting your self. Truth and subjective cannot exist with each other. How can something be true yet subjective? Its lkie me saying "x is more wrong" Notice something? Truth is an absolute while subjective is arguing the opposite!
This is not very hard man!
5.) quit dodging the question! I am waiting for you scientific evidence that god does not exist! This is the 6th time!
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Of course truth is subjective. What an idiotic thing to say. By your logic, Little Jimmy is confident in the absolute truth of Santa Claus' existence because Santa left presents for him on Christmas morning. This analogy can be appropriate to other things that are subjective also. What reason does Little Jimmy's claim have merit? Or yours for that matter?
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod 2.) "Of course truth is subjective." Is that statement true or false? If it is true then thats an objective truth and thus its self contradicting. Why can't you under stand what a self refuting statement is? You said "all truth is subjective" so if thats true then your claim " all truth is subjective." is subjective and that means it is not true lololol.
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv All truth is subjective because there is much that is unknown.
Your lack of intellectual insight in accepting this fact is common among those that think that we are capable of seeing truth objectively.
Until all that can be discovered is discovered then truth will remain subjective.
By understanding that, from our point of view, all truth is subjective is a recognition and deference to the unknown. You myopic philosophy blinds you to reality. You fail again.
DeityDestroyer 10 months ago
@DeityDestroyer 2.) DUDE LEARN WHAT ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY IS!!!!!!!
Citing an authority is not argument from authority!!!!!
Here is an argument from authority. "The bible is true because professor johnsn said so and since he has a degree in science he is correct on his words."
YOU ARE SO DAMN ANNOYING!
So I am still waiting for your scientific proof that There is no God!
You keep dodging the question!
Do you realize how bad you look by dodging the question on your own channel?
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Here is another argument from authority (appeal to authority) 1. a person or persons (P) makes claim X. Therefore X is true. A fallacious argument.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
The very first sentence of your book is a logical fallacy. HAHA The very first sentence!!!!!!!!
Who needs to learn what argument from authority is?
I think you do!!!
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod To correct what I said in one was responding to you saying it is an argument from authority. (Accidentaly put ignorance)
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@DeityDestroyer BTW that is a pretty cool name
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod Dude I am getting tired of smacking you around on your own channel. If your next comment isn't the scientific proof that god doesn't exist then I will not respond.
You keep dodging the question. I am very busy with other atheist.
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Listen. NO OE has ever had to prove that something does not exist.
We should all beleive the Loch Ness monster exists because its never been proved that it doesnt ?
Should we all accept that Bigfoot exists because no one has proved it doesnt ?
Do Leprecourns exist because no one has proved they dont ??
YOU claim that god exists.. YOU prove that he does. Its not up to anyone to prove he doesnt
You understand that ????????
podoau 10 months ago
@podoau You are confused on burden of proof.
I am saying it is a fact that God does exist.
Op is saying it is a fact that there is no God.
Both are claims!
Let me ask you a question.
If we found a treasure chest and I said "there is Gold in it "and then you said "No there is no Gold in it." Is it up to me to prove you right? NO its up to both of us to prove our claims.
Please give me one philosophy text that agrees that only positive claims have burden of proof.
I eagerly await your reply.
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv True atheists do NOT say there is no god.
We say we dont beleive in god because there is no proof that god exists.
Got proof ?? Lets see it
podoau 10 months ago
@podoau Dude are you completely stupid? THE GUY I AM TALKING TO (OP) IS SAYING THERE IS NO GOD! Honestly I think weak atheist are just a waste of mass, you guys have no relevance to theism whats ever. You guys don't even have a position on god's existence other than an autobiographical comment about your personal psychology. The only people worth my time are agnostics and strong atheist. Go back under your rock. Don't bother me again unless you are gonna take a position on god's existence.
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Atheism is a position that there is no god, because there is no proof that a god exists.
Got proof ?? Lets see it
A beleive in santa claus is more justified than a beleive in god. At least Santa brings presents.
podoau 10 months ago
@podoau "theism is a position that there is no god, because there is no proof that a god exists."
This is a logical fallacy called "Arguing from ignorance"
Argument from ignorance is when someone declares "If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false."
Source: wikipedia
You sir have been owned.
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv
Are you trying to assert that the position of Atheism is an "argument from ignorance" logical fallacy?
opmike343 10 months ago
@opmike343 No absolutely not. Its just he said the evidence for his position is the absence of theist evidence.
So that is an argument from ignorance.
I know my philosophy thank you.
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv
Furthermore, I suggest you read the ENTIRE article before you go quote-mining Wikipedia.
opmike343 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv I think you meant to say Atheism
So now your quoting Wikipedia ?? That holds as much credibility as the bible.
Ive noticed you quote that before.. Instead of providing the proof that god exists, as asked, you simply argue semantics.. Then claim victory
Im of the beleif that your really shlockofgoob, becuae your responses follow the same pattern.. ie. avaoid the actual question, by changing the subject, then claiming victory
podoau 10 months ago
@podoau There was never an original question, I am not going to answer your question untill I get my answer from The OP.
Now If you would like to have a discussion on God's existence I would be more than happy to do so only IF you agree you will not commit any more logical fallacies.
Just send me a PM and we will get started.
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Im not interested in your "terms of logic"
I just want you to provide observable, repeatable, testable proof that your god exists.
Thats all. Just provide the evidence. Its that simple.
If your god is so great, so powerful, then providing real evidence for his existance shold be a very simple task..SO.. show us the evidence
podoau 10 months ago
@podoau I told you to PM me if you want to have a real debate. I am willing to ignore the fact that you are illogical (Judging by how many fallacies you just committed to support your position.).
Now you are committing another fallacy called moving to goal post on what is to be considered evidence for God existence.
You must be open to all logical forms of evidence. Science is only one way we can understand truth. We have many others!
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Im not going to PM you. This is a public forum.
I have not commited any fallacy. Your simply (again) trying to change the subject
Provide testable, repeatable, observable proof that your god exists. Thats has always been the question. nothing has changed. I just want you to provide the evidence
When are we going to see it. ?
Here is the question again.. Provide testable, repeatable, observable evidence that your god exists.
podoau 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy
podoau 10 months ago 2
@Onetruthrgv ont: This should not, however, be taken to mean that one can never possess evidence that something does not exist; an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars.
If you claim that your god exists simply because no one can prove he doesnt, them the Russells teapot also exists, as does the Flying Spagetti Monster
podoau 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Just provide the testable, repeatable evidence that your god exists.
You have been asked to provide it.
Dont argue semantics, dont quote the bible or wikipedia. Dont avoid the question. Dont go off on a tangent.
Provide testable, observable, repeatable evidence that your god exists
podoau 10 months ago
@podoau BTW I only debate strong atheist. I think weak atheist are a waste of debate. Strong atheist have more guts to step into the ring against an apologist.
Good luck! Better read up on your philosophy because you will need it.
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv So in other words,, you didnt answer the question.. You just avoided it
You cannot provide the evidence we ask for. so therefore will just continue to say that god does not exist
Your a joke
podoau 10 months ago
@podoau "You cannot provide the evidence we ask for. so therefore will just continue to say that god does not exist"
You just committed two fallacies. Arguing from silence and arguing from ignorance.
Arguing from ignorance asserts that a proposition is false because it has not been proven true. Source:Philosophy 103
Arguing from silence is forming a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. Source :Philosophy 103
lol I am sorry but I just schooled you. lol
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv I can see why you say that you will only debate strong atheists. You consider it a waste because a weak atheist by definition puts the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders.
And as we all know. With you having the burden of proof you are burdened by UN-PROOF.
You don'y debate weak atheists because you have no defence.
LOL
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod 2.) Again you committed a logical fallacy by saying "You don'y debate weak atheists because you have no defense." You are saying I have no defense because I have not said it yet,
Remember arguing from silence is a conclusion based on silence.
lol pwned again!
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Like i said. It doesn't matter whether you think you have the evidence or not. Or whether you have declared the evidence or not.
With the burden of proof resting on your shoulders in debate with a weak atheist. Since there is not 1 fact in all of existence to support your god then you are forced to cower because you are burdened by UN-PROOF!!
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv The only smacking you're doing is to yourself. A veritable pigeon knocking over the chess pieces then threatening to fly away to declare victory. Like I said in my first comment to you "Lets cut to the chase shall we". There is no reasonable logical premise in support of your god, and the only people who accept its existence are the believers who succumb to the argument from ignorance.
Why do you even believe when you know it has no merit?
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod 3.) You made the claim 'The Christian God doesn't exist" I am just asking for your evidence for that claim.
4.) Again you keep misrepresenting what arguing from ignorance is. Nowhere in the bible does it say "Christianity is true because nobody has proved it wrong yet" Please find 1 damn verse that commits the fallacy of arguing from ignorance! If you cannot then stop making the false claim that Christianity is committing that fallacy.
Onetruthrgv 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv I did not say the bible is an argument from ignorance. I said that the bible is an argument from authority. The followers who proselytize its message do so in the fallacy of an argument from ignorance.
AGAIN and AGAIN the evidence that the christian god does not exist is, among the many reasons to discount the notion of your god, to be found in science. The effort to understand science is YOUR burden.
Hurry though cause when we die, its all over.
Do you like my new user name?
DeityDestroyer 10 months ago
@Onetruthrgv That's the second time you have called me an atheist. When did I ever say I am an atheist.?
I don't identify myself by what I am not.
MyGodTheresNoGod 10 months ago
Though it is impossible to do so perfectly, it is possible to create matter out of energy. There are laws on this, I can't go into them due to length. This debunks one of Comforts arguments about not being able to create that "grain of sand."
micometer 11 months ago
whats evidence do we have that humans have a soul,we can show an idea,but who have actually phyically seen a thought.I have never seen a soul,however I know that i have one.Alot of stuff goes unseen,does that mean that it does not exsist?atheist talk more about God than any other religion.seems to me their souls are crying out.You know to block my comments out because i work for God and I have the power to make atheist thoughts crumble.
MrJahrelle 11 months ago
my comments is blocked from the atheist page from disclosing so much truth
MrJahrelle 11 months ago
of course,, some god botherer has posted the AE clips of Bananaman as well, and claims "Brother Ray" squashed the atheists""
Typically,, al comments are "Pending approval""
watch?v=1enwFat_q6Q
podoau 11 months ago
So I will ask you again. Where is your proof that the Christian god does not exist.
You keep saying 400 years of science disproved him. I really want to see this "Evidence of science"
Onetruthrgv 11 months ago
@Onetruthrgv no.
You make the claim that god exuists.. Provide proof.
Its not up to anyone to prove something does NOT exist
podoau 11 months ago
@podoau This is very untrue.
Both are claims are equal in burden of proof.
Let me ask you a question.
If you and I were walking and we saw a treasure chest and you said "There is no gold in that chest"
and I replied "How do you know that?" Do you really think it would make sense for you to say "ITS NOT UP TO ME TO PROVE WHY I MAGICALLY KNOW IT DOESN'T EXIST!"
There is a God = A claim to know something
There is No God = A claim to know something,
Positive and negative are irrelevant
Onetruthrgv 11 months ago
@podoau Now I know you will still assert "The one making the positive claim must still Go first"
Like I said this is irrelevant. The fact that you have no evidence for your conclusion tells me you are holding to an irrational belief. Now I am Not saying that's why its a false position but rather you have no rational reasoning to make the claim "It is a fact that God doesn't exist"
Remember you must provide evidence for a claim. Any claim to knowledge!
Onetruthrgv 11 months ago
@Onetruthrgv No true atheist has ever said "It is a fact that god doesnt exist"
Atheism is a disbeleif in god because there is no evidence to support the claim that god exists. Got proof ?? Lets see it.
I have a dragon in my garden shed. Since you cant proof I dont, my dragon is therefore real
podoau 11 months ago
@podoau I understand that. Please read the context of this discussion. Mygodthereisnogod made the claim that there is no god.
Onetruthrgv 11 months ago
last question,do atheist believe in satan?never here them say anything about it even though he is also play a roll in society.
MrJahrelle 11 months ago
@MrJahrelle If we atheists dont beleive in a god, why would we ever even consider satan ?
podoau 11 months ago
why do atheist always bring up God and rather or not he exist?Is it like a war within.I dont believe in fairytales and never argue about them.Because i know for sure they dont exist.What can atheist offer the world truth fully?If we change everything and put all our faith in atheist where would the world be?Do they even know?If atheist are so sure about their way,cant they buy a country and show the world how it should be done?Show us and stop jaw jacking.
MrJahrelle 11 months ago
@MrJahrelle what ??
You obviously have no idea what an atheist is.
Atheists dont beleive in a god, because we see no evidence.
Its not a lifestyle, its not a religion, its not a set or moral standards.. Its SIMPLY a position on ONE subject
Its got nothing to do with ""Running a country "
for fuck sake
podoau 11 months ago
Wow I knew ray comfort would lose but I am surprised he stumped Matt a couple of times.
The question with the grain of sand was heavily misrepresented by Matt but I am glad ray corrected him and immediately Matt made a failed attempt of trying to show rays analogy to be false with his cell phone analogy. He never answered the question.
Onetruthrgv 11 months ago
I keep seeing people posting that Ray Comfort doesn't know what he's saying is wrong.
He knows he's wrong all right. The next video shows that he's more than willing to use science (medicine), TV, the internet, food, shelter, and more. All products of science. He even conceded Matt's point in the next video.
Ray is a con artist. A snake oil salesman. A liar.
And it's make him and Curt Cameron a lot of money.
Numinous123 11 months ago
ray comfort!? reallly?>! finally they got him. now its all a matter of getting william lane craig on and having matt embarrass his ass
Freethinker12341 11 months ago
10:10 - Matt - "I don't know how that's relevant."
Ray - "And another thing too.."
Let's move on because I'm wrong <-- Works every time.
Venaloid 11 months ago 5
Oh my god, I think I acquired a brain tumor from Ray's thickness...
learnanewful 11 months ago 3
Basically Ray says the same old nonsense.
~look around you and you will see evidence of God's existence
~his experiences (which he doesn't go into) let him to Christ
~if Matt doesn't believe now he was never a "true Christian"
It was asurprizingly calm discussion and I give the hosts credit for not losing it.
busterpiggle 11 months ago 3
Really fun show. The chatroom went bananas!
rhov233 11 months ago 2
@allibyx Both arguments for what? I'm not following you.
knightd00b 11 months ago
Lol, took me a while to see the banana on the table.
coltharpnicholas 11 months ago
Ray uses one of his famous catchcries. "All you need are eyes that see and a brain that works" He has used that one many times.
If god is invisible,,how can you see him ? Rays answer of course is "look at the trees, the flowers, the birds"
Yes Ray, we see them, but that just proves they exist, it doesnt prove god however
podoau 11 months ago
I wish that in that moment I was Matt and I had the ability to punch somebody through the phone!
Dear creationists who believe that moustached moron, science corecting itself does not mean that in a hundred years some magic will destroy hundreds of thousands of instances where tenths of different methods have unanimously declared that the earth is NOT as old as the bible describe it to be.
The best you can hope for is the date becoming even more distant to what you say it should be.
sapunec7854 11 months ago
@lailum
I think he's genuinely as stupid and ignorant as he sounds, not intentionally dishonest as some fundie creationism advocates are.
xSilverPhinxx 11 months ago
@xSilverPhinxx
wrong. he's been called on his bs to his face, even admitted he was wrong, and gone back to peddling hte same crap the next week.
pyr666 11 months ago
Thanks for uploading this, I didn't leave the HIV Charity even for it and so missed it.
TheAnubisDrake 11 months ago
This is awesome.. great job guys!!! Great discussion overall!!
Triathlete5551 11 months ago
The problem is that Ray has dug himself really fucking deep in his arguments, and is just to damned stupid and arrogant to listen to anyone who is telling him that he should stop, because he is digging himself to death. Amazing how standard that way of thinking has become among the religious debators.
opiateofthemasses 11 months ago
@allibyx I think you are partially wrong. I think that science may be able to detect evidence potentially left by a deity if he wants to be found.
However, I think philosophically that god has been disproved by logic.
Peace
knightd00b 11 months ago
@TheOptimistPrime Logic would say that predicting the odds would be difficult, but certain things are certain - during every round a certain amount of teams will win and lose culminating in 1 overall winner.
Things do happen that are unlikely and hard to predict, but not things that are contrary to logical laws.
knightd00b 11 months ago
The Debate starts off interesting. Sounds like a "Chicken or the Egg" argument.
Stitchman3875 11 months ago
I still can't even believe people like ray comfort even exist. It COMPLETELY blows my mind that people come to believe this crap late into their lives. Babies and toddlers being indoctrinated, aight. Sure. Grown ass men that believe this nonsense? LOLWUT.
CoreAndGore 11 months ago
Lol I can't even believe Ray is speaking. He sounds like an idiot. Just really think about this. What the hell is the matter with our race.
basketcase5295 11 months ago
ray confort pownes matt and that is the truth :)
gerinja 11 months ago
@Kwinnky
Aye, 'tis true.
geffel 11 months ago
Why assert that there was a "beginning"? The law of conservation of energy specifically states that energy cannot be destroyed, it only changes form. It is therefore ETERNAL. So if something in reality is demonstrably eternal, then reality has to be eternal, or energy would not have a place to exist in throughout eternity. In other words, reality CANNOT have had a beginning. The universe we now exist in can, and that is supported by evidence.
Speedable 11 months ago
One thought that occurred to me is you shouldn't even assume that a painting had a creator. Follow me for a sec: A painter left his apartment midway through a painting. He's a messy guy, so he left the paint out along with canvas all over the place. An earthquake happens, or the paint can was unbalanced on the counter or whatever, and the paint falls on a blank canvas. Presto! A painting! Who created it? Does it have a creator, does it need one?
TheFeralzebra 11 months ago
@TheFeralzebra The watch and the painting argument analogy fails because it utilizes non-natural materials that would never assemble themselves naturally. Chemicals, Metals, Paint, Paper etc..
A better argument from nature is the complex workings of a mud puddle. There is order and layering and textures and organisms all completely naturally formed.
knightd00b 11 months ago
when this was finished in my head i could only think of...
DDDDDDDDDDDDESTROYED .
b1ackic3 11 months ago
Wow he sounds like a bratty child.
spishcadet 11 months ago
The whole essence of Ray ComFort is that he is one giant contradiction.
I love how Matt brings up violence and atrocities found in the bible. Ray is like "I don't agree with everything in the bible"; "the bible is filled with very violent acts...you don't really believe it? do you?..just let people believe and read what they want!" and then latter goes back to quoting scripture as if it's proof of something.
huh? WTF?!
Ray would make an awesome lawyer.
joew96 11 months ago
@allibyx Depends on the Deity. The God of the Bible has clearly and throughly been disproven by Science.
It was actually done 150 years ago. Sorry Jews, Christians and Muslims. You have to keep looking.
MyGodTheresNoGod 11 months ago 13
@MyGodTheresNoGod
Don't forget the Welsh. They have to keep looking too.
geffel 11 months ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod really? Science disproved the Christian god? What's your scientific evidence for that?
Onetruthrgv 11 months ago