I strongly recomend that you watch that video again, if you have not already done so. Its the same video i linked last time, but it makes the point im making, perhaps more clear.
It also adresses Craigs objections, one of witch was included in the timestamp that you gave me.
I admit that i just skimmed through the video, could not bother to read all the wall of text you had there.
But when i jumped to 2:15 to 2:30 you said something funny
Arguments =/= proof
I have heard alot of bad arguments for the existence of a deity, the cosmological is one of them. Having an argument for something, is not the same thing as having proof. Let alone, that all of the arguments for a deity, that i know of, have failed on some level.
You need outside scources which would backup your argument itself, things like facts.
You can have a good argument, without having any evidence to back up the claim with.
Things like the cosmological arguments, are just that, they are arguments, with no real ( as far as i am aware ) evidence to back up the claims that the argument is making.
I can look up the word proof for you if you want me to.
There are many problems with the argument. One of which, is simply a problem with the first premise.
We have never observed something, which does exist, to cause something which does not exist, to being existing. All we see is reformation of already existing matter.
Also even if one granted all the premises in the argument, and ignored the problems, the argument does not conclude a deity
You said that the first two points are important, i just showed one of the problems with one of these ''important'' points.
I also am really interested to see any outside evidence which would backup this claim, and how anyone could consider bad arguments like these, as proof.
@Turha101 About the video, creatio ex materia is as old as time itself. The new 'objection' that you hear is the thermodynamics conservation of energy argument, but this is also refuted in the video I provided. Scroll through them, they address the creatio ex materia argument that is considered an objection by some people who have not done proper research. As it stands, watch the video, it'll be a fruitful expedition.
@Turha101 '' Having an argument for something, is not the same thing as having proof.''
Proof and evidence have inherently different meanings. Evidence points the X being true and proof is actually showing X itself. Evidence increases plausibility X being true and proof is showing X itself. An argument is a form of evidence, albeit it does not ultimately prove, it increases plausibility of X being true. Logic, being objective, is what dictates an argument being a form of evidence.
@Turha101 ''I was using proof and evidence, as in outside scources, which would back up the argument.''
To ask for proof is foolish, but the evidence is there in the form of an argument. Like I said, evidence increases plausibility of X and proof is of showing X itself as tangible. To assume that proof can be furnished of god is to commit a category error. Hence his immateriality.
Sorry but i did not find any ''refuting'' of what i have been saying here in that video, granted, i did not watch the whole thing, i tryied to skip to those parts where my objections might have got answered. If you know where they were answered please give me a timestamp.
An argument can be flawed, even if the structure is fine, my example shows how it can be possible. Just because it does not have anything to do with the cosmos is irrelevant
@Turha101 ''Sorry but i did not find any ''refuting'' of what i have been saying here in that video, granted, i did not watch the whole thing,''
From 35:00-49:14 Craig addresses your objection of ''all we see is matter rearranging'' and also to the video you referred me to from theoreticalbullshit from creatio ex materia. That creatio ex materia argument has existed for a while now and there is many such objections to it, aside from what Craig gives.
The timestamp you gave me, in the first few minutes Craig shows how he missunderstands the big bang.
Craig even showed how he sees a problem, and assumes the kalam to be true, since its the best answer acording to him. This is what i have been talking about, Craig bases his view on argument from ignorance.
@Turha101 ''An argument can be flawed, even if the structure is fine, my example shows how it can be possible.Just because it does not have anything to do with the cosmos is irrelevant''
Absolutely not, your example is a false analogy because the analogy shares barely any relationship or similarities to the argument you attempted to refute. And it is quite relevant, being the fact, that your argument, again carries no similarities to the thing trying to be refuted.
@07Aristotle You missunderstood why i made that rat thing. Here ill say it once again, perhaps this time you will understand. It was not attacking the kalam argument. It was only to show you, that an argument can be flawd, even if there is no flaw in the structure Ill bring back what i said earlier. Rats are pink Bob is a rat Therfor Bob is pink The structure is fine, but its flawd because the premise (the first one) is flawd, therfor this whole thing is flawd. Do you get it now?
@Turha101...about events. That is the critical difference. P1 has a claim that goes against common sense, the P1 in the cosmological argument is quite simple, ' what ever begins to exist has a cause', this statement definitely not counter-axiomatic. And its a premise that can be defended by science and logical argument, both mustering evidences that increase plausibility. To come forward with such an objection seems like an oversimplification in terms.
Please provide with the scientific evidence, or logical argument, of it even being possible, for something which does exist, to cause something which does not exist, to beging existing?
Thermodynamics is a whole different topic, instead of trying to push me to defend that position, lets keep it at what im actually trying to point out.
@Turha101 ''for something which does exist, to cause something which does not exist, to beging existing?''
You need to define your terms a little better. What does it mean to 'not exist'? Is it a nothingness or a lacking of some thing, attribute, characteristics etc? It seems, so far, that 'to exist' is being used in equivocal terms.
''Thermodynamics is a whole different topic, ''
Do you understand the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics? It pertains.
Comeone are you really trying to say that you dont know in which concept im using the word exist?
Exist as in manifesting in reality.
Yes i do understand those laws.
Do you notice anything different from those laws, and from what i have been asking for?
Seems like i have to explain that part for you.
Given that all we have ever observed, is rearangment of material, what reason / evidence, do you have, to believe that something can be caused into existence from nothing?
@owchywawa I had to rewatch your video. You still did take her out of context on the "Money" issue when you say after she says "Send money" that "Christianity is about making money... right?" She never tells anyone to send money to churches or any religious organizations, nor does she ever say that churches are asking people to send money. She's merely saying that if you want to help with whatever she's talking about at that moment to send money to the organization that is trying to help.
@HimesInu You should really rewatch BionicDance's video. What she said was, "If you don't lie to yourself, you're going to burn forever. Also, send money." How do you think this fits in with the title "The Greatest Con-Job EVER?" She's obviously implying that Churches are conning people out of their money. There's nothing about helping organizations.
Also consider this quote, which I just now listened to: "[Eusebius of Caesarea] drastically rewrote his official church history at least five times that we know of to keep up with changing church politics." ~ David Fitzgerald
The actions of this man, presented as a Christian authority by you, can be justifiably included in a video with a title such as the one BionicDance made.
@DarkMatter2525 What does that even mean though? Was he excluding people who had been deemed heretical? Was he including more people who were given sainthood? There are many ways to interpret this without necessarily implying deception.
In any case, I think it should be clear that Christianity does not support lying. Do we not agree on that? If Eusebius of Caesarea did so, I would think this would be in opposition to Christianity; not as following in accord with it.
Oh wow. Theologians and scripture have answers to all of BD's assertions regarding mainstream Christianity. I had no idea that Christianity was a cohesive whole, in complete agreement with itself. You, sir, are quite the arbiter of truth. Of COURSE everyone, especially here in the South, adheres to Christianity in the exact way the theologians and scripture portray it in this video. You don't like how she presents Christianity? Too bad. That version of Christianity exists. I see it everyday.
@DarkMatter2525 Sure, there are idiots out there who make Christianity look incredibly stupid, but there are idiots out there who make ignorant statements about all sorts of things. We don't take a layman's description of genetics, poke holes in it, and claim genetics is stupid. We look to the experts; we look at the strongest defense for the position.
I could easily show atheism ridiculous by pointing to a "version," but I don't because I don't want to be dishonest by omission.
@owchywawa, I don't think your analogy follows. In genetics, there's a consensus. In Christianity there isn't. Using your first example ALONE, you provide Eusebius of Caesarea as Christianity's mouthpiece, yet Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus was critical of Eusebius, as were Edward Gibbon, Jacob Burckhardt, Ramsay MacMullen, and Arnaldo Momigliano (were you dishonest to exclude their opinions? no). When there's one denomination of Christianity, THEN make this video.
@DarkMatter2525 There are disagreements among the experts in the field genetics as there is in any other field. For example, Neo-Darwinianism vs Neutral Theory. Should we say: (1) Genetics - The Greatest Con-Job EVER, or (2) Neutral Theory - The Greatest Con-Job EVER? We shouldn't act as if these subsets apply to the entire field, and, in critiquing the entire field, we should address the strongest positions as a first priority. Omission in this case is disingenuous.
@owchywawa, I certainly understand the need to critique the strongest positions (though "strongest" is highly subjective), but I believe critiquing prevalent positions should be a higher priority, for they have the greater effect on society. What is prevalent will, of course, vary depending on location. Where I live, an extremely ignorant view of Christianity prevails; therefore, I think it's more meaningful for me to critique the views they find compelling, and to expose their bad practices.
@DarkMatter2525 I can agree with you and I would definitely support any efforts to lessen the support for blind faith.
BionicDance seems to be presenting this position as Christianity rather than as a subset of Christianity and she seems to use this to feed into her statement "show me evidence and I'll believe." That's why I made the video; not because I don't think we should criticize people who are using blind faith.
@owchywawa, Let us once again examine only the first example you gave. Here is a quote from Eusebius of Caesarea: "It will be necessary sometimes to use FALSEHOOD as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment." Now, let us again examine the title of BionicDance's video in light of this quote given by a man you present as an expert.
@DarkMatter2525 That is the title of a chapter. What Eusebius was referring to is a section by Plato which, Eusebius argues, has similarity in principle to that of the scriptures. According to Eusebius, the similarity can be found in how the scriptures portrays God as "subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction." My teachers have used simplification to help me understand a point and I don't call them liars.
I think there is a misunderstanding. BD is criticizing American Christian institutions (especially ones that are very Republican) and mainstream Christian ideas. Not the isolated doctrine.
The deep philosophies from the Christian theologians and philosophers of the past don't account in most Christians' views on things. The common Christianity of America is a superficial Sunday School Hellfire Christianity, complete with all of its moral and intellectual shortcomings.
2:23 The cosmological argument is a rational argument, not empirical proof.
2:38 The only historical "proof" of the Resurrection is in the unreliable Holy Book claiming it is true, a book claimed to be infallible because it is assumed the authority making the claim is infallible. Once again, you have to take the word of authority.
6:23 The free gift of life from Christ is not free. You have to accept claims of his existence and follow the rules of his Church.
0:50 The institution of Christianity, particularly in America, does horde in money and they don't pay taxes either. The doctrine may have messages against money-making, but the institution that preaches the doctrine doesn't.
1:23 This verifies BionicDance's claim. Most believers have to "take their word for it". They have to belief the authority of books written about God in the past, rather than proof that can be witnessed at any epoch.
I think your video should be directed at your fellow believers as much as Bionic Dance. She is only reacting to myth provoked by the MAJORITY of spiritual leaders in america today. It often perpetuates itself in the political sphere as well. I think you need to address the believing transgressors before you go after someone pointing out the obvious fallacies perpetuated by your fellow believers.
@TheLummer66 I'm not sure if the majority of spiritual leaders do take this position. I know quite a few popular evangelicals do, but beyond that, I don't think so.
@owchywawa Are you saying the majority don't exercise the liberal condemnation of non believers to hell. Propagate the idea of accumalating wealth among its patrons and to secure its own desires. As a former christian a lot of the quotes you employ are often used but rarely practiced even among more liberal churches like the episcopalian and methodist churches. In my experience these are platitudes.
I enjoy BionicDance very much and I think that much of what the video poster and the commentors are ridiculing her for are things many of you are guilty of yourselves. Making a buck is such a bad thing, huh? Like televangelists don't do that, eh???
Quoting Bible verses or the writings of philosophers isn't satisfying the need for evidence, owchy. Learn to distinguish between evidence and metaphysical arguments.
Also, test your arguments on a competing religion: Islam or Apollo are good starts. Are there any truth claims that can be made for Christianity that can't be made for other religions? Do your apologetics work equally well for Apollo or Ra?
@C0nc0rdance If one rejected the physical world and thus the evidence within, would it be fair for him to claim you just want us to take your word for it? Would it be fair for him to claim you just accept that we travel around the sun on faith because he defines evidence as something which doesn't contain the physical world?
You have to remember I don't even necessarily agree with all of these arguments. All I am saying is that they exist and that you should engage with them rather than ignore.
This is a classic "dragon in my garage" argument (see Carl Sagan's essay). If your reasons for believing something aren't something I can verify independently, then convincing requires faith on my part. All of the arguments you advance here are metaphysical and subjective points, not empirical or objective. They presuppose faith.
I'd never ask you to become an atheist, but there's no reason you shouldn't apply a little critical thinking to your beliefs.
@C0nc0rdance You do realize this is the classic rationalist vs empiricist debate here. You start with the external world. I start with reason. I don't understand why the empirical and the objective should be held above the subjective and the metaphysical. Although subjective and not empirical, I would argue rationalism is where we should start.
@C0nc0rdance I don't think this relates to the dragon. Although subjective, the kind of arguments I presented are subjectively applicable to everyone.
I think owchywawa's video serves the purpose it was intended to sereve i.e. showing that BionicDance is (as always) spouting off about stuff she knows nothing about and is therefore misrepresenting what Christians throughout history have taught. The ironic thing is that many of her viewers won't check these things out for themselves. They will just "take her word for it".
As to your third paragraph, that would depend. Some arguments try to prove only general theism.
I hate Bionic Dance, but this video is just... well, to quote JustaEropeanGuy, it's just bullshit. How does quoting Bible verses address her "you just have to take their word for it" claim? That's right - it doesn't. It doesn't even TRY to. I expected more.
@NoeLPZC She said the Christian claim is that "God exists, take my word for it." The quotes show that reality contradicts her claim by showing more than just "take my word for it."
@owchywawa "The quotes show that reality contradicts her claim by showing more than just "take my word for it.""
On the question of God's existence, Evodius basically says "Hey, I'm just gonna take their word for it", and Descartes makes an argument from incredulity based on taking their word for it. Augustine just uses a cheap and worthless semantic trick. So no, they don't do more than take their word on that issue, and regarding divine authorship, love, and Hell it's exactly the same story.
@NoeLPZC Evodius thinks it is reasonable to believe eyewitness testimony by great men. That is taking their word for it, but it's not just taking their word for it. BionicDance seems to present this as if there is no reason to take there word for it.
Descartes' argument isn't from incredulity. He recognizes that the idea of God is proof that God exists. You can't expect to understand the arguments from this video alone.
@owchywawa That's because there IS no reason to take their word for it.
No the idea of God is NOT proof that God exists. Being able to take the attributes of man and multiply them by infinity isn't some impossibly hard task that would require the bullshit you just made up to explain it. That's like saying there are these magic gremlins that allow people to walk on two legs, and the fact we can walk on two legs is proof of these gremlins. How else could we walk? Argument from incredulity.
@NoeLPZC So BionicDance claims, but that's not the position of Christians. BionicDance is just continuing on the same over used straw-man that Christians knowingly believe in God in spite of reason; not because of it. If you are trying to rebut the arguments, you are missing the point.
Even if you were right, this isn't an argument from incredulity. If I thought of another explanation for the evidence of evolution would that mean all arguments for evolution were arguments from incredulity?
@owchywawa No, because the theory of evolution would still be evidence-based. Even Lamarck's theories - though ultimately wrong - had a basis in observed evidence.
I do not believe BD's argument is a strawman. Logical arguments for God are pretty unconvincing for non-believers, and they don't specify the Christian God regardless. People become Christian for other reasons, then try to rationalise their belief after the fact. They believe in spite of reason.
@owchywawa To explain my point further on the incredulity bit, the difference between what science is doing and what Descartes is doing is DEMONSTRABILITY. All scientific theories - even ones that later get proven wrong - are demonstrably accurate within a certain scope. Assuming God's existence doesn't DEMONSTRATE his existence, and so the initial belief is unjustified. You can't then sit on that unjustified belief and call it truth just because you can't think or anything better.
@NoeLPZC The evidence Descartes is referring to is the idea of God. He then shows that God is the only possible cause for that evidence. I don't see how that is different from saying evolution is the best explanation for what we see in the world.
@owchywawa "I don't see how that is different from saying evolution is the best explanation for what we see in the world"
Evolution is an effect, or method, or process. God is an entity. Evolution describes the process by which species transform into new species, and it's trivial to demonstrate the physical existence of those creatures. It you're going to postulate a method for how God made the idea of God you need to demonstrate God exists, because if he doesn't he's not the cause of the idea.
@NoeLPZC "It you're going to postulate a method for how God made the idea of God you need to demonstrate God exists, because if he doesn't he's not the cause of the idea."
I think this isn't true because you could literally say this regarding any evidence. But, perhaps I should attempt to make a video on the argument sometime in the future with a more detailed look into what it is and address some objections. That would probably be a better place to start the conversation on the subject.
@owchywawa "I think this isn't true because you could literally say this regarding any evidence"
You CAN say it regarding any evidence. If someone was gored and the hole in them resembled a unicorn's horn you can't point to the hole and say "therefore unicorns exist". If unicorns DON'T exist then they couldn't have made the hole, and so the hole can't be proof of unicorns - no matter how strong the resemblance. You can't just define things into existence - they must be demonstrated.
@owchywawa Point to a unicorn and say "there - that's a unicorn". You'd demonstrate the existence of a unicorn the same way you'd demonstrate the existence of a horse, or any other tangible thing. If the same thing is being witnessed independently by different people with negligible disconformity I'd consider that a demonstration of its existence.
@NoeLPZC But don't you have to demonstrate the existence of unicorns before you can show that the light reaching your eyes are the result of the reflection off of a unicorn?
If there is light reflecting that resembled a unicorn, you can't point to the reflection and say "therefore unicorns exist". If unicorns DON'T exist then they couldn't have made the reflection, and so the reflection can't be proof of unicorns - no matter how strong the resemblance.
@owchywawa "But don't you have to demonstrate the existence of unicorns before you can show that the light reaching your eyes are the result of the reflection off of a unicorn?"
No, because it's that light that we're calling "a unicorn", in a manner of speaking. It's physically impossible to know reality through anything other than our senses (and arguably thought) so for simplicity's sake we just call "the best we can possibly achieve" as "good enough".
@NoeLPZC I don't think we call the light a unicorn. I would agree with you that seeing a unicorn is good enough. I would say this because a unicorn is the best possible explanation for the light.
@owchywawa I'm not saying we actually call the light the unicorn, I'm saying that the light that hits our eyes forms our perception of reality which included the unicorn, since even if the unicorn objectively exists we can't "know" about it. Just to sidestep this redundant fact we identify the objective reality as the reality we experience, and so merely knowing that "reflected light" is sufficient to know the unicorn. It's hard to articulate what I mean.
@NoeLPZC I agree with you, but we include much more than just reflected light into our perception of reality. I do not see why we would put anymore value on our sight than any other form of perception. We can only assess the likelihood of something being true, go with what is more probable, and hope we are right.
@owchywawa I'm not saying sight is better than any other sense (though it very well may be), I'm saying that if every gives a consistent account of "the unicorn" then we can say "the unicorn" exists. We don't have to demonstrate that there is an objective unicorn reflecting light and causing people to see "the unicorn", because it's that reflected light that people are calling "the unicorn", and that exists regardless of the unknowable thing causing it.
"I do not see why we would put anymore value on our sight than any other form of perception"
Because it may very well be more accurate than the other senses - and we can test it. You'd agree that a greater degree of conformity among independent observers indicates a greater reliability, yes? If you show 1000 people the same picture and 99% agree on what what picture was, we'd say sight is pretty accurate at recognising reality. If we play a sound and only 80% agree, hearing is less accurate.
@owchywawa To elaborate, accepting someone's testimony because they're a "great man" is an argument from authority. In many cases it's fine to reasonably accept testimony - for example when an expert physicist says something related to physics. But it's ONLY fine to accept that testimony because the science of physics has DEMONSTRATED its accuracy, thus making it reasonable to assume that when an expert talks about it his testimony will correlate with reality.
@owchywawa I don't need a degree in physics - neither do you. I can take Newton's laws and verify them myself. I can experiment with electricity and see for myself how magnetic fields are generated exactly how the theories predict. Not only that, I can see everyone else constantly applying these principles and achieving accurate results. I don't have to assume anything. There is evident truth in the reliability of physics, which gives reason to believe an expert physicist speaks the truth.
@NoeLPZC I don't know about you, but there is a lot regarding physics I don't understand and which I would take a physicist's word for it.
But, maybe you are saying we should only accept someone's word for it if we can potentially come to their conclusion by another method? That is not really making any sense. First of all, our potential to come to the same conclusion by another method says nothing about whether we would actually come to the same conclusion. Continued 1
@NoeLPZC Continued 1 Secondly, there doesn't seem to be any reason for this rule in the first place.
However, you could also be saying that we should have a reason to believe the person who is making the claims. I would agree with this. The reason, of course, Evodius calls these men great is because of they have respectable qualities. Evodius would have been considering, for example, Peter's founding of the Church and his faithfulness to his good cause even to death.
@owchywawa You're not quite getting it. I can drop a ball and watch it fall. I can look at Newton's laws and see that they match with my own observation of the ball falling. Newton's laws accurately predicted the motion of the ball before I even dropped it. I can do this for other fundamentals of physics as well and see their accuracy myself. Because the field has demonstrated its accuracy I have reason to believe an expert's testimony is accurate even if I haven't seen it myself. (cont)
@owchywawa (cont) I'm not saying it's PROOF of its accuracy, only that I have a valid reason to presume it to be the case.
Let's say an expert Scientologist told me something about Scientology. I'd have reason to believe his understanding of Scientology is accurate, but since nothing about Scientology has been demonstrated I have no reason to trust him when he says I'm infested with thetans. Peter's authority on Christianity doesn't mean we can trust Christianity is accurate.
@NoeLPZC I would look at the individuals rather than the field in general. Their credential's and the fact that peer-review tends to help keep bad science out (with exceptions of course). I don't think a demonstration of the accuracy of a field can tell us the accuracy of what someone in the field is telling us, but that may be a minor point. Continued 1
@owchywawa Yes, that's a minor point. Clearly an expert physicist renowned for being wrong has less credibility, but that's beside the point. Secondly, we have no more reason to believe Peter than any other religious founder. Even if he wasn't a liar or crazy, he could simply have been mistaken - on top of that we have no idea how accurate the extant historical documents are. There's simply no good reason to infer Jesus was the son of God because some guy was convinced of it.
@NoeLPZC There seems to be a fundamental difference in the way we look at things. Can you really not find the slightest reason to believe the historical documents are more likely true or more likely false, or do you reject that reason as too slight or not the right kind of evidence? Based upon my previous views on the mater, I'm guessing the latter is probably your position. I don't think there are any valid reason to reject any kind of evidence no matter how slight. What is more likely and why?
@owchywawa It comes down to the old saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If some philanthropist and all-round good guy tells you he was abducted by aliens, you have every reason to suspect some remarkable event happened to them - likely a real abduction - but you have no (or very little) reason to suspect his abductors were ACTUALLY aliens. The existence of aliens has not been sufficiently demonstrated, so you can't posit them as the cause of the abduction.
@NoeLPZC I've made my views clear on this in the past. I don't think it matters how extraordinary you think the claim is. This seems more like a feeling which could be easily pressed upon you by culture. My beliefs are based upon how reasonable they are to believe.
I wouldn't suspect that his abductors were not actually aliens only if it was more likely that there was some other explanation.
@owchywawa "I wouldn't suspect that his abductors were not actually aliens only if it was more likely that there was some other explanation."
The more likely explanation is that his abductors were human and he mistook them for aliens. That's why I said the claim deserves extraordinary evidence.
@ow And it's not a matter of whether or not "I" think it's extraordinary, it's a matter of whether or not there's sufficient evidence. If someone makes a claim and there's insufficient evidence to suggest the claim is likely then it's an "extraordinary" claim. If someone claims they had bacon for breakfast that's an ordinary claim we're justified in assuming to be true because there's plenty of evidence that people have bacon for breakfast. If they claimed to have had Martian, it's extraordinary
@NoeLPZC I agree with all of that. Then we should ask: Are Peter's claims extraordinary? I would suppose that they are because we have never seen any evidence for this before, but then again, there is no reason to believe it couldn't happen.
I would then look at the arguments we have for both sides. I've already mentioned reasons to believe he is telling the truth. From my prospective, there is no reason to believe his claims are inaccurate. So, reasons to believe > reasons to disbelieve.
@owchywawa "From my prospective, there is no reason to believe his claims are inaccurate"
How can you possibly say that? You're completely ignoring the fact that humans are fallible. We makes mistakes all the time! So we have two possibilities:
1) Something, for which there is no evidence for, happened (i.e. he experienced God)
2) Something, for which there is abundant evidence for, happened (i.e. he was mistaken)
@owchywawa This is where the "requires extraordinary evidence" bit comes into play. Since human experience is about as reliable as a soluble condom extraordinary claims need to be backed by evidence sufficient to overcome that degree of error we all know exists. There has to be enough evidence to make it more likely that you're not simply mistaken.
@NoeLPZC We know that it would have been possible for Peter to be mistaken, but considering the number of independent witnesses which were also with him, this seems less likely even if still possible.
Continued 1 We have reason to believe Peter was a witness to something which happened after Christ's death which brought him to start the Church. I think we also have reason to believe that Peter wasn't a liar because he was willing to die for what he believed. I also think he probably wasn't insane because there was more than one witness. If we had all of these elements regarding thetans, I might believe. It all boils down to what is most likely for me.
@owchywawa In contrast, there is NO evident truth in the reliability of people professing divine revelation, and so NO reason to believe that "great man" said anything that's actually true.
@owchywawa Evosius' argument is indeed just taking their word for it. The greatness of those men is hardly an argument for believing the truth of their words, and especially so as that very greatness hinges on their claims being true. Evosius also believes that they couldn't possibly be mistaken or decieved about the things they saw, it's an incredibly poor argument.
@owchywawa Evodius was alive to ask a Jesus follower directly what his belief was. You are alive to ask me mine. Whether you believe me is up to you. Evodius and likely Jesus' followers believed what they wrote about. The question is not whether or not the followers of Jesus believed what they wrote (though that is an interesting question) but whether or not they could be mistaken or decieved about what it was they believed and whether we should believe their claims
@BiggusRobbicus This is actually a different Evodius who lived around 400 AD.
Do we actually have any reason to believe they were mistaken? We could be mistaken in any case, but we shouldn't and don't reject everything we see simply because we could be mistaken.
@owchywawa Evodius- Ah, I thought the quote was odd being that he was Peter's offsider.
As for reasons, there's the lack of any corroborating records from non-christians regarding the more fantastic elements in the gospels, the inconsistency of the gospel with other records (like the Roman census), the tendency towards good story telling over accuracy in older histories and fact that right up until today, people have been reporting similar things from multiple incompatible faiths.
@owchywawa And while we can be msitaken about anything at any time, when you have an experience that's out of the ordinary, you're more likely to be wrong about it than when facing something you understand well. Nevertheless, we know that our senses are easy to decieve and even educated people in the ancient world happily ascribed things to spirits and gods, were all those other writers mistaken about the blessings and miracles and visions of their deities?
@owchywawa And Descartes' argument is no better (and still seems pretty like incredulity to me). By that logic, the idea of the Buddha is proof of the Buddha, by definition trumping Yahweh as the supreme.
The Buddha would also be an example of the kind of meek deciever asked for at 0:19
And the cosmological argument is just that, an argument. It's not proof of its own premises, else you could argue people into jail on the basis of "they could have done it"
@owchywawa "You can't trump God because God as defined by Descartes is the greatest conceivable being"
And you can't get from "I can conceive of something" to "therefore it exists" without evidence. Making an arbitrary value judgement that existing in reality is "greater" than existing in fantasy is an empty argument. Furthermore, one could argue that a being not limited to the human imagination is "greater" than the greatest conceivable being, making the argument collapse into absurdity.
@owchywawa I didn't say the Buddha trumped God, I said it trumps Yahweh, there's a difference there, in Descartes' argument. The Buddha is the set of all consciousnesses, Yahweh's included, and clearly fits the criteria of Descartes' argument better than Yahweh. Therefore, the Buddha exists (regardless of the status of Yahweh) and it is to the Buddha that your worship should go.
@BiggusRobbicus ...Or else Descartes' argument is rubbish, and he's simply asserting that a thing with a bunch of characteristics he likes must exist, because he can't see that the charcateristics originate with him. I could add the additional characteristics "supremely erotic" and "supremely evil" to Descartes' argument and it'd be just as valid.
@NoeLPZC I agree, they have a problem with her saying to take their word for it and their defense is more arbitrary words. Quite humorous, though I was hoping to see something a little more substantial against Bionic Dance, as she is fucking annoying.
@TogetherForPeace When it's warranted, yes. But as I've been saying to owchy, without some demonstration that the "authority" is trustworthy you're not justified in placing your trust in them. Since neither the existence of God nor divine revelation has ever been demonstrated you have no justification to claim a priest or theologian or whatever is trustworthy. L. Ron Hubbard was an authority on Scientology, but that doesn't mean we can trust what he claimed about Xenu, thetans, etc.
Interesting how a Christian brings up a verse that tells you to sell all you own and give to the poor in a video he authored on a computer that he probably owns.
@Godlessons In considering what Christ says, you should consider the reasoning behind what he says.
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." - Matthew 6:19-21
@owchywawa I see nothing that says you should own anything there. Further, if you look at all the verses where Jesus says to sell all you own, in context, there is nothing like that.
@Godlessons You are missing the point. Why shouldn't we store up treasures on earth? The reason isn't because owning things is bad. Consider Job for example. The reason deals with the heart. Who are you serving? Your desires, or God?
"But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment.... But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction." -1 Timothy 6:6-9
@owchywawa I don't expect you to read things how they are written. No Christian ever does. It's always some convoluted method of "interpretation" and never what Jesus actually said.
@InventorGorilla A con is someone who willingly TRICKS or DECEIVES someone to make money, you dumb fuck. Advertising at the end of a video isn't a con. It doesn't even get her to pay her rent.
Kinda late, or early, where I am, but this looks incredible, so I'll def. watch it later. No offense, and I'm sure you probably don't have a lot of time (as I haven't seen you a lot on other "sites"), but I generally don't like text-only videos, as I have to pause them every time text comes up just to read the text. This is quite tedious, and takes a long time, and as you know I hate tedious shit, you can probably guess why I avoid text-only vids.
I'm horribly confused. As a Christian if there is a book that have 4 anonymous people slightly agreeing with each other does that mean you have to believe it?
@adrenacrumb Of course not. "I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason." - Augustine
Owchywawa, I have to say that this was, without a doubt, one of your best videos. It never ceases to amaze me that people like IronicDance continue to spout ignorance about Christianity over and over. I cannot take people like her seriously, and this video beautifully demonstrates why. Great video. Liked and Fav'd. :)
@adrenacrumb In any case, there is the possibility that we could be wrong about the truth of an evidence, but that doesn't mean we should reject the evidence.
This has been flagged as spam show
@07Aristotle
watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60
I strongly recomend that you watch that video again, if you have not already done so. Its the same video i linked last time, but it makes the point im making, perhaps more clear.
It also adresses Craigs objections, one of witch was included in the timestamp that you gave me.
Turha101 2 months ago
@owchywawa
I admit that i just skimmed through the video, could not bother to read all the wall of text you had there.
But when i jumped to 2:15 to 2:30 you said something funny
Arguments =/= proof
I have heard alot of bad arguments for the existence of a deity, the cosmological is one of them. Having an argument for something, is not the same thing as having proof. Let alone, that all of the arguments for a deity, that i know of, have failed on some level.
If you got some proof, please show it.
Turha101 3 months ago
@Turha101 How do you prove something without an argument? What is your definition of proof?
owchywawa 3 months ago
@owchywawa
You need outside scources which would backup your argument itself, things like facts.
You can have a good argument, without having any evidence to back up the claim with.
Things like the cosmological arguments, are just that, they are arguments, with no real ( as far as i am aware ) evidence to back up the claims that the argument is making.
I can look up the word proof for you if you want me to.
Turha101 3 months ago
@Turha101 The two important points are causation and a beginning of the universe. How are these presented as not having outside sources?
owchywawa 3 months ago
@owchywawa
What outsice scources supports this argument?
Because the argument in itself is flawed.
There are many problems with the argument. One of which, is simply a problem with the first premise.
We have never observed something, which does exist, to cause something which does not exist, to being existing. All we see is reformation of already existing matter.
Also even if one granted all the premises in the argument, and ignored the problems, the argument does not conclude a deity
Turha101 3 months ago
@Turha101 You're just trying to poke holes in the argument now, which is different than showing that the outside world is not invoked.
owchywawa 3 months ago
@owchywawa
You said that the first two points are important, i just showed one of the problems with one of these ''important'' points.
I also am really interested to see any outside evidence which would backup this claim, and how anyone could consider bad arguments like these, as proof.
Turha101 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Turha101 ''Because the argument in itself is flawed.''
The cosmological argument is based on the modus ponens structure. In that sense, it is not flawed.
''We have never observed something, which does exist, to cause something which does not exist, to being existing.''
Wuh?
'' the argument does not conclude a deity''
You obviously don't understand the relationship of contingent and efficient causes.
watch?v=To--SBJqBZs
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
In the video i linked, the point comes a bit late in. It starts at 6:40
The video you linked did not solve the last quote you quoted of me.
Sure one can make assumptions that a deity is the cause.
But the argument ITSELF does not conclude that, which was my point.
Oh and to those people who are reading this discussion, please stop voting comments down as spam.
Turha101 3 months ago
@Turha101 About the video, creatio ex materia is as old as time itself. The new 'objection' that you hear is the thermodynamics conservation of energy argument, but this is also refuted in the video I provided. Scroll through them, they address the creatio ex materia argument that is considered an objection by some people who have not done proper research. As it stands, watch the video, it'll be a fruitful expedition.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@Turha101 '' Having an argument for something, is not the same thing as having proof.''
Proof and evidence have inherently different meanings. Evidence points the X being true and proof is actually showing X itself. Evidence increases plausibility X being true and proof is showing X itself. An argument is a form of evidence, albeit it does not ultimately prove, it increases plausibility of X being true. Logic, being objective, is what dictates an argument being a form of evidence.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
Yes in some cases an argument can be considered evidence for something else.
Yes proof, and evidence can be used to have different meanings.
However i think i was pretty clear for what i was looking for.
I was using proof and evidence, as in outside scources, which would back up the argument.
And i was not talking about an argument which could be considered evidence, the cosmological argument for an example, is not an argument of that kind.
Turha101 3 months ago
@Turha101 ''I was using proof and evidence, as in outside scources, which would back up the argument.''
To ask for proof is foolish, but the evidence is there in the form of an argument. Like I said, evidence increases plausibility of X and proof is of showing X itself as tangible. To assume that proof can be furnished of god is to commit a category error. Hence his immateriality.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@Turha101 ''the cosmological argument for an example, is not an argument of that kind.''
Any and all refutations to the KCA are answered in this video here: watch?v=9fSluNqGxRA
''A structure of an argument can be fine, but that does not stop the argument from being flawd.''
The way the argument is structured is the structure of the argument.
''Rats are pink.
Bob is a rat
Therfor Bob is pink.''
This is a horrible example because this argument talks about states, the cosmological is...
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
Sorry but i did not find any ''refuting'' of what i have been saying here in that video, granted, i did not watch the whole thing, i tryied to skip to those parts where my objections might have got answered. If you know where they were answered please give me a timestamp.
An argument can be flawed, even if the structure is fine, my example shows how it can be possible. Just because it does not have anything to do with the cosmos is irrelevant
Turha101 2 months ago
@Turha101 ''Sorry but i did not find any ''refuting'' of what i have been saying here in that video, granted, i did not watch the whole thing,''
From 35:00-49:14 Craig addresses your objection of ''all we see is matter rearranging'' and also to the video you referred me to from theoreticalbullshit from creatio ex materia. That creatio ex materia argument has existed for a while now and there is many such objections to it, aside from what Craig gives.
07Aristotle 2 months ago
@07Aristotle
The timestamp you gave me, in the first few minutes Craig shows how he missunderstands the big bang.
Craig even showed how he sees a problem, and assumes the kalam to be true, since its the best answer acording to him. This is what i have been talking about, Craig bases his view on argument from ignorance.
42:20 - 47:00
Was just fun to listen to, either he did not really understand the objection, or he created another strawman.
Turha101 2 months ago
@Turha101 ''An argument can be flawed, even if the structure is fine, my example shows how it can be possible.Just because it does not have anything to do with the cosmos is irrelevant''
Absolutely not, your example is a false analogy because the analogy shares barely any relationship or similarities to the argument you attempted to refute. And it is quite relevant, being the fact, that your argument, again carries no similarities to the thing trying to be refuted.
07Aristotle 2 months ago
Turha101 2 months ago
@Turha101...about events. That is the critical difference. P1 has a claim that goes against common sense, the P1 in the cosmological argument is quite simple, ' what ever begins to exist has a cause', this statement definitely not counter-axiomatic. And its a premise that can be defended by science and logical argument, both mustering evidences that increase plausibility. To come forward with such an objection seems like an oversimplification in terms.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
Please provide with the scientific evidence, or logical argument, of it even being possible, for something which does exist, to cause something which does not exist, to beging existing?
Thermodynamics is a whole different topic, instead of trying to push me to defend that position, lets keep it at what im actually trying to point out.
Turha101 2 months ago
@Turha101 ''for something which does exist, to cause something which does not exist, to beging existing?''
You need to define your terms a little better. What does it mean to 'not exist'? Is it a nothingness or a lacking of some thing, attribute, characteristics etc? It seems, so far, that 'to exist' is being used in equivocal terms.
''Thermodynamics is a whole different topic, ''
Do you understand the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics? It pertains.
07Aristotle 2 months ago
@07Aristotle
Comeone are you really trying to say that you dont know in which concept im using the word exist?
Exist as in manifesting in reality.
Yes i do understand those laws.
Do you notice anything different from those laws, and from what i have been asking for?
Seems like i have to explain that part for you.
Given that all we have ever observed, is rearangment of material, what reason / evidence, do you have, to believe that something can be caused into existence from nothing?
Turha101 2 months ago
@07Aristotle
I was not attacking the structur of the argument, but the points itself.
A structure of an argument can be fine, but that does not stop the argument from being flawd.
Here is an example of what i mean.
Rats are pink.
Bob is a rat
Therfor Bob is pink.
The structure here is fine, but premise 1 has a problem.
It seems that my short version of one of the problems with this argument, was not understood, here is a video that explains it in more detail.
watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60
Turha101 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is BionicDance really worth your time?
Mectrixctic 3 months ago
Even if there is a deity, it doesn't mean it's your deity. And you are taking Keight out of context. That's the lowest of the low.
HimesInu 4 months ago
@HimesInu Out of context? Where?
owchywawa 4 months ago
@owchywawa The money comment. She never asks for money. She simply says "If you wish to send money."
HimesInu 4 months ago
@HimesInu When did I say she asks for money? I don't remember saying that.
owchywawa 4 months ago
@owchywawa I had to rewatch your video. You still did take her out of context on the "Money" issue when you say after she says "Send money" that "Christianity is about making money... right?" She never tells anyone to send money to churches or any religious organizations, nor does she ever say that churches are asking people to send money. She's merely saying that if you want to help with whatever she's talking about at that moment to send money to the organization that is trying to help.
HimesInu 4 months ago
@HimesInu You should really rewatch BionicDance's video. What she said was, "If you don't lie to yourself, you're going to burn forever. Also, send money." How do you think this fits in with the title "The Greatest Con-Job EVER?" She's obviously implying that Churches are conning people out of their money. There's nothing about helping organizations.
owchywawa 4 months ago
@owchywawa Then she was being sarcastic. And she's right. The majority of of churches say that, whether upfront or imply.
HimesInu 4 months ago
How to make this video better >>>
1.Minimize screen
2.Listen to the music and Keight's voice
3.Profit
Fisher663 6 months ago
Also consider this quote, which I just now listened to: "[Eusebius of Caesarea] drastically rewrote his official church history at least five times that we know of to keep up with changing church politics." ~ David Fitzgerald
The actions of this man, presented as a Christian authority by you, can be justifiably included in a video with a title such as the one BionicDance made.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 What does that even mean though? Was he excluding people who had been deemed heretical? Was he including more people who were given sainthood? There are many ways to interpret this without necessarily implying deception.
In any case, I think it should be clear that Christianity does not support lying. Do we not agree on that? If Eusebius of Caesarea did so, I would think this would be in opposition to Christianity; not as following in accord with it.
owchywawa 6 months ago
Oh wow. Theologians and scripture have answers to all of BD's assertions regarding mainstream Christianity. I had no idea that Christianity was a cohesive whole, in complete agreement with itself. You, sir, are quite the arbiter of truth. Of COURSE everyone, especially here in the South, adheres to Christianity in the exact way the theologians and scripture portray it in this video. You don't like how she presents Christianity? Too bad. That version of Christianity exists. I see it everyday.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Sure, there are idiots out there who make Christianity look incredibly stupid, but there are idiots out there who make ignorant statements about all sorts of things. We don't take a layman's description of genetics, poke holes in it, and claim genetics is stupid. We look to the experts; we look at the strongest defense for the position.
I could easily show atheism ridiculous by pointing to a "version," but I don't because I don't want to be dishonest by omission.
owchywawa 6 months ago
@owchywawa, I don't think your analogy follows. In genetics, there's a consensus. In Christianity there isn't. Using your first example ALONE, you provide Eusebius of Caesarea as Christianity's mouthpiece, yet Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus was critical of Eusebius, as were Edward Gibbon, Jacob Burckhardt, Ramsay MacMullen, and Arnaldo Momigliano (were you dishonest to exclude their opinions? no). When there's one denomination of Christianity, THEN make this video.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 There are disagreements among the experts in the field genetics as there is in any other field. For example, Neo-Darwinianism vs Neutral Theory. Should we say: (1) Genetics - The Greatest Con-Job EVER, or (2) Neutral Theory - The Greatest Con-Job EVER? We shouldn't act as if these subsets apply to the entire field, and, in critiquing the entire field, we should address the strongest positions as a first priority. Omission in this case is disingenuous.
owchywawa 6 months ago
@owchywawa, I certainly understand the need to critique the strongest positions (though "strongest" is highly subjective), but I believe critiquing prevalent positions should be a higher priority, for they have the greater effect on society. What is prevalent will, of course, vary depending on location. Where I live, an extremely ignorant view of Christianity prevails; therefore, I think it's more meaningful for me to critique the views they find compelling, and to expose their bad practices.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 I can agree with you and I would definitely support any efforts to lessen the support for blind faith.
BionicDance seems to be presenting this position as Christianity rather than as a subset of Christianity and she seems to use this to feed into her statement "show me evidence and I'll believe." That's why I made the video; not because I don't think we should criticize people who are using blind faith.
owchywawa 6 months ago
@owchywawa, Let us once again examine only the first example you gave. Here is a quote from Eusebius of Caesarea: "It will be necessary sometimes to use FALSEHOOD as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment." Now, let us again examine the title of BionicDance's video in light of this quote given by a man you present as an expert.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 That is the title of a chapter. What Eusebius was referring to is a section by Plato which, Eusebius argues, has similarity in principle to that of the scriptures. According to Eusebius, the similarity can be found in how the scriptures portrays God as "subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction." My teachers have used simplification to help me understand a point and I don't call them liars.
owchywawa 6 months ago
I think there is a misunderstanding. BD is criticizing American Christian institutions (especially ones that are very Republican) and mainstream Christian ideas. Not the isolated doctrine.
The deep philosophies from the Christian theologians and philosophers of the past don't account in most Christians' views on things. The common Christianity of America is a superficial Sunday School Hellfire Christianity, complete with all of its moral and intellectual shortcomings.
BoggiD101 6 months ago
(3:23)
3:33 No, but disbelief definitely leads to punishment all the same.
4:19 Again, some institutions (particularly in 'Murka) that purport Christianity do rake in riches. The Church has been doing it for ages.
4:37 Two good men. But bad institutions overall. In general, churches are vehicles of authority and don't want you to ask questions.
BoggiD101 6 months ago
2:23 The cosmological argument is a rational argument, not empirical proof.
2:38 The only historical "proof" of the Resurrection is in the unreliable Holy Book claiming it is true, a book claimed to be infallible because it is assumed the authority making the claim is infallible. Once again, you have to take the word of authority.
6:23 The free gift of life from Christ is not free. You have to accept claims of his existence and follow the rules of his Church.
BoggiD101 6 months ago
0:50 The institution of Christianity, particularly in America, does horde in money and they don't pay taxes either. The doctrine may have messages against money-making, but the institution that preaches the doctrine doesn't.
1:23 This verifies BionicDance's claim. Most believers have to "take their word for it". They have to belief the authority of books written about God in the past, rather than proof that can be witnessed at any epoch.
BoggiD101 6 months ago
yo fuck Dis bitch. KILL THE BITCH, REVOLUCION!1111
Mikuruification 7 months ago
@Mikuruification lol i was arguing with her earlier lol shes fun to argue with and lame.
matrixlone 7 months ago
Good video
THENEWJMONEY507 7 months ago
great video
TogetherForPeace 7 months ago
15 people got butt hurt.
Audiofalcon7 7 months ago
She makes some of the most ignorant claims I have ever seen anyone make...
Audiofalcon7 7 months ago
I think your video should be directed at your fellow believers as much as Bionic Dance. She is only reacting to myth provoked by the MAJORITY of spiritual leaders in america today. It often perpetuates itself in the political sphere as well. I think you need to address the believing transgressors before you go after someone pointing out the obvious fallacies perpetuated by your fellow believers.
TheLummer66 7 months ago
@TheLummer66 I'm not sure if the majority of spiritual leaders do take this position. I know quite a few popular evangelicals do, but beyond that, I don't think so.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa Are you saying the majority don't exercise the liberal condemnation of non believers to hell. Propagate the idea of accumalating wealth among its patrons and to secure its own desires. As a former christian a lot of the quotes you employ are often used but rarely practiced even among more liberal churches like the episcopalian and methodist churches. In my experience these are platitudes.
TheLummer66 7 months ago
I enjoy BionicDance very much and I think that much of what the video poster and the commentors are ridiculing her for are things many of you are guilty of yourselves. Making a buck is such a bad thing, huh? Like televangelists don't do that, eh???
milkmankennedy 7 months ago
@milkmankennedy I never said anything like that. I'm fine with her making money, but it is ironic that she is criticizing religion for this.
owchywawa 7 months ago
This was intellectually a bit lazy, I think.
Quoting Bible verses or the writings of philosophers isn't satisfying the need for evidence, owchy. Learn to distinguish between evidence and metaphysical arguments.
Also, test your arguments on a competing religion: Islam or Apollo are good starts. Are there any truth claims that can be made for Christianity that can't be made for other religions? Do your apologetics work equally well for Apollo or Ra?
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago
@C0nc0rdance If one rejected the physical world and thus the evidence within, would it be fair for him to claim you just want us to take your word for it? Would it be fair for him to claim you just accept that we travel around the sun on faith because he defines evidence as something which doesn't contain the physical world?
You have to remember I don't even necessarily agree with all of these arguments. All I am saying is that they exist and that you should engage with them rather than ignore.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa
This is a classic "dragon in my garage" argument (see Carl Sagan's essay). If your reasons for believing something aren't something I can verify independently, then convincing requires faith on my part. All of the arguments you advance here are metaphysical and subjective points, not empirical or objective. They presuppose faith.
I'd never ask you to become an atheist, but there's no reason you shouldn't apply a little critical thinking to your beliefs.
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago
@C0nc0rdance You do realize this is the classic rationalist vs empiricist debate here. You start with the external world. I start with reason. I don't understand why the empirical and the objective should be held above the subjective and the metaphysical. Although subjective and not empirical, I would argue rationalism is where we should start.
I agree.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@C0nc0rdance I don't think this relates to the dragon. Although subjective, the kind of arguments I presented are subjectively applicable to everyone.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
I think owchywawa's video serves the purpose it was intended to sereve i.e. showing that BionicDance is (as always) spouting off about stuff she knows nothing about and is therefore misrepresenting what Christians throughout history have taught. The ironic thing is that many of her viewers won't check these things out for themselves. They will just "take her word for it".
As to your third paragraph, that would depend. Some arguments try to prove only general theism.
ukchristian28 7 months ago
I hate Bionic Dance, but this video is just... well, to quote JustaEropeanGuy, it's just bullshit. How does quoting Bible verses address her "you just have to take their word for it" claim? That's right - it doesn't. It doesn't even TRY to. I expected more.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC She said the Christian claim is that "God exists, take my word for it." The quotes show that reality contradicts her claim by showing more than just "take my word for it."
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa "The quotes show that reality contradicts her claim by showing more than just "take my word for it.""
On the question of God's existence, Evodius basically says "Hey, I'm just gonna take their word for it", and Descartes makes an argument from incredulity based on taking their word for it. Augustine just uses a cheap and worthless semantic trick. So no, they don't do more than take their word on that issue, and regarding divine authorship, love, and Hell it's exactly the same story.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC Evodius thinks it is reasonable to believe eyewitness testimony by great men. That is taking their word for it, but it's not just taking their word for it. BionicDance seems to present this as if there is no reason to take there word for it.
Descartes' argument isn't from incredulity. He recognizes that the idea of God is proof that God exists. You can't expect to understand the arguments from this video alone.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa That's because there IS no reason to take their word for it.
No the idea of God is NOT proof that God exists. Being able to take the attributes of man and multiply them by infinity isn't some impossibly hard task that would require the bullshit you just made up to explain it. That's like saying there are these magic gremlins that allow people to walk on two legs, and the fact we can walk on two legs is proof of these gremlins. How else could we walk? Argument from incredulity.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC So BionicDance claims, but that's not the position of Christians. BionicDance is just continuing on the same over used straw-man that Christians knowingly believe in God in spite of reason; not because of it. If you are trying to rebut the arguments, you are missing the point.
Even if you were right, this isn't an argument from incredulity. If I thought of another explanation for the evidence of evolution would that mean all arguments for evolution were arguments from incredulity?
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa No, because the theory of evolution would still be evidence-based. Even Lamarck's theories - though ultimately wrong - had a basis in observed evidence.
I do not believe BD's argument is a strawman. Logical arguments for God are pretty unconvincing for non-believers, and they don't specify the Christian God regardless. People become Christian for other reasons, then try to rationalise their belief after the fact. They believe in spite of reason.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@owchywawa To explain my point further on the incredulity bit, the difference between what science is doing and what Descartes is doing is DEMONSTRABILITY. All scientific theories - even ones that later get proven wrong - are demonstrably accurate within a certain scope. Assuming God's existence doesn't DEMONSTRATE his existence, and so the initial belief is unjustified. You can't then sit on that unjustified belief and call it truth just because you can't think or anything better.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC The evidence Descartes is referring to is the idea of God. He then shows that God is the only possible cause for that evidence. I don't see how that is different from saying evolution is the best explanation for what we see in the world.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa "I don't see how that is different from saying evolution is the best explanation for what we see in the world"
Evolution is an effect, or method, or process. God is an entity. Evolution describes the process by which species transform into new species, and it's trivial to demonstrate the physical existence of those creatures. It you're going to postulate a method for how God made the idea of God you need to demonstrate God exists, because if he doesn't he's not the cause of the idea.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC "It you're going to postulate a method for how God made the idea of God you need to demonstrate God exists, because if he doesn't he's not the cause of the idea."
I think this isn't true because you could literally say this regarding any evidence. But, perhaps I should attempt to make a video on the argument sometime in the future with a more detailed look into what it is and address some objections. That would probably be a better place to start the conversation on the subject.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa "I think this isn't true because you could literally say this regarding any evidence"
You CAN say it regarding any evidence. If someone was gored and the hole in them resembled a unicorn's horn you can't point to the hole and say "therefore unicorns exist". If unicorns DON'T exist then they couldn't have made the hole, and so the hole can't be proof of unicorns - no matter how strong the resemblance. You can't just define things into existence - they must be demonstrated.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC I'm not understanding what you mean by demonstrated. What would you need to believe God exists, or that unicorns exist.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa Point to a unicorn and say "there - that's a unicorn". You'd demonstrate the existence of a unicorn the same way you'd demonstrate the existence of a horse, or any other tangible thing. If the same thing is being witnessed independently by different people with negligible disconformity I'd consider that a demonstration of its existence.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC But don't you have to demonstrate the existence of unicorns before you can show that the light reaching your eyes are the result of the reflection off of a unicorn?
If there is light reflecting that resembled a unicorn, you can't point to the reflection and say "therefore unicorns exist". If unicorns DON'T exist then they couldn't have made the reflection, and so the reflection can't be proof of unicorns - no matter how strong the resemblance.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa "But don't you have to demonstrate the existence of unicorns before you can show that the light reaching your eyes are the result of the reflection off of a unicorn?"
No, because it's that light that we're calling "a unicorn", in a manner of speaking. It's physically impossible to know reality through anything other than our senses (and arguably thought) so for simplicity's sake we just call "the best we can possibly achieve" as "good enough".
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC I don't think we call the light a unicorn. I would agree with you that seeing a unicorn is good enough. I would say this because a unicorn is the best possible explanation for the light.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa I'm not saying we actually call the light the unicorn, I'm saying that the light that hits our eyes forms our perception of reality which included the unicorn, since even if the unicorn objectively exists we can't "know" about it. Just to sidestep this redundant fact we identify the objective reality as the reality we experience, and so merely knowing that "reflected light" is sufficient to know the unicorn. It's hard to articulate what I mean.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC I agree with you, but we include much more than just reflected light into our perception of reality. I do not see why we would put anymore value on our sight than any other form of perception. We can only assess the likelihood of something being true, go with what is more probable, and hope we are right.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa I'm not saying sight is better than any other sense (though it very well may be), I'm saying that if every gives a consistent account of "the unicorn" then we can say "the unicorn" exists. We don't have to demonstrate that there is an objective unicorn reflecting light and causing people to see "the unicorn", because it's that reflected light that people are calling "the unicorn", and that exists regardless of the unknowable thing causing it.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@owchywawa *everyone
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
"I do not see why we would put anymore value on our sight than any other form of perception"
Because it may very well be more accurate than the other senses - and we can test it. You'd agree that a greater degree of conformity among independent observers indicates a greater reliability, yes? If you show 1000 people the same picture and 99% agree on what what picture was, we'd say sight is pretty accurate at recognising reality. If we play a sound and only 80% agree, hearing is less accurate.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@owchywawa * can't posit them as a LIKELY cause of the abduction.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@owchywawa To elaborate, accepting someone's testimony because they're a "great man" is an argument from authority. In many cases it's fine to reasonably accept testimony - for example when an expert physicist says something related to physics. But it's ONLY fine to accept that testimony because the science of physics has DEMONSTRATED its accuracy, thus making it reasonable to assume that when an expert talks about it his testimony will correlate with reality.
God has NOT been demonstrated.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC "it's ONLY fine to accept that testimony because the science of physics has DEMONSTRATED its accuracy"
...or so you assume. Unless I'm wrong and you actually have a degree in physics. :P
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa I don't need a degree in physics - neither do you. I can take Newton's laws and verify them myself. I can experiment with electricity and see for myself how magnetic fields are generated exactly how the theories predict. Not only that, I can see everyone else constantly applying these principles and achieving accurate results. I don't have to assume anything. There is evident truth in the reliability of physics, which gives reason to believe an expert physicist speaks the truth.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago 3
@NoeLPZC I don't know about you, but there is a lot regarding physics I don't understand and which I would take a physicist's word for it.
But, maybe you are saying we should only accept someone's word for it if we can potentially come to their conclusion by another method? That is not really making any sense. First of all, our potential to come to the same conclusion by another method says nothing about whether we would actually come to the same conclusion. Continued 1
owchywawa 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC Continued 1 Secondly, there doesn't seem to be any reason for this rule in the first place.
However, you could also be saying that we should have a reason to believe the person who is making the claims. I would agree with this. The reason, of course, Evodius calls these men great is because of they have respectable qualities. Evodius would have been considering, for example, Peter's founding of the Church and his faithfulness to his good cause even to death.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa You're not quite getting it. I can drop a ball and watch it fall. I can look at Newton's laws and see that they match with my own observation of the ball falling. Newton's laws accurately predicted the motion of the ball before I even dropped it. I can do this for other fundamentals of physics as well and see their accuracy myself. Because the field has demonstrated its accuracy I have reason to believe an expert's testimony is accurate even if I haven't seen it myself. (cont)
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@owchywawa (cont) I'm not saying it's PROOF of its accuracy, only that I have a valid reason to presume it to be the case.
Let's say an expert Scientologist told me something about Scientology. I'd have reason to believe his understanding of Scientology is accurate, but since nothing about Scientology has been demonstrated I have no reason to trust him when he says I'm infested with thetans. Peter's authority on Christianity doesn't mean we can trust Christianity is accurate.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC I would look at the individuals rather than the field in general. Their credential's and the fact that peer-review tends to help keep bad science out (with exceptions of course). I don't think a demonstration of the accuracy of a field can tell us the accuracy of what someone in the field is telling us, but that may be a minor point. Continued 1
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa Yes, that's a minor point. Clearly an expert physicist renowned for being wrong has less credibility, but that's beside the point. Secondly, we have no more reason to believe Peter than any other religious founder. Even if he wasn't a liar or crazy, he could simply have been mistaken - on top of that we have no idea how accurate the extant historical documents are. There's simply no good reason to infer Jesus was the son of God because some guy was convinced of it.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC There seems to be a fundamental difference in the way we look at things. Can you really not find the slightest reason to believe the historical documents are more likely true or more likely false, or do you reject that reason as too slight or not the right kind of evidence? Based upon my previous views on the mater, I'm guessing the latter is probably your position. I don't think there are any valid reason to reject any kind of evidence no matter how slight. What is more likely and why?
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa It comes down to the old saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If some philanthropist and all-round good guy tells you he was abducted by aliens, you have every reason to suspect some remarkable event happened to them - likely a real abduction - but you have no (or very little) reason to suspect his abductors were ACTUALLY aliens. The existence of aliens has not been sufficiently demonstrated, so you can't posit them as the cause of the abduction.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC I've made my views clear on this in the past. I don't think it matters how extraordinary you think the claim is. This seems more like a feeling which could be easily pressed upon you by culture. My beliefs are based upon how reasonable they are to believe.
I wouldn't suspect that his abductors were not actually aliens only if it was more likely that there was some other explanation.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa "I wouldn't suspect that his abductors were not actually aliens only if it was more likely that there was some other explanation."
The more likely explanation is that his abductors were human and he mistook them for aliens. That's why I said the claim deserves extraordinary evidence.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@ow And it's not a matter of whether or not "I" think it's extraordinary, it's a matter of whether or not there's sufficient evidence. If someone makes a claim and there's insufficient evidence to suggest the claim is likely then it's an "extraordinary" claim. If someone claims they had bacon for breakfast that's an ordinary claim we're justified in assuming to be true because there's plenty of evidence that people have bacon for breakfast. If they claimed to have had Martian, it's extraordinary
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC I agree with all of that. Then we should ask: Are Peter's claims extraordinary? I would suppose that they are because we have never seen any evidence for this before, but then again, there is no reason to believe it couldn't happen.
I would then look at the arguments we have for both sides. I've already mentioned reasons to believe he is telling the truth. From my prospective, there is no reason to believe his claims are inaccurate. So, reasons to believe > reasons to disbelieve.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa "From my prospective, there is no reason to believe his claims are inaccurate"
How can you possibly say that? You're completely ignoring the fact that humans are fallible. We makes mistakes all the time! So we have two possibilities:
1) Something, for which there is no evidence for, happened (i.e. he experienced God)
2) Something, for which there is abundant evidence for, happened (i.e. he was mistaken)
Which is more likely?
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@owchywawa This is where the "requires extraordinary evidence" bit comes into play. Since human experience is about as reliable as a soluble condom extraordinary claims need to be backed by evidence sufficient to overcome that degree of error we all know exists. There has to be enough evidence to make it more likely that you're not simply mistaken.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC We know that it would have been possible for Peter to be mistaken, but considering the number of independent witnesses which were also with him, this seems less likely even if still possible.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa What evidence do you have that:
a) There were independent witnesses,
b) There was conformity between those witnesses, and
c) There weren't 100 times as many witnesses that DISAGREED with Peter's claims?
What exactly did these people claim to see, anyway?
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC
Continued 1 We have reason to believe Peter was a witness to something which happened after Christ's death which brought him to start the Church. I think we also have reason to believe that Peter wasn't a liar because he was willing to die for what he believed. I also think he probably wasn't insane because there was more than one witness. If we had all of these elements regarding thetans, I might believe. It all boils down to what is most likely for me.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa In contrast, there is NO evident truth in the reliability of people professing divine revelation, and so NO reason to believe that "great man" said anything that's actually true.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@owchywawa THANKS FOR MAKING THIS VID THAT FAT SLOB BLOCKED ME!! AHA...AHAHAHA
matrixlone 7 months ago
@owchywawa Evosius' argument is indeed just taking their word for it. The greatness of those men is hardly an argument for believing the truth of their words, and especially so as that very greatness hinges on their claims being true. Evosius also believes that they couldn't possibly be mistaken or decieved about the things they saw, it's an incredibly poor argument.
BiggusRobbicus 7 months ago
@BiggusRobbicus As Evodius said, I guess I shouldn't believe that you actually believe what you're saying.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa Evodius was alive to ask a Jesus follower directly what his belief was. You are alive to ask me mine. Whether you believe me is up to you. Evodius and likely Jesus' followers believed what they wrote about. The question is not whether or not the followers of Jesus believed what they wrote (though that is an interesting question) but whether or not they could be mistaken or decieved about what it was they believed and whether we should believe their claims
BiggusRobbicus 7 months ago
@BiggusRobbicus This is actually a different Evodius who lived around 400 AD.
Do we actually have any reason to believe they were mistaken? We could be mistaken in any case, but we shouldn't and don't reject everything we see simply because we could be mistaken.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa Evodius- Ah, I thought the quote was odd being that he was Peter's offsider.
As for reasons, there's the lack of any corroborating records from non-christians regarding the more fantastic elements in the gospels, the inconsistency of the gospel with other records (like the Roman census), the tendency towards good story telling over accuracy in older histories and fact that right up until today, people have been reporting similar things from multiple incompatible faiths.
BiggusRobbicus 7 months ago
@owchywawa And while we can be msitaken about anything at any time, when you have an experience that's out of the ordinary, you're more likely to be wrong about it than when facing something you understand well. Nevertheless, we know that our senses are easy to decieve and even educated people in the ancient world happily ascribed things to spirits and gods, were all those other writers mistaken about the blessings and miracles and visions of their deities?
BiggusRobbicus 7 months ago
@owchywawa And Descartes' argument is no better (and still seems pretty like incredulity to me). By that logic, the idea of the Buddha is proof of the Buddha, by definition trumping Yahweh as the supreme.
The Buddha would also be an example of the kind of meek deciever asked for at 0:19
And the cosmological argument is just that, an argument. It's not proof of its own premises, else you could argue people into jail on the basis of "they could have done it"
BiggusRobbicus 7 months ago
@BiggusRobbicus You can't trump God because God as defined by Descartes is the greatest conceivable being.
It's not 'just take my word for it' either.
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa "You can't trump God because God as defined by Descartes is the greatest conceivable being"
And you can't get from "I can conceive of something" to "therefore it exists" without evidence. Making an arbitrary value judgement that existing in reality is "greater" than existing in fantasy is an empty argument. Furthermore, one could argue that a being not limited to the human imagination is "greater" than the greatest conceivable being, making the argument collapse into absurdity.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
@owchywawa I didn't say the Buddha trumped God, I said it trumps Yahweh, there's a difference there, in Descartes' argument. The Buddha is the set of all consciousnesses, Yahweh's included, and clearly fits the criteria of Descartes' argument better than Yahweh. Therefore, the Buddha exists (regardless of the status of Yahweh) and it is to the Buddha that your worship should go.
BiggusRobbicus 7 months ago
@BiggusRobbicus ...Or else Descartes' argument is rubbish, and he's simply asserting that a thing with a bunch of characteristics he likes must exist, because he can't see that the charcateristics originate with him. I could add the additional characteristics "supremely erotic" and "supremely evil" to Descartes' argument and it'd be just as valid.
BiggusRobbicus 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC I agree, they have a problem with her saying to take their word for it and their defense is more arbitrary words. Quite humorous, though I was hoping to see something a little more substantial against Bionic Dance, as she is fucking annoying.
TheMorriganLeFay 7 months ago
@NoeLPZC you expected more? Do you place your trust in the authority of others?
TogetherForPeace 7 months ago
@TogetherForPeace When it's warranted, yes. But as I've been saying to owchy, without some demonstration that the "authority" is trustworthy you're not justified in placing your trust in them. Since neither the existence of God nor divine revelation has ever been demonstrated you have no justification to claim a priest or theologian or whatever is trustworthy. L. Ron Hubbard was an authority on Scientology, but that doesn't mean we can trust what he claimed about Xenu, thetans, etc.
NoeLPZC 7 months ago
sorry, but this entire video is bullshit
JustaEropeanGuy 7 months ago
I don't have to read lengthy tomes to disagree with Christianity nor critique it.
iCalintz 7 months ago
@iCalintz
If you don't want to risk strawmanning it, you do.
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
Interesting how a Christian brings up a verse that tells you to sell all you own and give to the poor in a video he authored on a computer that he probably owns.
Godlessons 7 months ago
@Godlessons In considering what Christ says, you should consider the reasoning behind what he says.
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." - Matthew 6:19-21
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa I see nothing that says you should own anything there. Further, if you look at all the verses where Jesus says to sell all you own, in context, there is nothing like that.
Godlessons 7 months ago
@Godlessons You are missing the point. Why shouldn't we store up treasures on earth? The reason isn't because owning things is bad. Consider Job for example. The reason deals with the heart. Who are you serving? Your desires, or God?
"But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment.... But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction." -1 Timothy 6:6-9
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa I don't expect you to read things how they are written. No Christian ever does. It's always some convoluted method of "interpretation" and never what Jesus actually said.
Godlessons 7 months ago
@Godlessons You can't understand the teachings of Christ without understand the reasoning behind it. But, whatever, we'll probably never agree.
owchywawa 7 months ago
then at the end of every one of her video's, she does a commercial for her merchandise. Ironic huh? Who's the con?
InventorGorilla 7 months ago 8
@InventorGorilla
"Ironic huh?"
Ironic *and* Bionic... ;-)
justchemicali 7 months ago
@InventorGorilla A con is someone who willingly TRICKS or DECEIVES someone to make money, you dumb fuck. Advertising at the end of a video isn't a con. It doesn't even get her to pay her rent.
BoggiD101 6 months ago
The great thing about Ironic dance is that she runs on atomatic without thinking, she has the arogant and allways right atitude of a teanager.
greenelf12 7 months ago
Kinda late, or early, where I am, but this looks incredible, so I'll def. watch it later. No offense, and I'm sure you probably don't have a lot of time (as I haven't seen you a lot on other "sites"), but I generally don't like text-only videos, as I have to pause them every time text comes up just to read the text. This is quite tedious, and takes a long time, and as you know I hate tedious shit, you can probably guess why I avoid text-only vids.
jcrebel18 7 months ago
@jcrebel18 Neither do I, but I really don't have time to read out a bunch of quotes right now. Especially for BionicDance. :P
owchywawa 7 months ago
I'm horribly confused. As a Christian if there is a book that have 4 anonymous people slightly agreeing with each other does that mean you have to believe it?
adrenacrumb 7 months ago
@adrenacrumb has*
adrenacrumb 7 months ago
@adrenacrumb Of course not. "I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason." - Augustine
owchywawa 7 months ago
@owchywawa That sounds like he only talking about the philosophy and not the actual events.
adrenacrumb 7 months ago
@adrenacrumb I think he is, but we approach history in a similar manor. We don't just agree with things blindly, but look to reason.
owchywawa 7 months ago
Owchywawa, I have to say that this was, without a doubt, one of your best videos. It never ceases to amaze me that people like IronicDance continue to spout ignorance about Christianity over and over. I cannot take people like her seriously, and this video beautifully demonstrates why. Great video. Liked and Fav'd. :)
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
@thunderbolt94
i ron ic dance is da bless utube a THE IST on utube.HE noes wat HE is topping a out. U r gellous of HE IN Tell i gense.
I haet Satanist,. <--- LOL, lke u!!!
cguevara12 7 months ago
Book said he did it. Book don't lie. - Evodius
adrenacrumb 7 months ago
@adrenacrumb In any case, there is the possibility that we could be wrong about the truth of an evidence, but that doesn't mean we should reject the evidence.
owchywawa 7 months ago