Fallacy of ID/creationism-Argument from Ignorance[test]

[FamiliarThoughts]

Can every human practice equality? If so will the planet, and its inhabitants change. Remember, prayer has proven to change things.

[FamiliarThoughts]

1+1= the answer. The answer is derived at the moment a person finds inner peace and can search for the truth. Some will arrive at a fork in the road when the truth is hidden. To arrive at an answer a person must use every known ( to them) avenue of scientific reasoning. The mind itself will doubt, unless the person is religious To provide an answer with no question, it is unheard of and should be seen as unfounded. I do have a question, one that you may not like or have an answer.

[ashesinthewax]

Could have been accomplished in under 3 minutes. This horse is dead. Aside from excess length, good video.

[Crumkins]

You say it's illogical to attribute the existatnce of the universe to a God. But i'm saying it's illogical to attribute the existance of the universe to anything but a God. Where is the confusion?

[powerstone2]

That's mutually exclusive though. There's a difference between logic and "right/wrong/truth/etc."

If I say 'Mary is good at math because I said so',obviously,this is a circular reasoning logic fallacy. Mary will never pass math with that argument. However,I'm saying that it's illogical to conclude that simply because "you said so." However that doesn't prove that Mary is bad at math. She may very well be good at math. However,the argument is irrational.

[powerstone2]

The existence of the universe has a cause,of course. However,just as with any other cause(clouds/ball/stars/etc.),­it's not logical (but not necessarily wrong) to claim that some deity is the cause. Instead of circular reasoning,it's an AFI. The purpose of all my videos is to show that creationism is not logical (not necessarily wrong) and thus no irrational ideas belong in a science classroom.

[powerstone2]

This is sort of where theistic evolution comes in. If you want to say that God guides the process of evo(which should totally be possible-He's said to be omnipotent),that's fine

I don't understand why people even deny T. evo. To deny that is to deny God's omnipotence

If you want to say that God guides the ball to the ground when I drop it,fine. (again,possible). However,from a logic/science POV,the idea that "God causes XYZ by guiding" is an AFI,thus doesn't belong. Only evo/gravity belongs

[matt4787]

He said it is illogical for someone to use something we don't know and bridge it into being god as the answer of it. Their will always be questions science will ask. So therefore they will always have something to point that god did that.

[Crumkins]

I think you're confused by the differences between the pagan gods and the hebrew God. Look up the definition of God.

[powerstone2]

Again, I'm not interested in debating any god, and as you can see, I don't even advertise any of my religious views. I'm only pointing out the fallacy in claiming that some deity (or other unexplained mechanism) is the cause of anything in the universe, regardless if you "saw it or not"

[Crumkins]

Unfortuneatly you can deny as much as you want and invent your own version of "logic" however, I present real logic and real logic fallacies which will forever trump yours. This is the simple fact. Ignore it or accept it. Your choice. Hence argument from IGNORANCE, right? ;)

So we can use the same logic on explaining lightning as we can on explaining the big bang whitch no one on the planet saw? How can you possibly compair the two? You're nuts.

[powerstone2]

Again, see above. Just because you didn't see something doesn't mean you can attribute it to God. You find ANYTHING while you're taking a walk. You didn't see its formation. Can you thus conclude God? Of course not. AFI. You can only use things that we KNOW to exist to explain it. (phys/chem/gravity/life form/etc.)

[powerstone2]

Frankly,no one has "seen" a chemical reaction before either. We only see the reactants and the products. The reaction is way too fast. But we use what we KNOW to exist to explain it:electrons,electrostatics,et­c. and NOT God/etc.(things we don't know if they exist or not.)

[powerstone2]

It's quite simple. A ball starts at point A. You turn your back and now it's at point B. How did it get there? It's logical to hypothesize that things we know to exist moved it: the wind, some bird,gravity,etc. But it's an AFI to claim that something whose existence we're unsure of, moved it. (God,fairies,magic pixie dust)-I don't mean to be insulting by grouping those together either.

[powerstone2]

So, so how did molecules/atoms of water/phosphate/nitrogen/etc. start off as that point A, and end up as life, point B? Again, we can only logically use things we know to exist in order to get them from point A to point B.

[Crumkins]

"You seem to think that chance and happenstance causes clouds/mountains/stars, without the help of a deity,why start now?"

This is what i mean you can't argue without trying to insult my intellegence. Who said god made clouds or mountains? Sure god made the stars, i like how you threw that in there as if you know how stars formed. I'm talking about the universe as a whole being here in the first place. These are completely different things.

[powerstone2]

Insulting intelligence? How so? No one says god made clouds,because of AFI. And no logical person would say that God made anything else also because of AFI. This is regardless if "you were there to see it or not" Frankly, no one say the formation of Everest,so are you claiming that God made it SIMPLY because no one saw it? Just because you didn't see how something formed doesn't mean you can claim God made it. AFI

[Crumkins]

-argumentative

-speculative

-Straw man argument

This video is logical shenanigacy.

[powerstone2]

Bravo. You listed some words. I should do that next time when I want to accuse people of committing logic fallacies. It's so much easier than explaining it as I did in a video.

=)

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Zacharybinx34

"your problem is that you think Mankind deserves anything but hell. Thats a bad presupposition."

Yes we deserve hell because thats the way god designed us, hmmm makes sence LOL as much sence as saying somone deserved to be murdered becuse somone murdered them.

Sounds like the good old christian circular reasoning.

God wrong for first 4000years and was wondering why nobody was getting into heaven.

Can you tell me, whats required form the new test to get into heaven?

[Zacharybinx34]

sorry, but this video avoids reason and reality.

no offense, but you may want to start comparing genetic code to 1 + 1.

you are comparing apples and oranges, and your argument is a fallacy. Because small things that weren't once understood are now understandable means that understandable things now will and can be explained.

Some of it is true, but to apply that to everything is impossible.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"small things that weren't once understood are now understandable means that understandable things now will and can be explained. "

Except to creationisst who just ingore fact and say my prefered imaginary friend did it, not any other peoples imaginary friend, because I know mine is the real one!

[Zacharybinx34]

Actually most all religions believe in the same GOD the top 3 religions all follow the same God, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They just all disagree on how to approach that God.

saying because we learned and figured out one thing = we will be able to figure out everything is ridiculous thinking, and is a fallacy.

We will NEVER explain all of space. Its not possible, just an example

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"same God, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. "

Yes when creating a religion is hard to make up a new god and expect people to convert, if you recycle an old god and just tell his folloers he ahs changed it mind because he got it wrong and now has new a new relgiion they might follow because its the same god.

"one thing"

What one thing?

"We will NEVER explain all of space. Its not possible"

One hundred years ago you owuld have told me its impossible for men to fly!

Get the POINT?

[Zacharybinx34]

get your point don't agree on your conclusions. You need to research how small we are in comparison to space.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"You need to research how small we are in comparison to space."

Thats right, god took 5 days to make the earth, then 1 day to create billionxbillionxbillionxbillio­n other planets.

Do you think he has time management problems?

Why did go create all those useless planets, for no purpose?

Just because you cant comprehend somthing, doesnt mean any fictional character duid it, let alone the one you choose to believe in because where you where born.

[Zacharybinx34]

so you are saying there aren't athiest, and muslims, and people in china who don't come to Christ?

You can blindly accept evolution if you want. But you will answer for it

Peace

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"so you are saying there aren't athiest, and muslims, and people in china who don't come to Christ?"

Some do, the fact is each country is swayed towards one religion or another, this has been mixed up with migration etc etc.

So tell me, would an abo in outback australia 100 years, burn in hell because they where not christian?

[Zacharybinx34]

Paul address's this issue in romans. God provides enough evidence of himself through the creation but instead most of mankind worship the creation instead of the creator.

your problem is that you think Mankind deserves anything but hell. Thats a bad presupposition.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

"You can blindly accept evolution if you want. "

No the experts have provided more proof for it than other scientific theory, Not enought proof for you, so obviously do not believe any other scientific theory created by scientists who all work for SATAN right?

"But you will answer for it"

Ah the old believe in imaginary friend or he will punish you forever!

If god wanted people to believe he could make it happen by provign himself, buut he does not. Go figure!

[dhartin]

to say NEVER is a fallacy, for that which we have yet to discover. only religion and evolution put limits on scientific understanding, if humans can evolve to comprehend a concept such as we have, we can evolve to understand all concepts given enough time. that is our nature, to understand the physical reality we live in. with or without religion, knowledge grows exponentially with every generation. Lead, follow or get the fuck out of the way.

[powerstone2]

I don't need lectures on the genetic code from people off youtube, thanks.

You also misunderstood. the 1+1 example only served to show that just because YOU don't know the answer to something, doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist.(or =God)

So just because you don't know anything about life/evo doesn't mean the answer isn't out there or can you say it =God

And people, let's stop the religion talk. I try earnestly to avoid it to my best ability.

[powerstone2]

This is why it's called an argument from ignorance. Just because YOU are ignorant of an answer, it will ALWAYS be ILLOGICAL for you to claim that the answer doesn't exist or =a god.

The point was, regardless how many problems you can think up about evo that you don't know the answer to; and if neither I,nor the entire world could answer, it's STILL ILLOGICAL for you to conclude that the answer doesn't exist/=a supernat. force.

[powerstone2]

I COULD give you the answer to most of your problems, and even if you refuse to listen/believe me, it's still illogical to claim you to claim no answer/a god.

You need to realize that I'm showing how creationism/ID are INHERENTLY irrational.

[powerstone2]

Oh, and please refrain from informally accusing people of lacking reason. I make honest efforts to PROVE that certain people are irrational. I'd expect nothing less.

[Eskon2]

Now there ofcourse people trying to fit God in what they want Him to do.

Does he lissen? Til certain point yes, but does he obey? Not those insanitys. And man doesnt know everything.

[Eskon2]

The way of reasoning is different for this God is said of that he cant fit in your brains. Logic can however help.

[Eskon2]

why Hell excist. In greek it translates for Hades underworld or grave. Jesus went into the grave/hell conquered the devil/dead and arose from hell/the grave.

Heavens there 7 heavens the first 1 is the sky. Denieing heavens is denieing the excistance of the universe.

[powerstone2]

I apologize. I completely grasp what you're trying to say or how it has anything to do with the video...

All I can say is that you need to be careful what you call "logic." People pretend something is "logic" while in reality, as I show, it's actually a logic fallacy.

[Eskon2]

Logic is something that fits into your opinion. What i want to make clear is that noone can disprove God. I can even say theoreticly there is a God, for God is the only capabale. People are failible that shows that they cant possibly understand God with their mind.

'Looking is fruitless and trying to reason a god's existence with the aforementioned reasoning is also fruitless. That was the point of my video.' This is something for a weakling, the search for truth brought us protestant to th top

[powerstone2]

No...My opinion fits INTO logic; I choose not to argue with logic fallacies.

"No one can disprove gods." I agree of course:I've said this in *every single one of my videos.* I'm not trying to disprove god because I know it's not possible. Take a look. NONE of my videos assert "gods don't exist." However,I'm defending reason/logic/science. I'm showing that it's ILLOGICAL to argue for gods existence with creationism. What these people think is "truth and evidence" is actually logic fallacy.

[Eskon2]

Pretty useles maajority doesnt mean win. In a war a winner is always right. but the outcome isnt defined by numbers.

what i believe is that every good point got a bad point. So do sciense/logic. What i did show you was that Gods inprovability can be reasoned as well the question what makes it that sciense/logic cant disprove it at all.

Furthermore the final step is this: When Jesus anwered the question from Pilatus if he was God. If youv say so. God is faith. and i have a bit.

[Eskon2]

This vid sucks. Even a 3 year old knows the answer for 1 + 1. Let me ask you a intelligent question. What is the beginnng of time?

[powerstone2]

Precisely. Even a 3 year old would never say 1+1=some god or the answer doesn't exist.

[powerstone2]

So why don't you try and answer your question? I ain't your answer bag, so I'm going to tell you that I don't know the answer. I want your answer.

Remember now. Claiming that there's no answer/god is a logic fallacy. good luck.

=)

[Crumkins]

It is evolutionist that don't know "the answer". Wouldn't you agree that the sole purpose of the studies of evolution is to answer a question?

If science' answer is: All of space and matter is, in itself eternal or self created. Then nevermind logic and reason, you've stepped out of reality.

[powerstone2]

This is how you elaborate on your last post? The purpose is to find a mechanistic explanation. Yes.

Do you see why my arguments are infinitely better than yours, Crumkins? I take time to prove that claiming God did XXX is inherently irrational.

You claim something is illogical ONLY because you say so.

This is what we call denial. There isn't much you can say to refute airtight logic, thus you pull something from the rear. How old it has all become... *sigh*

[Crumkins]

You don't think the universe appearing without cause is illogical? I just made a bottle of beer appear out of thin air. I can prove it look it's in my hand.

[powerstone2]

No, I'm saying that claiming a deity is the cause is irrational. Did Zeus make that bottle appear out of thin air? Did God make that rain cloud?

My point was simple: Even if no one had any idea what the cause of XYZ was, it's still irrational (I'm not saying it's wrong, though) to claim that an unexplained (godly) force causes XYZ.

[Crumkins]

It's more irrational to say that the universe appeared without cause and somehow developed life. If XYZ has no real cause then it is beyond any miracle mentioned in any religious book. A rational person would say this couldn't possibly happen by chance.

[powerstone2]

Read again. XYZ has a cause. It always does. However, it's always illogical to say that deity X is the cause. Even if you/I/anyone else doesn't know it, doesn't mean the cause doesn't exist (as you're saying), and it doesn't mean the cause can be deity X. You're trying to claim that the answer to 1+1 doesn't exist simply because you don't know it. Stop ignoring the video please

Take a look at my texas sharpshooter fallacy video. You're 'chance' argument commits that fallacy.

[Crumkins]

I understand your agrument. Why do you keep misunderstanding what i'm saying? You're saying xyz has a cause. I agree saying God did it doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause. But to say xyz has a purly natural cause is, to say the least, dangerous. What if there happends to be a God? How many people were waiting till death for it to be proven? It's safer to assume there is a God in my opinion.

...Ok if it's not chance then what is it? It can't be anything but chance and you know it.

[powerstone2]

Whoa whoa,this has NOTHING to with afterlife/existence. I have NEVER tried to disprove God or anything of that sort. I'm saying that it's illogical to attribute a cause to a deity of any sort. It's not logical to claim that Zeus is making thunderstorms in the sky. But is it possible that he is? Well, sure. I can't disprove that, only say that it's illogical.

The argument that "low chance thus design" is fallacious: texas sharpshooter fallacy.

[powerstone2]

Aw, come now, that's no excuse. I deal with it. Everyone does. You're going to have to elaborate on your other two, but I can tell you that a strawman only occurred if I argued against a misconstrued creationist argument.

However, notice that none of my videos are directed at creationist arguments so there's no way I could have misconstrued one, but rather they're against creationist logic. Therefore, no matter what argument is made, it's the logic that will be its downfall.

[Crumkins]

How is thinking that pure chance and happenstance caused life logical?

[powerstone2]

You seem to think that chance and happenstance causes clouds/mountains/stars, without the help of a deity,why start now? You can only shoot yourself in the foot with this argument.

Unfortuneatly you can deny as much as you want and invent your own version of "logic" however, I present real logic and real logic fallacies which will forever trump yours. This is the simple fact. Ignore it or accept it. Your choice. Hence argument from IGNORANCE, right? ;)

[Crumkins]

You can believe evolution if you want and hey maybe it's true but don't call it logical or rational. It's non intuitive if anything.

[powerstone2]

Unfortunately, evo doesn't allow you to "believe or not." Accept or deny. It follows the rules of logic, whereas claiming Deity X causes gravity/clouds/etc. is illogical (again, not necessarily wrong) because it commits THIS FALLACY. Intuition is always trumped by logic. It doesn't matter what your gut tells you. If it commits a fallacy, then too bad. Your intuition...is thus irrational. Simply put.

[Crumkins]

You're still no understanding. I understand your argument but you're not understanding mine. Gravity/lightning do have a cause. I don't think even the hebrews believed God causes either of them in the sense you think they did. The existance of the universe is an entirely different arugument because no one was there to see it. Your argument is actualy terrible. I don't know what the fallacy is called but you're saying that all of religion has to be thrown away because of a few misfits.

[powerstone2]

No one witnessed the birth of stars (takes way too long). It doesn't make a difference. If you find something new, you use what you know to EXIST to explain it. You wouldn't say a fairy made it (illogical). You'd say it was a result of physics/chem/gravity/people/et­c.

Secondly, NONE of my videos have anything to do with religion, really. My only assertion is that Zeus may be making lightning up there,but it's not logical to claim that.

[Crumkins]

So we'll see when we die. What if i know for a fact that there is a God but he doesn't personally interfere with nature the way you think he would? What if i have a perfectly logical reason for believing it? Your argument doesn't fit the reality of the situation. What you don't realize is we don't see big bangs going on now order for us to observe them. Niether do we see ACTUAL evolution happening no matter what your gut thinks.

[powerstone2]

Again...this hardly has anything to do with the existence of God/afterlife. I keep away from that,as you see. Even so,even if God created something,it certainly follow that there's an afterlife...

Again,you see the RESULTS of it. If you find something,but didn't see how it was made,you would try and explain it with EXISTING entities, and not entities that we don't know the existence of. (see above)

[powerstone2]

If you find clouds,you need to use what you know to exist to explain its formation: chem/phys/electrostatics/"rand­omness"/etc.

We KNOW that some combination of them made that cloud. This is no "gut assumption." However, it's a logic fallacy to claim that leprechauns made that cloud.

Now replace cloud with anything you want.

[Eskon2]

gods who dont excist. The one in history needed worship: Greek, Babylonion, Egyptian, Norsk, Aztek and Mayan gods. Their extinction of worshippers means their extinction ass well. Taoism, Confusianism and Budhism are a way of thinking. Now were left with the God Zacharybinx34 mentions. Why i think that the 1+1 is useles and all further advanced questions as well.

God is everywhere. To count where you see him is looking for abnormalities. Yet he isnt such a God so looking is fruitless.

[powerstone2]

I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say.

I'm not "counting where you see him."

Looking is fruitless and trying to reason a god's existence with the aforementioned reasoning is also fruitless. That was the point of my video.

[s4stem]

Great video, just subscribed. I think that was the simplest explanation I have heard for AFI, I hope that you do more with other logical fallacies.

[dancingnature]

i knew there was i reason i had subscribed to you

[powerstone2]

***if you can't make out some words, tell me, and I'll tell you what it says***

[AR333]

Good video, one of the most common arguments believers will say is

"Well there are some things we just can't know"

or

'how did something come from nothing?"

ignorance is abundant it seems...