i think the parts around 5:08ish or so is a bit of a slippery slope. if someone wants to disprove radioactive dating or evolution, or any of their parts, they should do so with facts, not emotional pleas, pseudo-science, or faith crap. i don't have any loyalty to evolution, big bang, or radioactive dating, if they are wrong, toss them, but if they are right, they, imo, keep them. i see no reason to be loyal to any belief or concept, just truth, not faith.
It reminds me of the New Age crowd... Crystals grant strength, and homeopathy is better at curing disease than medicine, acupuncture... Yet with everything they believe which basic understanding and application of the scientific method would discredit, they also believe those things which help them but don't contradict science. Some even bastardize science to CREATE their psuedo-science... Quantum healing, and bastardizations of quantum mechanics.
Liking the QED intro music, takes me back i used to love it.
They have no problem with the science that went into so they could drive theier car to work, or onn thier computers, oh no that science is ok. IT`S THE SAME SCIENCE!!!
Sorry I haven't responded to your e-mail yet Jim, will soon.
You bring up a good question though: Why accept science at all? Well why? I can tell you how I account for the uniformity of nature, the necessary foundation for ALL science. On what basis do you expect the future to be like the past, and if you don't have a basis, again, why do you accept any science?
In a random chance universe, science is not only useless, it's impossible.
Surely, even in a random chance universe, science would work on a statistical level?
I mean, with regard to radioactive decay, we ARE in a random chance universe, yet science works.
That said, i asked Keezee what he meant by a 'random chance universe' and didnt get clarification on that.
It is interesting, as an aside: Christians often point to change as evidence of God - even the randomness of quantum phenomena as evidence of God ie ' for something to change their must be a causal agent'...
....however, this is the reverse argument i am hearing: 'for things to stay the same their has to be a causal agent' - for a rockets path to be straight without sudden lurches in its momentum their has to be a 'momentum maintainer' - a sentient being that stops the lurches (and presumably wars off that OTHER causal agent that other Christians say causes random phenomena.
How confusing.
PS: got your email and will read it as soon as i get time, thx
Interestingly enough, reconciling unity, with diversity WAS the whole idea behind "Uni-versities." More interestingly is that the foundation of unity and diversity, can be found in the Trinity, and the whole picture starts to come together.
In a random chance universe, there is no such thing as a 'statistical level.' To say that something will 'probably happen' based on statistics is to assume uniformity, the very thing that randomness denies.
As far as change being evidence for God, it's not so much the change, as reconciling things that change with things that stay the same, or more technically, reconciling absolute invariants, with changing particulars.
So you are saying in a random chance universe the same thing can only happen once? You cannot have the same thing happening more than once?
Maybe my brain isn't up to the task but this is the first thing you have ever mentioned that I can't even conceive of theoretically - say the idea that you could roll a die a million times and stil not say something about the probability of how it would land.
What force or entity would be stopping us saying that?
No, I am saying that in a random chance universe there is ZERO basis for expecting a thing to happen more than once. ZERO. Problem is, science is based entirely on that expectation.
You can say whatever you want about the future, but without a basis for expecting uniformity, there is again ZERO foundation for such a statement.
i wonder what power or entity stops the same thing happening more than once in this random chance universe? It actually sounds, as you describe it, way way more complicated than the universe we live in to have these strange mechanisms of non-repeatability.
Gravity, for example, would not only have to have different values (but never the same one twice) but would have to also stop being gravity before a statistically significant number of differing values had occured, or at least vary in its
formulation, perhaps at one time varying to the square of distance, another time to the cube of distance etc, but again, not for a statistically significant number of times. So gravity would have to disappear, maybe replced by a different force entirely? Though we still have aproblem because if new forces and constants appeared too often then THEY would statistically have a representation (either showing a bias or a lack of bias) so now we have a paradox:
2) keep reintroducing new things and a statistical relationship can exist within the introduction of new things!
You see how massively complex this universe is and the universe is still only a fraction of a second old (or a random unit of time old ofc).
What amazes me is that you have access only to the same frames of reference as me and yet you 'know' such a universe is not just possible but inevitable without God lol
....whereas compare it to our universe. You send something into motion (newtons first law here) and it just keeps on doing its thing - if its motion changes we know that something has interfered with it in some way (a push, friction, gravity etc).
Maybe i am stupid but that seems simple and seems to require considerably less of an explanation. You are telling me that, in fact, change should require no intervention and stasis is what requires constant intervention!
You are missing the argument completely. In a random chance universe, there is zero basis for expecting anything to change, or anything to stay the same. ZERO. "It will because it has," is begging the question.
For their to be zero basis to expect change rather than no change (or vice versa) you have made a statistical claim- that both options are just as likely.
You know, if you want to posit a radical idea you need one of two things:
1) Evidence
2) an intuitive argument
Generally i'd side with the former over the latter. However, you are doing neither.
your case is based on a hypothetical universe you have no evidence for and that seems more complicated and god-reliant than the one we live in.
...in terms of providing an argument that appeals to my intuitive senses, well you have done the exact opposite!
If you asked me which of these two uiniverses ( a predictable mundane one like ours, or this fantastical unpredictable one) is most likely to require an outside entity i'd say the latter one, a thousand times over.
What you fail to realize though, is that the random chance universe that you assume does'nt allow for predictability, and when you assume the validitiy of predictability (or science) you borrow the foundation of that assumption from MY worldview. Predictability demands uniformity, and you have ZERO basis to assume uniformity and therefore ZERO basis for science.
Both evidence and argumentation demand universal, abstract, invariant laws, which you also can't account for in your worldview.
Well, we have gone down this path before, and have established that according to your worldview, you can't "know" anything, and now, that you have no basis for science.
You miss the point, I am not saying that things cannot happen more than once, I am saying that in a random chance universe there is ZERO basis for EXPECTING a thing to happen more than once. ZERO.
In a random chance universe, it would not matter what gravity did, or how many times it did it. In a random chance universer there is ZERO basis for expecting what gravity HAS DONE to be anything like what gravity WILL DO. ZERO.
You're mistaken. Random chance is the statistical probability of an event occuring or not occuring.
In no way can any system, regardless of complexity, be expected to have zero probability of an event occuring except one which has reached maximum entropy.
Only at such a state of entropy could there be no interaction between atoms and with no interaction between atoms there could be no potential for any event to occur.
So long as the universe is in any state of s < 100% then there is...
You miss my point, I am not saying that there is zero probability for an event to occur, I am saying that there is zero basis for expecting an event to occur the same way in the future as it has in the past.
That depends on the event. If the event is a non-physical natural event such as human sociological occurences then you would be correct as logically no event could unfold exactly the same.
Natural events however will always have a high probability of occuring, such as chemical or nuclear reactions. Granted no two will be the same, but it does provide a probability for natural events to occur.
you aren't just mincing words. PTGE believe that the highly contrived world he envisages, whereby, by some mechanism, the same thing can never happen more than once, DOESN'T require an intelligent maintainer whereas a mundane universe where a much smaller range of possibilities are possible DOES.
Additionally in seemingly random systems, there is a trend for patterns to spontaneously develope. You should look into fractal geometery for good examples of this. Be warned, it is not for the faint of heart.
It wreaks serious havoc with my brain. The fact that people say "oh yeah science is great at explaining how things work - but only the science I believe".
It just fucks up my head. I don't understand. For having such large and capable brains, we humans can be complete morons.
The sicentific method, does not have to be proved, it is not a philosophy, a hypothesis, a theory or a law, it is a system for ensuring a consistent apporach to examining data.
Can you tell me what experience you have had in using or studying the S.M?
His point is a philosophical one: in other words, WHY does a consistent approach to examining data work.
to be clear here: he is not disputing its validity (in fact the 'tail' of his argument smashes it to pieces, but the 'head' as we see here is not disputing it but citing its validity as evidence of Gods' existence.
This is an argument we will hear again and again, mark my words. PM me your email address and i will send you through an exchange i have had on this subject already.
Well if you think the scientific method doesn't have to be proven than neither does anything religious. The SM is the basis of your world view so yes you should have to prove it assuming you care about being intellectually honest.
So how would you define the 'Religious Method' that you would be expected to prove?
i personally don't really believe that anything can be proven except in referential terms - even logical proofs rely on the laws and rules of logic which we assume to be true due to their impressive consistency under empirical observation
The Bible encompasses truth itself. Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary and you have just admitted that you accept logic based upon it's circular validity...
No i haven't. You seem to be falling into a pit from which you can't see a way out of keezee.
You can't prove the impossibility of the contrary by merely stating that they are impossible (and their are many many contrary positions, not just one) .
What i said is that there is NOTHING we can absolutely prove, that does not prove your God by me saying that. you seem to be claiming me me saying i cannot prove your God proves your God.
If you believe that the laws of logic are valid then that in and of itself is a 'logical proof,' and this it is indeed circular reasoning.
All things contrary to Christianity are false and any similarities within other false religions are simple a perversion of the truth...
If there is nothing we can absolutely prove then what you just said cannot absolutely be true and we are just wasting our time pretending we can arrive at a relevant position on reality...
I argued this with your friend.The laws of logic are only valid for as long as they appear to work. As you state, to claim more than that would require a level of proof we simply do not and cannot possess.
But please do not fall into the trap of asserting that anythin that cannot be proven absolutely is without merit. in fact everything you do in your typical day falls very much into this category. Can you prove you have a job? no. You feel you have a job; to your knowledge you had one yesterday
..but that does not prove you have one today! So is that knowledge useless? Well, that kind of knowledge has successfully allowed ME to predict my employment status for the last 15 years which is a powerful though very common example of how useful knowledge can be even if it is far from absolute.
You claimed that if we cannot know anything absolutely then my statement I made earlier cannot absolutely be true. However, as a claim that may not necessarily be true.
Take a murder: we may not be able to say with absolute certainty that person A murdered person B but that does not preclude it being absolutely true that person A murdered person B
We seem to toil about in circles because every assertion you make is forced to presuppose that my God exists and yet you are blind to see it.
Induction from the non-Theist perspective (as stated) is not a valid basis for assuming the uniformity of nature while also contending that this universe is the product of random chance. We Christians have a basis for the UON rooted in the sustaining power of our Lord Jesus Christ...
It is we who have justified our framework, now it's your turn.
Truth is always provable when you have objective standards. The problem is that your entire perspective on reality and truth is firmly planted in mid-air.
If you want to undermine your own statement then have at it, but on your own admission your statement cannot possibly be true IE: 'provable,' if indeed your claim about provability being impossible is true...
Your approach is probably the right one i suppose: avoid the question and just keep repeating the mantra. I mean i can't catch you out or show the illogic of your position if you just pretend that i haven't asked you any questions every time you respond, right?
But I will STILL persevere for a while. To return to one you ignored a day or so ago: how can you prove it is YOUR god, rather than a general deistic creator?
As for the question you just posed, after youve realized that a Creator is the only justifiable means of logic and morality then you are a small step from truth. We have no reason to believe a general deity operates this way or that and every reason to believe that Yahweh is the Creator. When you apply the amount of scrutiny to every other religious faith that you have to Christianity then you will see them all falling vastly shorter than our faith which stands the tests.
Why is a creator the only justifiable means of logic and morality? Other animals have logic and morality. Most don't. Why do you have every reason to believe that Yahweh is the creator? Why not Zeus? Thor? Mars? Aten? You have as much evidence for Yahweh as those others (that is, none). Christianity's tenets fall way short based on scientific discovery, and more rational Christians accept major parts of the Bible are allegorical, not historical or factual.
On the contrary across the board my friend. Animals are not moral beings and the fact that you are apealing to logic to object here presupposes that the Christian God exists so you've already lost the argument. You no nothing of my position on allegories in the Bible so please don't be so presumptious. We need a constant in order to justify morality and logic. God provides that, a random chance universe does not.
Some animals are very moral. Bonobos and chimpanzees care for their own tribe and protect those less able to fend for themselves. Piranhas will never attack themselves. Many rearing animals will care for other species' babies as though they were their own. And so forth. Morals exist elsewhere in the animal kingdom.
Yes, how dare someone appeal to logic and fact when it contradicts the Bible, and thus are automatically wrong because it contradicts the Bible. What a way to win an argument.
Your animal kingdom analogy not valid We make moral judgments about things out of the realm of physical harm. We differ on the concept of what morality even is. Its immoral to sleep with someones wife or snatch a purse from and old lady or to steal from even people who have abundance At least you admit that I won the argument. You have no grounds to- argue, that is my point here.
If they were analogies, you could argue that. But they're facts about the animals, not comparisons. Morality is the system of right and wrong of the population.
I did not admit that you won the argument. I was making a sarcastic remark at how stupid your point was about anything that disagrees with the Bible is automatically wrong.
I have every ground to argue because I have facts, not a book of stories, to back up my claims.
Youve entirely jumped the gun and you are riding a wave of assumptions. Upon what basis do you say logic and reason are valid methods of deduction? What is logic? Who gives you authority to define what morality is? I reject wholly your definition. Morality transcends species and physical harm.
Supposing that the Bible is the source of all truth wouldnt anything contrary to it be false by necessity. The answer is yes.
To hold a contradictory belief that is false against facts and reality because you believe the belief to be true regardless, is an irrational belief. But which version of the Bible would be the truest one? Which sect of Christianity would be the truest? Why does reality not fit with much of the early books of the Bible? Why were the books about Jesus written well after his life and do not describe the same events? Could it be that the Bible isn't 100% true...? Is that not a possibility?
Its not a version of the Bible or a Christian denomination that justifies logic and morality; its the God behind them all. We are broken radios and God is sending a signal. Its not his fault that we mess it up. There are of course, more reliable manuscripts and less reliable ones as well as a good and a bad way to go about studying the Bible.
I also don't care about your position on the allegorical account of the BIble; I said rational Christians. We don't need a constant to justify morality and logic, you do. Don't tell me that I can't presume of you when you presume for everyone in the world.
And what does it say about your character that you must invent a character to justify morals to you? If you didn't invent God, then you'd be immoral? That's an indictment about your character, not the non-believers.
Im defending reason and logic so its ironic for me to be called irrational. You do in fact need a constant to justify logic and morality if you want them to function objectively and we both agree that they are objective it seems.
Its impossible for God not to exist so your character attack fails. Ive invented nothing. You are assuming that the objective morality that God provides actually exists otherwise you couldnt condemn me for supposedly inventing God so I can be moral.
Anyone who disregards reality, facts and logic because it disagrees with a belief is being irrational. No one needs a constant to justify logic and morality, because we have our fellow species, like all organisms. Piranhas don't attack their own because that's detrimental to their population. I never agreed that anything must be objective; human morals come from their fellow man, hence why different countries and religions have different sets of morals.
You have yet to justify your use of logic. Where is it and what is it? Answer these before you accuse me of rejecting them. If you dont agree that anything needs to be objective then you cant objectively be correct here. The moral atrocities of Nazi Germany were objectively wrong. It was true for all people in all places at all times that the actions of Nazi Germany were wrong.
"You have yet to justify your use of logic. Where is it and what is it?" It's called science, rationality and skepticism. Try it sometime, you'll understand things better. "If you dont agree that anything needs to be objective then you cant objectively be correct here." Wow, lie about what someone says. Then invoke Nazis. Two ways to fully lose the argument. Congratulations! I don't agree with your arguments about morality and logic, because your args are not based on facts but your religion.
Youve failed to again to even explain logic. Rationality is to be consistent with logic, so if this is how you define logic, you need to swing off the intellectual monkey bars and try again. Logic is Gods method of keeping information cogent within His Creation and His unchanging, absolute nature is the necessary- and only precursor for its existence.
Aha, so it is gods nature that keeps information cogent, that provides uniformity then? At last we pin you down on this.
So without God, the physical constants and laws of nature would constantly ebb and flow in a state of flux............. only, what would cause this ebb and flow? Surely for constants and laws of nature to change in such a way would require some agent (God?) to be involved?
You are saying change is uncaused but stasis must be caused.... er isn't that back to front???
We're not speaking of causation , we're talking about sustenance of the uniformity of nature. Without God, the universe as explained and defined by scientists cannot account for the reliability of induction because it relies on the uniformity of nature which cannot be justified apart from God in a random chance universe.
"Logic is Gods method of keeping information cogent within His Creation and His unchanging, absolute nature is the necessary- and only precursor for its existence." What unchanging, absolute nature? Where he loves all his creatures, or where he slaughters them in a global flood? Where he makes man in his own image and loves him, or casts man out of paradise for disobeying him? Where he is all powerful, but can't do a darned thing about a fallen angel causing havoc? Kinda pathetic...
I don't mean this offensively, but your understanding of God is very lacking and it may help you to learn a bit more because you are making a number of category errors here. To answer you, the nature of God is what is unchangeable. The way He interacts with His creation and whether he chooses to exact justice on unrepentant sinners sooner or later is at His sheer discretion.
No, no one who professes that he knows TEH TRUTH and anything which contradicts it is automatically wrong, and atheists know nothing, isn't being offensive. No, of course not.
The nature of God is changeable. He creates and loves and thinks everything is good, then wipes out, hates and considers everything is bad. All in the same book of the Bible!
And how is something so powerful to create everything, but just can't take care of sin? Especially since he tempted his creation to sin?
From your perspective Keezee, the atrocities committed by the Nazis are only wrong because Gods decides they are wrong. If God decided tomorrow that such actions were no longer atrocities but morally correct i assume you would have absolutely no problem condoning such things and would happily gas more jews in His name?
Herein lies the beauty of Gods unchanging moral standards You and I can rest assured that God will not demand the blood of anyone as you are saying. The canon of Scripture is closed; nothing can be added to it or taken away. The standards that Jesus brought 2000 years ago which has dramatically changed the world for the better are the ones we have until He comes back.
This is the God who killed innocent children with wild bears in the OT?
This is the God who got Moses to exterminate the enemies of the Jews in the OT?
This is the God who preaches the philosophy orf 'an eye for an eye' for a period of time then decides 'turning the other cheek' is a better way to carry on.
In any event my question stands regardless: IF God was to ordain tomorrow that gassing jews or torturing babies was moral are you saying that would make it so?
B Compared to the flood, this would be an act of mercy as we are all still enemies of God and deserving of His wrath. If God chooses to demonstrate wrath when He wants oppose when we think He should, its our problem not His.
C The way social injustice amongst men was handled changed, not Gods standard of morality.
D Killing Jews is wrong unless you created them and they are in rebellion, in that case its justice and its not only the Jews who deserve this.
d) so a jewish parent would be fine to kill a rebellious child?
a) So these children deserved to die?
It seems by your answers that their is simply nothing God can do that is immoral as far as you are concerned. Given this, it makes it meaningless to talk of God as being moral - it gives no limits to His behaviour or any expectation on our part as to what to expect from Him. in iother words: anything goes!
The failure in your analogy is that you as a man named Jim are not the sustainer of poetry nor the foundation of it's objectively or existence, there is a large disconnect between you/poetry and God/morality.
...but the relationship is still the same between the machine and poetry (not me and poetry as you allude) and God and morality in that we are actually defining poetry and morality by whatever the respective entity spews out.
The end result is that same.
1) you say to me God is moral.
2) I assume that means he acts nicely and in the way we ordinarily define by 'moral'
3) then i think of some rather nasty sounding acts he has committed
4) You say: that's moral for him; anything he does is moral
...So I ask you: What exactly am I to take from your statement that God is moral? It hasn't told me a single thing about God or how he bahaves. So what exactly is it supposed to tell me.....that behaving morally means 'anything goes'???? That seems to be the only other logical alternative to me!
Morality is revealed through the character of God, what he does is morally perfect without question. The disconnect is that He is righteous so He can't hate righteously and when He takes justice on unbelievers and punishes them for it, that too is morally perfect because He is righteous. The reason we are not allowed to hate our brother is because we are sinful and cannot hate righteously as God can.
I'm referring to the supernatural creation/creator relationship. The one that grants authority to God to do as he pleases. He is the potter, you are the clay.
We have no power to create 'ex nihilo' as God has done and without His sustaining purpose we could not bring forth offspring, it's not a creative endeavor for us.
So no, they are not permitted to kill the children for the same reason as God.
You said to me that if you create something you have dominion over it, basically.
I'm assuming I am supposed to take that as intuitively true or reasonable but on what grounds? You see NOW you are telling me that nothing can create anything other than God who creates everything. Therefore I have zero experience of creation as human beings (or other animals) are unable to create things.
Your original argument is now moot because there is no example in the universe to compare it to!!
Sure Jim, if you will something into existence ex nihilo you can have moral dominion over it. That is my position and please forgive me if Ive not been clear enough. My argument does not hinge on having something to compare it to so Im not seeing the mootiness at this point.
It is like me saying to you 'the weather is nice today'. It only means something if I have preference for some kinds of weather over others. generally we regard sunny weather as 'nice' but if i regard ALL weather as nice then my statement becomes utterly pointless.
I have a hard time believing that you actually believe this. We are speaking of terms that we both understand. If I have said God is moral then I have misspoken, but I cant remember saying it. God is holy, which would mean moral perfection by His own standards. God has caused many things to happen that we would subjectively call bad but He is perfect so there is no evil in Him He is the reason we understand right from wrong in the simple way that we understand it compare to His holiness.
Why is it impossible for God not to exist? What if you were to discover that the books of the Jewish Bible, on which Christianity is based, were taken from earlier stories of Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian civilizations? That the Bible, as a literal document, falls flat given what we know about the natural world? What basis is left to say that it's impossible for God not to exist? What about earlier deities? Similar ones? Lack of ones?
God provides nothing, because God simply doesn't exist.
Its impossible for God to exist because we are having a conversation and employing logic and reason which are unable to be accounted for by any other worldview accept the Christian worldview. If you think you can justify logic and reason apart from God then by all means do so. The only true God is the God of the Bible, namely the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No other god is defensible.
So there are no other religions other than Christianity? It's only "accounted for" to you because it's what you believe. But far more people don't accept Christianity than do. Too many sects of Christianity, too many versions, to argue which is more valid. I can justify logic and reason because I can think for myself and don't need to look at what some book of stories thousands of years old says I should think. I can test the world, how it works, etc. You can only cite book and verse...
If you care to defend another faith against Christianity then by all means do so, but the veracity of the Bible and the consistency of it are breathtaking. Christianity is also an extremely unique belief system when understood properly.
The Bible tells us why you are struggling with this:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14
I don't defend any faith against Christianity because religion is a set of beliefs for which there is no evidence. To accept any belief in contradiction of clear evidence that it is wrong is irrational. Like the earth was formed before stars. Or that man has dominion over all creatures (H. erectus bones have teeth marks from predators, for example). Etc. At some point people realize that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally because it's based on beliefs thousands of years old, not history
You view all evidence through atheistic rose-colored lenses and presume that there is no God while you interpret the evidence. We view evidence through the Christian perspective which states that there is a non-material ultimate authority and all facts are subject to Him. We are both presupposing our conclusion as we interpret the evidence.
In other words, if you believe there's a God, then you can find God in whatever you want. Magnificent. You sure showed us. But, um, that would be you looking through rose-colored lenses. You want there to be God, and lo and behold, there God be.
I don't presuppose conclusions. Science never presupposes conclusions. Weren't you the one who told me not to presume of you, and yet here you are presuming of me again?
You should take your shtick to the stage. You're a riot.
And I notice you did exactly what I said you had to do. Isn't it nice to quote a book to say you're right, when the book says you're right? But what else says you're right? That's a bit self-serving, no?
Which version of Exodus 20:13 do you accept? NIV says "You shall not murder," while the KJV says "Thou shalt not kill." The differences matter in context. How about the fact that the Catholic church considers homosexuality a sin, whereas the Episcopalian church accepts homosexuals?
Reality and your conscience both attest that I am speaking truth. The Bible is so very clear about homosexuality being wrong, you have to be a fool to think otherwise...
The Bible is so very clear about homosexuality where? Then you should talk to the Venezuelan Catholic Church (Reformed), the United Church of Christ, the Episcopalian Church, the Unitarian Church and the Anglican Church, for they do not reject homosexuality. That would be millions of Christians. Are they fools? How do you know you're right and they're wrong? They all use God's word, after all.
I am starting to think that discussing these issues with you is a waste of time Keezee. You have gone from being someone who had a glimmer of open-mindedness to an almost zombified state. Please don't take this the wrong way but to read some of what you say I find a little freaky.
You are approaching a debate with the attitude 'I am right and there isn't even any point us debating your arguments because they are automatically wrong as they disagree with my position'
Jim, it's not that you are wrong because you disagree with me, but all of your claims are intellectually ungrounded and mine are not so forgive me for finding your conclusions untenable.
I'm afraid ' life without God is absurd and inconceivable" only to people like you.
It never ceases to amaze me that people who reject that a biilion or so years of complex chemical reactions can eventually produce a self-repicating life form, will happily say a super-being created the universe by the power of thought, and in a rather odd sequence of events. AND having to use inert minerals to create Adam and then part of his body to produce Eve.
Your claim here is more subjective than anything I've said thus far... Your opinion does not denote reality. What you are saying is that it never ceases to amaze you that people make faith-claims about a Creator, namely the God of the Bible... all the while your entire conclusion has to admit that God exists because you are using logic, reason, and the scientific method without a proper foundation for either of their existence. We both have many faith claims, only ours are actually justifiable.
The argument boils down to asking an important question: who's world view has the proper preconditions for it's validity? Atheism does not have the proper preconditions for coherent discussion (logic) or morality (non-Theism's most common objection against God)
While on the other hand, Christianity is inherently cogent, consistent, and reliable for all areas of life.
And this Creator has indeed chosen to reveal Himself through Scripture in the Christian Bible...
Well, granted you have a better position on morality. The christian position is that whatever god does is moral, which is a great position to take because it means however seemingly evil His actions they are, by christian definition, moral: brilliant!
As to the rest, well i have asked you several questions via pm already and i await your response there.
i totally agree. they have to strong arm the science to fit so it is not to trump their beliefs. you wouldn't believe the scientific yahoos i have heard on christian radio that talk about the people who lived with dinosaurs, lived to be hundreds of years old, excetra.
The Jacob Marley simily was a nice one. "Draging their religious chains around." I favour science. But I'm careful about it, because I find there to be many who give it the quality of theism, as though everything any "scientist" has to say is gospel. There are mistakes, and there is pseudo-science. Great to have you back, and great video, noelplum99. Thanks.
If Christians forsake the Word of God as their highest standard and say that the reason they believe is that we have scientific proof, historical reliability, irreducible complexity, and so on If we use those standards to arrive at the conclusion of God then we no longer hold God to the highest standard, rather we hold science above Him this is contrary to Scripture, so the Christian is forced to reject that notion.
....but the problem is keezee, if you accept - (not that God is the highest standard, that is irrelevant, He could exist and have nothign whatsoever to do with the bible)- that the bible is literally true, then you are, by your own inner logic, demonstrating the utter innate errancy of science: that however seemingly well founded any scientific theory may be, it is just an illusion and however amazing it may be for all that evidence to be wrong, it probably is.
Just because we havent observed a global flood or a talking animal doesnt make them scientifically impossible. Ironically, you are basing your claim on the Christian principle of the uniformity of nature if you do this. We accept these things as Gods interference with the laws of nature which He set in place. You presuppose an impossibility and we presuppose a possibility, but the Christian holds the higher ground being able to root themselves in God oppose to thin air.
The principle of uniformity is not a Christian principle. the principle is observed by all cultures; it is also observed, with total success, by my cat.
You are an interesting case in point regarding this video. I first came across you when you asked me, via pm, a series of interesting questions regarding evolution. I spent some considerable time expounding on every avenue you brought forth - at the end came the reveal: you thanked me for enlightening you but told me you were a biblical
..literalist (i am paraphrasing) and none of what i said made the damndest bit of difference. It was as if you had set off disputing evolution on scientific grounds but as soon as that rug was pulled away (and i had no idea you were even religious during our initial exchanges, as i recall) you just refused to accept it ON PRINCIPLE.
....you are now adopting a different tack, one that I have hammered out long and hard in private with another youtuber 'proofthatgodexists'.
To adopt the philosophy you do leads to some tremendous contortions down the line (especially concerning my cat) and i feel it right to warn you of that.
Be that as it may, and I have our messages saved, can you or can you not justify your use of logic within the scientific method? Yes or No. Without of course, continuously begging the question and/or creating a perfect circle of thought as we Christians are so often accused of doing.
If science brings facts to light that's good, but -if- it goes against the Bible then we grounds to question it's validity in that respective area be it age of the earth (which I do not argue for) or anything else
I can only use logic within certain constraints. in other words, my only justification for asserting the laws of logic to work is that, empirically, they appear to. There is no underlying 'truth' that says they HAVE to, in fact QM has shown situations in which they very much appear not to - in which case science is ruthless and goes with the evidence not the dogma.
No. It appears to be valid and so, and this is how science works in case you didn't realise, we go along with it until it is proven wrong.
So far, we have evolved for around 3 billion years on the basis that uniformity and consistency are valid (unknowingly until recently ofc) so that seems a reasonably firm footing.
The laws of logic which are precursory to scientific observation is philosophical, not scientific, so you must ask the right preliminary questions as Aristotle encourages us...
The scientific method itself is a philosophy and not scientifically provable... strange thing, that.
It is a formulated method of gathering, testing , checking and re-checking facts and evidence which is structured to remove as far as possible any bias or prejudice of the experimenter.
It means that all evidence, for or against the hypothesis, is taken into consideration, so to say this is a "philosophy" is ridiculous.
Creationist "science" cherry-picks facts which appear to support their ideas and ignore anything which they don't like.
The Scientific Method cannot be proven accurate BY the Scientific Method, that was my point friend. It's a tragic irony for non-believers. I'm not here to defend your definition or opinion of whatever you are referring to as Creationist science. After all, we are all Creationists. The difference is that some of us hate our Creator and some of use serve Him.
what a nonsense statement. you mean we are all australian aboriginal creationists perhaps? it is just that you HATE the aboriginal gods? You see how silly that rationale is?
By all means tell us we are wrong but let us not go down this line of you asserting we all secretly believe in your God and that it is just that some of us hate him - you should at least know better than that by now.
I believe the word for it would be 'Crypto-theist'
The Bible clearly tells us that there is no such thing as an atheist, and the atheists themselves prove it over and over by appealing to God's standard of morality, et al.
Whilst holding the Bible to such a standard as defining very truth itself, I cannot disgard the verse telling me that you are without an excuse in believing in God as he has made Himself know to us all by the very creation we are a part of...
i have much rexperiance of keezees argument recently. His argument does not dispute the scientific method but questions on what basis we assume the logical standards and the principle that the future will be consistent with the past is based. Previously I have been told (elsewhere) this relys on a special revelation but Keezee makes a different point that, in his view, the universe would be random with constants and laws zagging all over the place with no god.
You have valid points against those Christians who have an eggshell faith around a mass of secular reasoning. I consider that to be dangerous for them and they are a very small step from joining the ranks of Atheism it seems.
You have to respect that we are all functioning based upon our highest standard of reality and truth. For Christians, this standard -should- be the Bible, for non-believers it's usually science, but always relative...
People whose modern, pampered lives would not even be possible without the scientific method use their computers to spew forth anti-scientific dogma from the comfort of their climate controlled homes.
It is as self centered and childish as the belief that the entire universe was created for them by their magical, invisible, imaginary friend who lives up in the sky.
The irony is that you show up for this argument. As soon as a non-theist shows up to argue they lose. You are forced to rely upon what only the God of the Bible, namely Yahweh can provide.
Where is this metaphysical concept you call logic at? Is it material and finite? Where is it? You really do believe in the spiritual realm my friend.
You may call us child-like for having faith, but your intelligence is child-like in your failure to examine your starting place.
Logic ain't spiritual, it's a descriptive construct, a product of human reasoning (although it would be true whether we knew it or not!) which in turn is a product of biochemistry in our minds.
There are many things which are immaterial that are not spiritual or holy.
And if there's a god behind the poorly conceived set of legends and bronze age mythology we call the bible, he does a damn good job of writing a book that's indistinguishable from fiction.
I appreciate you making one of my points for me. To assert that logic is a faculty of man and then to say that it would exist even if we did not is, ironically, a logical fallacy. Logic is an abstract universal concept; I'm glad that you agree.
Also, as an unbeliever you are in rebellion against your Creator and therefore you cannot understand what the Bible has to offer at this point. I suggest that you humble yourself and pray that God would open your heart to understand His Word.
Logic is not a 'faculty', it's a product of human reasoning, we don't possess it innately, we must come to learn it.
The laws of logic themselves do not exist independent of our minds, how could they, they are merely relations we ascribe to things in our ontology.
However, if someone dies, and they knew some true relations, the relations remain true n'est pas? The things don't behave different. Am I making sense? Maybe...
You are certainly making an effort to escape the truth of the matter. I think we agree, but you are dodging the assignment of credit -for- logic. We agree that the truth of logic is not something tangible thus we are both admitting that abstract standards exist in a random chance universe. The dividing line is that you accept the fairly tale that logic is somehow justified apart from God and I assert that logic demonstrates- the existence of God lest we could not reason at all.
It is true that A is A. If it were not true, there could be no truth. So even if it's not true, we have to assume it is. I don't care whether it's actually true, but any worldview has to assume it.
As a theistic one must too. God cannot give rise to laws of logic. Things cannot have a coherent ontology without obeying logical laws and so cannot exist!
Just to add: we base our trust in the 'laws of logic' in fact, ultimately, on empirical data - logical rules appear to work so we trust them. deductive reasoning may seem more absolute than induction but my contention is that, ultimately, deduction rests on a bed of induction.
So does induction work? both me and my cat work on the priinciple it does and we are natures success stories - any organism that assumed randomness, illogic and non-uniformity appears not to have fared so well.
As a non-theist, induction would be based upon a contradictory presupposition that nature is uniform. It is either random, chaotic chance or it's uniform. You are jumping on God's back to prove that He isn't there... Your world view cannot justify the uniformity of nature.
1)are you saying the it requires a God to make a uniform (simple) universe but not a god to make a (complex) non-uniform one?
2) or are you saying that it takes a god for us to appreciate that our uniform universe is uniform?
as a non-theist my presumption is that it is uniform generally on the same basis my cat presumes the same - or a bacteria presumes the same. Or a plant.
God is the only justifiable means of saying that the next time I throw a ball in the air it will come back again. Standards. Constants.
If the universe is random chance, you have to live out your days with a leap of faith much larger than believing a middle-eastern carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth was God in the flesh.
Because the converse, a non inductive universe, is absurd and inconcievable, and would never give rise to sentient beings capable of having this conversation.
You have made a perfect circle of reasoning here my friend. Correct me if I am wrong here. You say that the reason we have uniformity within nature is because otherwise we wouldn't be able to observe the uniformity of nature? I think you are also in conflict with the greater mass of non-believers who hold to a random-chance view of the cosmos in which holding to the notion of uniformity within nature is begging the question to the utmost because it's based on induction alone which is fallacious.
Fuck it, 500 characters is not enough to answer this, just go check out TBS's excellent response to this and other versions of the transcendental argument.
By your own logic you give me my argument without a fight... all I have to do is say 'Because life without God is absurd and inconceivable and non-living carbon elements would never give rise to living, sentient beings capable of having this conversation.' Your entire response was a non-answer, you have the floor again to justify the uniformity within nature if you want. I can just show you quotes by atheist philosophers who admit that you can't rely on induction for the uniformity of nature.
keezee, if there was NOT uniformity in nature, what force or entity would there be to cause the fluctuations in laws and constants that you envisage?....or would they just fluctuate without intervention? You seem to be suggesting that constancy requires an outside influence but change does not (or else you would have to admit that a non-uniform universe is proof of God by its non-uniformity and a uniform universe is proof of god by its uniformity lol).
...encountered it previously. previuously, i have heard it expounded, not that God is required for uniformity but that God is required for us to KNOW that uniformity in the past is liable to lead to uniformity in the future...ie that science has value! You, on the other hand, are suggesting that laws of nature would alter if left to their own devices and a mainatiner is required to keep them steady. So I ask: by what mechanism would they alter on their own?
Either the laws of logic are self-evidently circular and thus inherently fallacious.
Or
They are rooted in God's nature of truth.
Christians realize that God is the one thing that can justify logic itself and while we are all forced to presuppose logic, the Christian owns the hill n their being justified to use it.
I have had all this out over pages and pages with another poster (proofgodexists). If you like I can send you my pm exchange with him.
In my view, ultimately, he dug himself a hole - though i can send them through and you can, at the very least, see this new philosophy of yours questioned with some rigour.
It ultimately boils down to who can justify the necessary means -for- a coherent world view involving reason and logic. The Christian can and the non-theist cannot, it's really that simple.
Just one more thing: even if a deity was necessary to allow for the 'laws of logic' (rather than them being constructs from empirical evidence), that has nothing nothing nothing to do with Christianity or any kind of 'proof' of the bible.
You're not buying and I'm not selling, but in the business of philosophy we are required to hold merchandise and yours is sadly unfounded without my God.
It's good that you can tell I'm certain, and you should be too. The difference is that my perspective on reality is logically coherent. I don't mean that offensively at all, it's simply true that you are borrowing my God to justify your logic.
I'm trolling? It's very mature and grown up to refer to the Christian God as a sky daddy.
This argument of Keezees is a new one for him (certainly not one I have ever heard him bring forward in over a year). Consequently i have to say it is not his reason for believeing in God but simply what he holds to be a strong argument to defend that which he believes for entirely different reasons
Keezee: if i am wrong there then please put me straight.
I assumed Keezee was a troll when I saw how much verbal diarrhea he had smeared across the comments section. I'm not going to bother reading all of his screed, but the replies he directed at me seem to contain a 'logic' that is as invisible as his chosen deity.
I have decided that discussing logic with Keezee would be as pointless as trying to explain aerodynamics to a fish so I will ignore him in the hopes that he goes away.
BTW
I enjoy your vids and appreciate the effort involved.
Scientific and historical 'common ground' seems to fall short in the end without a proper foundation of thought. I believe we have both sets of evidence on our side, but the examination of these come -after- we level on how we are reasoning to and from the evidences.
I share your frustration Noel. It annoys me so much that these people don't realize that science isn't compartmentalized. Sure there are different disciplines but the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is the same for all. You cant claim that the internet is "good" science and evolution is not. They both use the same scientific approach to come to their conclusions. Just because you disagree with the conclusions doesn't mean that in that case science doesn't work.
i think the parts around 5:08ish or so is a bit of a slippery slope. if someone wants to disprove radioactive dating or evolution, or any of their parts, they should do so with facts, not emotional pleas, pseudo-science, or faith crap. i don't have any loyalty to evolution, big bang, or radioactive dating, if they are wrong, toss them, but if they are right, they, imo, keep them. i see no reason to be loyal to any belief or concept, just truth, not faith.
mistereveready 1 year ago
It reminds me of the New Age crowd... Crystals grant strength, and homeopathy is better at curing disease than medicine, acupuncture... Yet with everything they believe which basic understanding and application of the scientific method would discredit, they also believe those things which help them but don't contradict science. Some even bastardize science to CREATE their psuedo-science... Quantum healing, and bastardizations of quantum mechanics.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Liking the QED intro music, takes me back i used to love it.
They have no problem with the science that went into so they could drive theier car to work, or onn thier computers, oh no that science is ok. IT`S THE SAME SCIENCE!!!
peteq1972 2 years ago
Absolutely bang on!
noelplum99 2 years ago
Sorry I haven't responded to your e-mail yet Jim, will soon.
You bring up a good question though: Why accept science at all? Well why? I can tell you how I account for the uniformity of nature, the necessary foundation for ALL science. On what basis do you expect the future to be like the past, and if you don't have a basis, again, why do you accept any science?
In a random chance universe, science is not only useless, it's impossible.
ProofThatGodExists 2 years ago
Surely, even in a random chance universe, science would work on a statistical level?
I mean, with regard to radioactive decay, we ARE in a random chance universe, yet science works.
That said, i asked Keezee what he meant by a 'random chance universe' and didnt get clarification on that.
It is interesting, as an aside: Christians often point to change as evidence of God - even the randomness of quantum phenomena as evidence of God ie ' for something to change their must be a causal agent'...
noelplum99 2 years ago
....however, this is the reverse argument i am hearing: 'for things to stay the same their has to be a causal agent' - for a rockets path to be straight without sudden lurches in its momentum their has to be a 'momentum maintainer' - a sentient being that stops the lurches (and presumably wars off that OTHER causal agent that other Christians say causes random phenomena.
How confusing.
PS: got your email and will read it as soon as i get time, thx
noelplum99 2 years ago
Interestingly enough, reconciling unity, with diversity WAS the whole idea behind "Uni-versities." More interestingly is that the foundation of unity and diversity, can be found in the Trinity, and the whole picture starts to come together.
ProofThatGodExists 2 years ago
In a random chance universe, there is no such thing as a 'statistical level.' To say that something will 'probably happen' based on statistics is to assume uniformity, the very thing that randomness denies.
As far as change being evidence for God, it's not so much the change, as reconciling things that change with things that stay the same, or more technically, reconciling absolute invariants, with changing particulars.
ProofThatGodExists 2 years ago
Is it??
So you are saying in a random chance universe the same thing can only happen once? You cannot have the same thing happening more than once?
Maybe my brain isn't up to the task but this is the first thing you have ever mentioned that I can't even conceive of theoretically - say the idea that you could roll a die a million times and stil not say something about the probability of how it would land.
What force or entity would be stopping us saying that?
noelplum99 2 years ago
No, I am saying that in a random chance universe there is ZERO basis for expecting a thing to happen more than once. ZERO. Problem is, science is based entirely on that expectation.
You can say whatever you want about the future, but without a basis for expecting uniformity, there is again ZERO foundation for such a statement.
ProofThatGodExists 2 years ago
i wonder what power or entity stops the same thing happening more than once in this random chance universe? It actually sounds, as you describe it, way way more complicated than the universe we live in to have these strange mechanisms of non-repeatability.
Gravity, for example, would not only have to have different values (but never the same one twice) but would have to also stop being gravity before a statistically significant number of differing values had occured, or at least vary in its
noelplum99 2 years ago
formulation, perhaps at one time varying to the square of distance, another time to the cube of distance etc, but again, not for a statistically significant number of times. So gravity would have to disappear, maybe replced by a different force entirely? Though we still have aproblem because if new forces and constants appeared too often then THEY would statistically have a representation (either showing a bias or a lack of bias) so now we have a paradox:
noelplum99 2 years ago
1) stick with the old and statistics will kick in
2) keep reintroducing new things and a statistical relationship can exist within the introduction of new things!
You see how massively complex this universe is and the universe is still only a fraction of a second old (or a random unit of time old ofc).
What amazes me is that you have access only to the same frames of reference as me and yet you 'know' such a universe is not just possible but inevitable without God lol
noelplum99 2 years ago
....whereas compare it to our universe. You send something into motion (newtons first law here) and it just keeps on doing its thing - if its motion changes we know that something has interfered with it in some way (a push, friction, gravity etc).
Maybe i am stupid but that seems simple and seems to require considerably less of an explanation. You are telling me that, in fact, change should require no intervention and stasis is what requires constant intervention!
noelplum99 2 years ago
You are missing the argument completely. In a random chance universe, there is zero basis for expecting anything to change, or anything to stay the same. ZERO. "It will because it has," is begging the question.
ProofThatGodExists 2 years ago
For their to be zero basis to expect change rather than no change (or vice versa) you have made a statistical claim- that both options are just as likely.
You know, if you want to posit a radical idea you need one of two things:
1) Evidence
2) an intuitive argument
Generally i'd side with the former over the latter. However, you are doing neither.
your case is based on a hypothetical universe you have no evidence for and that seems more complicated and god-reliant than the one we live in.
noelplum99 2 years ago
...in terms of providing an argument that appeals to my intuitive senses, well you have done the exact opposite!
If you asked me which of these two uiniverses ( a predictable mundane one like ours, or this fantastical unpredictable one) is most likely to require an outside entity i'd say the latter one, a thousand times over.
noelplum99 2 years ago
What you fail to realize though, is that the random chance universe that you assume does'nt allow for predictability, and when you assume the validitiy of predictability (or science) you borrow the foundation of that assumption from MY worldview. Predictability demands uniformity, and you have ZERO basis to assume uniformity and therefore ZERO basis for science.
Both evidence and argumentation demand universal, abstract, invariant laws, which you also can't account for in your worldview.
ProofThatGodExists 2 years ago
Well, we have gone down this path before, and have established that according to your worldview, you can't "know" anything, and now, that you have no basis for science.
ProofThatGodExists 2 years ago
You miss the point, I am not saying that things cannot happen more than once, I am saying that in a random chance universe there is ZERO basis for EXPECTING a thing to happen more than once. ZERO.
In a random chance universe, it would not matter what gravity did, or how many times it did it. In a random chance universer there is ZERO basis for expecting what gravity HAS DONE to be anything like what gravity WILL DO. ZERO.
ProofThatGodExists 2 years ago
You're mistaken. Random chance is the statistical probability of an event occuring or not occuring.
In no way can any system, regardless of complexity, be expected to have zero probability of an event occuring except one which has reached maximum entropy.
Only at such a state of entropy could there be no interaction between atoms and with no interaction between atoms there could be no potential for any event to occur.
So long as the universe is in any state of s < 100% then there is...
Grospoliner 2 years ago
You miss my point, I am not saying that there is zero probability for an event to occur, I am saying that there is zero basis for expecting an event to occur the same way in the future as it has in the past.
ProofThatGodExists 2 years ago
That depends on the event. If the event is a non-physical natural event such as human sociological occurences then you would be correct as logically no event could unfold exactly the same.
Natural events however will always have a high probability of occuring, such as chemical or nuclear reactions. Granted no two will be the same, but it does provide a probability for natural events to occur.
But at this point we're just mincing words.
Grospoliner 2 years ago
Problem is, 'probability' also ASSUMES uniformity, it cannot account for it.
ProofThatGodExists 2 years ago
you aren't just mincing words. PTGE believe that the highly contrived world he envisages, whereby, by some mechanism, the same thing can never happen more than once, DOESN'T require an intelligent maintainer whereas a mundane universe where a much smaller range of possibilities are possible DOES.
Don't try and understand it. You won't.
noelplum99 2 years ago
a potential for an event to occur.
Grospoliner 2 years ago
Additionally in seemingly random systems, there is a trend for patterns to spontaneously develope. You should look into fractal geometery for good examples of this. Be warned, it is not for the faint of heart.
Grospoliner 2 years ago
Geometry*
Grospoliner 2 years ago
the tags:scientific literalists literalism bible science evolution geology head wall brick smash against
hahaha "head wall smash against." awesum. thats so funny.
nagchampafreak 2 years ago
It wreaks serious havoc with my brain. The fact that people say "oh yeah science is great at explaining how things work - but only the science I believe".
It just fucks up my head. I don't understand. For having such large and capable brains, we humans can be complete morons.
dutchroll 2 years ago
I've heard it's lovely when you stop banging your head, so this particular wall can just sod off.
wordavee 2 years ago
The sicentific method, does not have to be proved, it is not a philosophy, a hypothesis, a theory or a law, it is a system for ensuring a consistent apporach to examining data.
Can you tell me what experience you have had in using or studying the S.M?
wordavee 2 years ago
His point is a philosophical one: in other words, WHY does a consistent approach to examining data work.
to be clear here: he is not disputing its validity (in fact the 'tail' of his argument smashes it to pieces, but the 'head' as we see here is not disputing it but citing its validity as evidence of Gods' existence.
This is an argument we will hear again and again, mark my words. PM me your email address and i will send you through an exchange i have had on this subject already.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Well if you think the scientific method doesn't have to be proven than neither does anything religious. The SM is the basis of your world view so yes you should have to prove it assuming you care about being intellectually honest.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
So how would you define the 'Religious Method' that you would be expected to prove?
i personally don't really believe that anything can be proven except in referential terms - even logical proofs rely on the laws and rules of logic which we assume to be true due to their impressive consistency under empirical observation
noelplum99 2 years ago
I reject the term 'Religious Method...'
The Bible encompasses truth itself. Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary and you have just admitted that you accept logic based upon it's circular validity...
KeezeeD 2 years ago
No i haven't. You seem to be falling into a pit from which you can't see a way out of keezee.
You can't prove the impossibility of the contrary by merely stating that they are impossible (and their are many many contrary positions, not just one) .
What i said is that there is NOTHING we can absolutely prove, that does not prove your God by me saying that. you seem to be claiming me me saying i cannot prove your God proves your God.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Jim,
If you believe that the laws of logic are valid then that in and of itself is a 'logical proof,' and this it is indeed circular reasoning.
All things contrary to Christianity are false and any similarities within other false religions are simple a perversion of the truth...
If there is nothing we can absolutely prove then what you just said cannot absolutely be true and we are just wasting our time pretending we can arrive at a relevant position on reality...
KeezeeD 2 years ago
I argued this with your friend.The laws of logic are only valid for as long as they appear to work. As you state, to claim more than that would require a level of proof we simply do not and cannot possess.
But please do not fall into the trap of asserting that anythin that cannot be proven absolutely is without merit. in fact everything you do in your typical day falls very much into this category. Can you prove you have a job? no. You feel you have a job; to your knowledge you had one yesterday
noelplum99 2 years ago
..but that does not prove you have one today! So is that knowledge useless? Well, that kind of knowledge has successfully allowed ME to predict my employment status for the last 15 years which is a powerful though very common example of how useful knowledge can be even if it is far from absolute.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Lastly, you made a huge blunder.
You claimed that if we cannot know anything absolutely then my statement I made earlier cannot absolutely be true. However, as a claim that may not necessarily be true.
Take a murder: we may not be able to say with absolute certainty that person A murdered person B but that does not preclude it being absolutely true that person A murdered person B
noelplum99 2 years ago
We seem to toil about in circles because every assertion you make is forced to presuppose that my God exists and yet you are blind to see it.
Induction from the non-Theist perspective (as stated) is not a valid basis for assuming the uniformity of nature while also contending that this universe is the product of random chance. We Christians have a basis for the UON rooted in the sustaining power of our Lord Jesus Christ...
It is we who have justified our framework, now it's your turn.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Jim,
Truth is always provable when you have objective standards. The problem is that your entire perspective on reality and truth is firmly planted in mid-air.
If you want to undermine your own statement then have at it, but on your own admission your statement cannot possibly be true IE: 'provable,' if indeed your claim about provability being impossible is true...
KeezeeD 2 years ago
*sigh*
Your approach is probably the right one i suppose: avoid the question and just keep repeating the mantra. I mean i can't catch you out or show the illogic of your position if you just pretend that i haven't asked you any questions every time you respond, right?
But I will STILL persevere for a while. To return to one you ignored a day or so ago: how can you prove it is YOUR god, rather than a general deistic creator?
noelplum99 2 years ago
If Ive avoided any question, please remind me, that is not my goal here
(cont)
KeezeeD 2 years ago
As for the question you just posed, after youve realized that a Creator is the only justifiable means of logic and morality then you are a small step from truth. We have no reason to believe a general deity operates this way or that and every reason to believe that Yahweh is the Creator. When you apply the amount of scrutiny to every other religious faith that you have to Christianity then you will see them all falling vastly shorter than our faith which stands the tests.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Why is a creator the only justifiable means of logic and morality? Other animals have logic and morality. Most don't. Why do you have every reason to believe that Yahweh is the creator? Why not Zeus? Thor? Mars? Aten? You have as much evidence for Yahweh as those others (that is, none). Christianity's tenets fall way short based on scientific discovery, and more rational Christians accept major parts of the Bible are allegorical, not historical or factual.
csbair 2 years ago 2
On the contrary across the board my friend. Animals are not moral beings and the fact that you are apealing to logic to object here presupposes that the Christian God exists so you've already lost the argument. You no nothing of my position on allegories in the Bible so please don't be so presumptious. We need a constant in order to justify morality and logic. God provides that, a random chance universe does not.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Some animals are very moral. Bonobos and chimpanzees care for their own tribe and protect those less able to fend for themselves. Piranhas will never attack themselves. Many rearing animals will care for other species' babies as though they were their own. And so forth. Morals exist elsewhere in the animal kingdom.
Yes, how dare someone appeal to logic and fact when it contradicts the Bible, and thus are automatically wrong because it contradicts the Bible. What a way to win an argument.
csbair 2 years ago 2
Your animal kingdom analogy not valid We make moral judgments about things out of the realm of physical harm. We differ on the concept of what morality even is. Its immoral to sleep with someones wife or snatch a purse from and old lady or to steal from even people who have abundance At least you admit that I won the argument. You have no grounds to- argue, that is my point here.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
If they were analogies, you could argue that. But they're facts about the animals, not comparisons. Morality is the system of right and wrong of the population.
I did not admit that you won the argument. I was making a sarcastic remark at how stupid your point was about anything that disagrees with the Bible is automatically wrong.
I have every ground to argue because I have facts, not a book of stories, to back up my claims.
csbair 2 years ago
Youve entirely jumped the gun and you are riding a wave of assumptions. Upon what basis do you say logic and reason are valid methods of deduction? What is logic? Who gives you authority to define what morality is? I reject wholly your definition. Morality transcends species and physical harm.
Supposing that the Bible is the source of all truth wouldnt anything contrary to it be false by necessity. The answer is yes.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
To hold a contradictory belief that is false against facts and reality because you believe the belief to be true regardless, is an irrational belief. But which version of the Bible would be the truest one? Which sect of Christianity would be the truest? Why does reality not fit with much of the early books of the Bible? Why were the books about Jesus written well after his life and do not describe the same events? Could it be that the Bible isn't 100% true...? Is that not a possibility?
csbair 2 years ago 4
Its not a version of the Bible or a Christian denomination that justifies logic and morality; its the God behind them all. We are broken radios and God is sending a signal. Its not his fault that we mess it up. There are of course, more reliable manuscripts and less reliable ones as well as a good and a bad way to go about studying the Bible.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
I also don't care about your position on the allegorical account of the BIble; I said rational Christians. We don't need a constant to justify morality and logic, you do. Don't tell me that I can't presume of you when you presume for everyone in the world.
And what does it say about your character that you must invent a character to justify morals to you? If you didn't invent God, then you'd be immoral? That's an indictment about your character, not the non-believers.
csbair 2 years ago 2
Im defending reason and logic so its ironic for me to be called irrational. You do in fact need a constant to justify logic and morality if you want them to function objectively and we both agree that they are objective it seems.
Its impossible for God not to exist so your character attack fails. Ive invented nothing. You are assuming that the objective morality that God provides actually exists otherwise you couldnt condemn me for supposedly inventing God so I can be moral.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Anyone who disregards reality, facts and logic because it disagrees with a belief is being irrational. No one needs a constant to justify logic and morality, because we have our fellow species, like all organisms. Piranhas don't attack their own because that's detrimental to their population. I never agreed that anything must be objective; human morals come from their fellow man, hence why different countries and religions have different sets of morals.
csbair 2 years ago 2
You have yet to justify your use of logic. Where is it and what is it? Answer these before you accuse me of rejecting them. If you dont agree that anything needs to be objective then you cant objectively be correct here. The moral atrocities of Nazi Germany were objectively wrong. It was true for all people in all places at all times that the actions of Nazi Germany were wrong.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
"You have yet to justify your use of logic. Where is it and what is it?" It's called science, rationality and skepticism. Try it sometime, you'll understand things better. "If you dont agree that anything needs to be objective then you cant objectively be correct here." Wow, lie about what someone says. Then invoke Nazis. Two ways to fully lose the argument. Congratulations! I don't agree with your arguments about morality and logic, because your args are not based on facts but your religion.
csbair 2 years ago
Youve failed to again to even explain logic. Rationality is to be consistent with logic, so if this is how you define logic, you need to swing off the intellectual monkey bars and try again. Logic is Gods method of keeping information cogent within His Creation and His unchanging, absolute nature is the necessary- and only precursor for its existence.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Aha, so it is gods nature that keeps information cogent, that provides uniformity then? At last we pin you down on this.
So without God, the physical constants and laws of nature would constantly ebb and flow in a state of flux............. only, what would cause this ebb and flow? Surely for constants and laws of nature to change in such a way would require some agent (God?) to be involved?
You are saying change is uncaused but stasis must be caused.... er isn't that back to front???
noelplum99 2 years ago
We're not speaking of causation , we're talking about sustenance of the uniformity of nature. Without God, the universe as explained and defined by scientists cannot account for the reliability of induction because it relies on the uniformity of nature which cannot be justified apart from God in a random chance universe.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
What do you mean by 'in a random chance universe'? i don't understand what that means, at all.
Think about what would have to happen for induction NOT to work and then tell me how THAT would happen without a god-like entity
noelplum99 2 years ago
"Logic is Gods method of keeping information cogent within His Creation and His unchanging, absolute nature is the necessary- and only precursor for its existence." What unchanging, absolute nature? Where he loves all his creatures, or where he slaughters them in a global flood? Where he makes man in his own image and loves him, or casts man out of paradise for disobeying him? Where he is all powerful, but can't do a darned thing about a fallen angel causing havoc? Kinda pathetic...
csbair 2 years ago
I don't mean this offensively, but your understanding of God is very lacking and it may help you to learn a bit more because you are making a number of category errors here. To answer you, the nature of God is what is unchangeable. The way He interacts with His creation and whether he chooses to exact justice on unrepentant sinners sooner or later is at His sheer discretion.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
No, no one who professes that he knows TEH TRUTH and anything which contradicts it is automatically wrong, and atheists know nothing, isn't being offensive. No, of course not.
The nature of God is changeable. He creates and loves and thinks everything is good, then wipes out, hates and considers everything is bad. All in the same book of the Bible!
And how is something so powerful to create everything, but just can't take care of sin? Especially since he tempted his creation to sin?
csbair 2 years ago
KZD
Here is a video which explains why the scientific method is NOT a philosophy or belief.
wordavee 2 years ago
Oooops
watch?v=qGSv-uZCOyY&feature=sub
wordavee 2 years ago
From your perspective Keezee, the atrocities committed by the Nazis are only wrong because Gods decides they are wrong. If God decided tomorrow that such actions were no longer atrocities but morally correct i assume you would have absolutely no problem condoning such things and would happily gas more jews in His name?
noelplum99 2 years ago
Jim,
Herein lies the beauty of Gods unchanging moral standards You and I can rest assured that God will not demand the blood of anyone as you are saying. The canon of Scripture is closed; nothing can be added to it or taken away. The standards that Jesus brought 2000 years ago which has dramatically changed the world for the better are the ones we have until He comes back.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
This is the God who killed innocent children with wild bears in the OT?
This is the God who got Moses to exterminate the enemies of the Jews in the OT?
This is the God who preaches the philosophy orf 'an eye for an eye' for a period of time then decides 'turning the other cheek' is a better way to carry on.
In any event my question stands regardless: IF God was to ordain tomorrow that gassing jews or torturing babies was moral are you saying that would make it so?
noelplum99 2 years ago
A Children arent innocent.
B Compared to the flood, this would be an act of mercy as we are all still enemies of God and deserving of His wrath. If God chooses to demonstrate wrath when He wants oppose when we think He should, its our problem not His.
C The way social injustice amongst men was handled changed, not Gods standard of morality.
D Killing Jews is wrong unless you created them and they are in rebellion, in that case its justice and its not only the Jews who deserve this.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
d) so a jewish parent would be fine to kill a rebellious child?
a) So these children deserved to die?
It seems by your answers that their is simply nothing God can do that is immoral as far as you are concerned. Given this, it makes it meaningless to talk of God as being moral - it gives no limits to His behaviour or any expectation on our part as to what to expect from Him. in iother words: anything goes!
noelplum99 2 years ago
you see the problem is, you have redefined morality for God to encompass whatever he chooses.
It is like me showing you my poetry machine and telling you that it creates poetry!!
I turn on the machine and a strem of paper comes out with random words and letters on it with no obvious pattern.
You say to me:'this is not poetry' and i simply reply 'whatever this machine produces is poetry'
So I COULD redefine poetry in that way but it would make the notion of poetry meaningless.
noelplum99 2 years ago
The failure in your analogy is that you as a man named Jim are not the sustainer of poetry nor the foundation of it's objectively or existence, there is a large disconnect between you/poetry and God/morality.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
...but the relationship is still the same between the machine and poetry (not me and poetry as you allude) and God and morality in that we are actually defining poetry and morality by whatever the respective entity spews out.
The end result is that same.
1) you say to me God is moral.
2) I assume that means he acts nicely and in the way we ordinarily define by 'moral'
3) then i think of some rather nasty sounding acts he has committed
4) You say: that's moral for him; anything he does is moral
noelplum99 2 years ago
...So I ask you: What exactly am I to take from your statement that God is moral? It hasn't told me a single thing about God or how he bahaves. So what exactly is it supposed to tell me.....that behaving morally means 'anything goes'???? That seems to be the only other logical alternative to me!
noelplum99 2 years ago
If you want to learn about the character of God then read the Bible. Some of His attributes are: love, wrath, mercy, justice, and vengeance.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
do any of those have definitions Dennis or are those all as amorphous as morality when we are talking about god?
noelplum99 2 years ago
Morality is revealed through the character of God, what he does is morally perfect without question. The disconnect is that He is righteous so He can't hate righteously and when He takes justice on unbelievers and punishes them for it, that too is morally perfect because He is righteous. The reason we are not allowed to hate our brother is because we are sinful and cannot hate righteously as God can.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Jim,
I'm referring to the supernatural creation/creator relationship. The one that grants authority to God to do as he pleases. He is the potter, you are the clay.
We have no power to create 'ex nihilo' as God has done and without His sustaining purpose we could not bring forth offspring, it's not a creative endeavor for us.
So no, they are not permitted to kill the children for the same reason as God.
We all deserve death that's why it happens.
God is perfect, he can do no evil.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
You said to me that if you create something you have dominion over it, basically.
I'm assuming I am supposed to take that as intuitively true or reasonable but on what grounds? You see NOW you are telling me that nothing can create anything other than God who creates everything. Therefore I have zero experience of creation as human beings (or other animals) are unable to create things.
Your original argument is now moot because there is no example in the universe to compare it to!!
noelplum99 2 years ago
Sure Jim, if you will something into existence ex nihilo you can have moral dominion over it. That is my position and please forgive me if Ive not been clear enough. My argument does not hinge on having something to compare it to so Im not seeing the mootiness at this point.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
It is moot because it hasn't told me anything.
It is like me saying to you 'the weather is nice today'. It only means something if I have preference for some kinds of weather over others. generally we regard sunny weather as 'nice' but if i regard ALL weather as nice then my statement becomes utterly pointless.
You saying 'God is moral' hasn't told me anything
noelplum99 2 years ago
I have a hard time believing that you actually believe this. We are speaking of terms that we both understand. If I have said God is moral then I have misspoken, but I cant remember saying it. God is holy, which would mean moral perfection by His own standards. God has caused many things to happen that we would subjectively call bad but He is perfect so there is no evil in Him He is the reason we understand right from wrong in the simple way that we understand it compare to His holiness.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Why is it impossible for God not to exist? What if you were to discover that the books of the Jewish Bible, on which Christianity is based, were taken from earlier stories of Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian civilizations? That the Bible, as a literal document, falls flat given what we know about the natural world? What basis is left to say that it's impossible for God not to exist? What about earlier deities? Similar ones? Lack of ones?
God provides nothing, because God simply doesn't exist.
csbair 2 years ago 3
Its impossible for God to exist because we are having a conversation and employing logic and reason which are unable to be accounted for by any other worldview accept the Christian worldview. If you think you can justify logic and reason apart from God then by all means do so. The only true God is the God of the Bible, namely the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No other god is defensible.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
So there are no other religions other than Christianity? It's only "accounted for" to you because it's what you believe. But far more people don't accept Christianity than do. Too many sects of Christianity, too many versions, to argue which is more valid. I can justify logic and reason because I can think for myself and don't need to look at what some book of stories thousands of years old says I should think. I can test the world, how it works, etc. You can only cite book and verse...
csbair 2 years ago
If you care to defend another faith against Christianity then by all means do so, but the veracity of the Bible and the consistency of it are breathtaking. Christianity is also an extremely unique belief system when understood properly.
The Bible tells us why you are struggling with this:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14
Book and verse.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
I don't defend any faith against Christianity because religion is a set of beliefs for which there is no evidence. To accept any belief in contradiction of clear evidence that it is wrong is irrational. Like the earth was formed before stars. Or that man has dominion over all creatures (H. erectus bones have teeth marks from predators, for example). Etc. At some point people realize that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally because it's based on beliefs thousands of years old, not history
csbair 2 years ago
You view all evidence through atheistic rose-colored lenses and presume that there is no God while you interpret the evidence. We view evidence through the Christian perspective which states that there is a non-material ultimate authority and all facts are subject to Him. We are both presupposing our conclusion as we interpret the evidence.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
In other words, if you believe there's a God, then you can find God in whatever you want. Magnificent. You sure showed us. But, um, that would be you looking through rose-colored lenses. You want there to be God, and lo and behold, there God be.
I don't presuppose conclusions. Science never presupposes conclusions. Weren't you the one who told me not to presume of you, and yet here you are presuming of me again?
You should take your shtick to the stage. You're a riot.
csbair 2 years ago
And I notice you did exactly what I said you had to do. Isn't it nice to quote a book to say you're right, when the book says you're right? But what else says you're right? That's a bit self-serving, no?
Which version of Exodus 20:13 do you accept? NIV says "You shall not murder," while the KJV says "Thou shalt not kill." The differences matter in context. How about the fact that the Catholic church considers homosexuality a sin, whereas the Episcopalian church accepts homosexuals?
csbair 2 years ago
Reality and your conscience both attest that I am speaking truth. The Bible is so very clear about homosexuality being wrong, you have to be a fool to think otherwise...
KeezeeD 2 years ago
The Bible is so very clear about homosexuality where? Then you should talk to the Venezuelan Catholic Church (Reformed), the United Church of Christ, the Episcopalian Church, the Unitarian Church and the Anglican Church, for they do not reject homosexuality. That would be millions of Christians. Are they fools? How do you know you're right and they're wrong? They all use God's word, after all.
csbair 2 years ago
I am starting to think that discussing these issues with you is a waste of time Keezee. You have gone from being someone who had a glimmer of open-mindedness to an almost zombified state. Please don't take this the wrong way but to read some of what you say I find a little freaky.
You are approaching a debate with the attitude 'I am right and there isn't even any point us debating your arguments because they are automatically wrong as they disagree with my position'
noelplum99 2 years ago
Jim, it's not that you are wrong because you disagree with me, but all of your claims are intellectually ungrounded and mine are not so forgive me for finding your conclusions untenable.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
I'm afraid ' life without God is absurd and inconceivable" only to people like you.
It never ceases to amaze me that people who reject that a biilion or so years of complex chemical reactions can eventually produce a self-repicating life form, will happily say a super-being created the universe by the power of thought, and in a rather odd sequence of events. AND having to use inert minerals to create Adam and then part of his body to produce Eve.
wordavee 2 years ago
Your claim here is more subjective than anything I've said thus far... Your opinion does not denote reality. What you are saying is that it never ceases to amaze you that people make faith-claims about a Creator, namely the God of the Bible... all the while your entire conclusion has to admit that God exists because you are using logic, reason, and the scientific method without a proper foundation for either of their existence. We both have many faith claims, only ours are actually justifiable.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
you go no way to proving that though Keezee, you just state it as the only alternative.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Jim,
The argument boils down to asking an important question: who's world view has the proper preconditions for it's validity? Atheism does not have the proper preconditions for coherent discussion (logic) or morality (non-Theism's most common objection against God)
While on the other hand, Christianity is inherently cogent, consistent, and reliable for all areas of life.
And this Creator has indeed chosen to reveal Himself through Scripture in the Christian Bible...
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Well, granted you have a better position on morality. The christian position is that whatever god does is moral, which is a great position to take because it means however seemingly evil His actions they are, by christian definition, moral: brilliant!
As to the rest, well i have asked you several questions via pm already and i await your response there.
noelplum99 2 years ago
That comment was directed at KeezeeD, Why the hell do my replies always end up at the top as if they are comments???!!!
wordavee 2 years ago
good you're back. great video
TheAist 2 years ago
i totally agree. they have to strong arm the science to fit so it is not to trump their beliefs. you wouldn't believe the scientific yahoos i have heard on christian radio that talk about the people who lived with dinosaurs, lived to be hundreds of years old, excetra.
freethinker3161 2 years ago
The Jacob Marley simily was a nice one. "Draging their religious chains around." I favour science. But I'm careful about it, because I find there to be many who give it the quality of theism, as though everything any "scientist" has to say is gospel. There are mistakes, and there is pseudo-science. Great to have you back, and great video, noelplum99. Thanks.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
please everyone, I need you to go to a video and write "Love will always beat you".
Thank you for your time.
watch?v=bN6j4uyPb-Y
OsakaChiyoDestroyU 2 years ago
If Christians forsake the Word of God as their highest standard and say that the reason they believe is that we have scientific proof, historical reliability, irreducible complexity, and so on If we use those standards to arrive at the conclusion of God then we no longer hold God to the highest standard, rather we hold science above Him this is contrary to Scripture, so the Christian is forced to reject that notion.
At this point, faith itself has also vanished.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
....but the problem is keezee, if you accept - (not that God is the highest standard, that is irrelevant, He could exist and have nothign whatsoever to do with the bible)- that the bible is literally true, then you are, by your own inner logic, demonstrating the utter innate errancy of science: that however seemingly well founded any scientific theory may be, it is just an illusion and however amazing it may be for all that evidence to be wrong, it probably is.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Jim,
Just because we havent observed a global flood or a talking animal doesnt make them scientifically impossible. Ironically, you are basing your claim on the Christian principle of the uniformity of nature if you do this. We accept these things as Gods interference with the laws of nature which He set in place. You presuppose an impossibility and we presuppose a possibility, but the Christian holds the higher ground being able to root themselves in God oppose to thin air.
In love,
KeezeeD 2 years ago
The principle of uniformity is not a Christian principle. the principle is observed by all cultures; it is also observed, with total success, by my cat.
You are an interesting case in point regarding this video. I first came across you when you asked me, via pm, a series of interesting questions regarding evolution. I spent some considerable time expounding on every avenue you brought forth - at the end came the reveal: you thanked me for enlightening you but told me you were a biblical
noelplum99 2 years ago
..literalist (i am paraphrasing) and none of what i said made the damndest bit of difference. It was as if you had set off disputing evolution on scientific grounds but as soon as that rug was pulled away (and i had no idea you were even religious during our initial exchanges, as i recall) you just refused to accept it ON PRINCIPLE.
noelplum99 2 years ago
....you are now adopting a different tack, one that I have hammered out long and hard in private with another youtuber 'proofthatgodexists'.
To adopt the philosophy you do leads to some tremendous contortions down the line (especially concerning my cat) and i feel it right to warn you of that.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Be that as it may, and I have our messages saved, can you or can you not justify your use of logic within the scientific method? Yes or No. Without of course, continuously begging the question and/or creating a perfect circle of thought as we Christians are so often accused of doing.
If science brings facts to light that's good, but -if- it goes against the Bible then we grounds to question it's validity in that respective area be it age of the earth (which I do not argue for) or anything else
KeezeeD 2 years ago
I can only use logic within certain constraints. in other words, my only justification for asserting the laws of logic to work is that, empirically, they appear to. There is no underlying 'truth' that says they HAVE to, in fact QM has shown situations in which they very much appear not to - in which case science is ruthless and goes with the evidence not the dogma.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Logic is valid because it appears to be valid?
A perfect circle, begging the question to the utmost!
Evidence is rationally deduced though so you have more circles...
We can both use logic, just stop pretending that your use of it is any less foolish than believing in a talking snake.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
No. It appears to be valid and so, and this is how science works in case you didn't realise, we go along with it until it is proven wrong.
So far, we have evolved for around 3 billion years on the basis that uniformity and consistency are valid (unknowingly until recently ofc) so that seems a reasonably firm footing.
noelplum99 2 years ago
The laws of logic which are precursory to scientific observation is philosophical, not scientific, so you must ask the right preliminary questions as Aristotle encourages us...
The scientific method itself is a philosophy and not scientifically provable... strange thing, that.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Ok, i invested hour after hour debating this with this other guy and, frankly, it bored me to tears. i will send you through the pm exchange.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Do you even KNOW what the scientific method is?
It is a formulated method of gathering, testing , checking and re-checking facts and evidence which is structured to remove as far as possible any bias or prejudice of the experimenter.
It means that all evidence, for or against the hypothesis, is taken into consideration, so to say this is a "philosophy" is ridiculous.
Creationist "science" cherry-picks facts which appear to support their ideas and ignore anything which they don't like.
wordavee 2 years ago
The Scientific Method cannot be proven accurate BY the Scientific Method, that was my point friend. It's a tragic irony for non-believers. I'm not here to defend your definition or opinion of whatever you are referring to as Creationist science. After all, we are all Creationists. The difference is that some of us hate our Creator and some of use serve Him.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
@keezee
what a nonsense statement. you mean we are all australian aboriginal creationists perhaps? it is just that you HATE the aboriginal gods? You see how silly that rationale is?
By all means tell us we are wrong but let us not go down this line of you asserting we all secretly believe in your God and that it is just that some of us hate him - you should at least know better than that by now.
noelplum99 2 years ago
I believe the word for it would be 'Crypto-theist'
The Bible clearly tells us that there is no such thing as an atheist, and the atheists themselves prove it over and over by appealing to God's standard of morality, et al.
Whilst holding the Bible to such a standard as defining very truth itself, I cannot disgard the verse telling me that you are without an excuse in believing in God as he has made Himself know to us all by the very creation we are a part of...
KeezeeD 2 years ago
@wordavee
i have much rexperiance of keezees argument recently. His argument does not dispute the scientific method but questions on what basis we assume the logical standards and the principle that the future will be consistent with the past is based. Previously I have been told (elsewhere) this relys on a special revelation but Keezee makes a different point that, in his view, the universe would be random with constants and laws zagging all over the place with no god.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Greetings Jim,
You have valid points against those Christians who have an eggshell faith around a mass of secular reasoning. I consider that to be dangerous for them and they are a very small step from joining the ranks of Atheism it seems.
You have to respect that we are all functioning based upon our highest standard of reality and truth. For Christians, this standard -should- be the Bible, for non-believers it's usually science, but always relative...
(cont)
KeezeeD 2 years ago
I love the irony and hypocrisy.
People whose modern, pampered lives would not even be possible without the scientific method use their computers to spew forth anti-scientific dogma from the comfort of their climate controlled homes.
It is as self centered and childish as the belief that the entire universe was created for them by their magical, invisible, imaginary friend who lives up in the sky.
Time to grow the fuck up.
PFWoody488 2 years ago
The irony is that you show up for this argument. As soon as a non-theist shows up to argue they lose. You are forced to rely upon what only the God of the Bible, namely Yahweh can provide.
Where is this metaphysical concept you call logic at? Is it material and finite? Where is it? You really do believe in the spiritual realm my friend.
You may call us child-like for having faith, but your intelligence is child-like in your failure to examine your starting place.
In love,
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Logic ain't spiritual, it's a descriptive construct, a product of human reasoning (although it would be true whether we knew it or not!) which in turn is a product of biochemistry in our minds.
There are many things which are immaterial that are not spiritual or holy.
And if there's a god behind the poorly conceived set of legends and bronze age mythology we call the bible, he does a damn good job of writing a book that's indistinguishable from fiction.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
I appreciate you making one of my points for me. To assert that logic is a faculty of man and then to say that it would exist even if we did not is, ironically, a logical fallacy. Logic is an abstract universal concept; I'm glad that you agree.
Also, as an unbeliever you are in rebellion against your Creator and therefore you cannot understand what the Bible has to offer at this point. I suggest that you humble yourself and pray that God would open your heart to understand His Word.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Oooooh, he thinks he knows metaphysics! Cute.
Logic is not a 'faculty', it's a product of human reasoning, we don't possess it innately, we must come to learn it.
The laws of logic themselves do not exist independent of our minds, how could they, they are merely relations we ascribe to things in our ontology.
However, if someone dies, and they knew some true relations, the relations remain true n'est pas? The things don't behave different. Am I making sense? Maybe...
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
You are certainly making an effort to escape the truth of the matter. I think we agree, but you are dodging the assignment of credit -for- logic. We agree that the truth of logic is not something tangible thus we are both admitting that abstract standards exist in a random chance universe. The dividing line is that you accept the fairly tale that logic is somehow justified apart from God and I assert that logic demonstrates- the existence of God lest we could not reason at all.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Justified? What are you talking about?
It is true that A is A. If it were not true, there could be no truth. So even if it's not true, we have to assume it is. I don't care whether it's actually true, but any worldview has to assume it.
As a theistic one must too. God cannot give rise to laws of logic. Things cannot have a coherent ontology without obeying logical laws and so cannot exist!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Just to add: we base our trust in the 'laws of logic' in fact, ultimately, on empirical data - logical rules appear to work so we trust them. deductive reasoning may seem more absolute than induction but my contention is that, ultimately, deduction rests on a bed of induction.
So does induction work? both me and my cat work on the priinciple it does and we are natures success stories - any organism that assumed randomness, illogic and non-uniformity appears not to have fared so well.
noelplum99 2 years ago
As a non-theist, induction would be based upon a contradictory presupposition that nature is uniform. It is either random, chaotic chance or it's uniform. You are jumping on God's back to prove that He isn't there... Your world view cannot justify the uniformity of nature.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
The universe is uniform or it is not.
decide what you are saying here:
1)are you saying the it requires a God to make a uniform (simple) universe but not a god to make a (complex) non-uniform one?
2) or are you saying that it takes a god for us to appreciate that our uniform universe is uniform?
as a non-theist my presumption is that it is uniform generally on the same basis my cat presumes the same - or a bacteria presumes the same. Or a plant.
Your move (im off to bed!)
noelplum99 2 years ago
I have to sleep as well!
God is the only justifiable means of saying that the next time I throw a ball in the air it will come back again. Standards. Constants.
If the universe is random chance, you have to live out your days with a leap of faith much larger than believing a middle-eastern carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth was God in the flesh.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
"God is the only justifiable means of saying that the next time I throw a ball in the air it will come back again. Standards. Constants."
Read this back to yourself, and sit in a corner and think about what you have done. I've heard more inane things from articulate people, but not many.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
What I said is true... Or can you produce another way to justify the uniformity of nature?
All the best,
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Because the converse, a non inductive universe, is absurd and inconcievable, and would never give rise to sentient beings capable of having this conversation.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
You have made a perfect circle of reasoning here my friend. Correct me if I am wrong here. You say that the reason we have uniformity within nature is because otherwise we wouldn't be able to observe the uniformity of nature? I think you are also in conflict with the greater mass of non-believers who hold to a random-chance view of the cosmos in which holding to the notion of uniformity within nature is begging the question to the utmost because it's based on induction alone which is fallacious.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Fuck it, 500 characters is not enough to answer this, just go check out TBS's excellent response to this and other versions of the transcendental argument.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
In that case, read the Bible... you are clearly dodging this question, please PM me if you need more space and/or care about truth...
KeezeeD 2 years ago
By your own logic you give me my argument without a fight... all I have to do is say 'Because life without God is absurd and inconceivable and non-living carbon elements would never give rise to living, sentient beings capable of having this conversation.' Your entire response was a non-answer, you have the floor again to justify the uniformity within nature if you want. I can just show you quotes by atheist philosophers who admit that you can't rely on induction for the uniformity of nature.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
keezee, if there was NOT uniformity in nature, what force or entity would there be to cause the fluctuations in laws and constants that you envisage?....or would they just fluctuate without intervention? You seem to be suggesting that constancy requires an outside influence but change does not (or else you would have to admit that a non-uniform universe is proof of God by its non-uniformity and a uniform universe is proof of god by its uniformity lol).
Your argument differs from how i have
noelplum99 2 years ago
...encountered it previously. previuously, i have heard it expounded, not that God is required for uniformity but that God is required for us to KNOW that uniformity in the past is liable to lead to uniformity in the future...ie that science has value! You, on the other hand, are suggesting that laws of nature would alter if left to their own devices and a mainatiner is required to keep them steady. So I ask: by what mechanism would they alter on their own?
noelplum99 2 years ago
Friend,
The laws of lead us to two conclusions.
Either the laws of logic are self-evidently circular and thus inherently fallacious.
Or
They are rooted in God's nature of truth.
Christians realize that God is the one thing that can justify logic itself and while we are all forced to presuppose logic, the Christian owns the hill n their being justified to use it.
Make sense?
KeezeeD 2 years ago
I have had all this out over pages and pages with another poster (proofgodexists). If you like I can send you my pm exchange with him.
In my view, ultimately, he dug himself a hole - though i can send them through and you can, at the very least, see this new philosophy of yours questioned with some rigour.
noelplum99 2 years ago
It ultimately boils down to who can justify the necessary means -for- a coherent world view involving reason and logic. The Christian can and the non-theist cannot, it's really that simple.
I'd love to read them.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Just one more thing: even if a deity was necessary to allow for the 'laws of logic' (rather than them being constructs from empirical evidence), that has nothing nothing nothing to do with Christianity or any kind of 'proof' of the bible.
noelplum99 2 years ago
All non-Christian deities are false and inherently contradictory and have been falsified...
KeezeeD 2 years ago
So all deists believe in contradictory deities?
I'm sorry but if they have have ALL been falsified then as yours is simply an embellishment of one possible permutation then so has yours my friend!
noelplum99 2 years ago
Christianity is incredibly unique Jim... that's the difference.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
KeezeeD:
Blah blah Yahweh. Blah blah metaphysical. Blah blah faith.
Boy, you sure do love the sound of your own voice. Too bad that you come across sounding like Charlie Brown's teacher.
Keep your mystical mumbo jumbo. I'm not buying. If you had grown up in ancient Greece, you'd be just as certain of the existence of Zeus.
I don't need to invent an imaginary sky daddy to worship.
Troll elsewhere. I don't want to play with you. I have grown up things to do.
In amused disdain,
PFWoody488 2 years ago
Friend,
You're not buying and I'm not selling, but in the business of philosophy we are required to hold merchandise and yours is sadly unfounded without my God.
It's good that you can tell I'm certain, and you should be too. The difference is that my perspective on reality is logically coherent. I don't mean that offensively at all, it's simply true that you are borrowing my God to justify your logic.
I'm trolling? It's very mature and grown up to refer to the Christian God as a sky daddy.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
KeezeeD:
I'm not your friend.
Troll elsewhere.
Bye.
PFWoody488 2 years ago
This argument of Keezees is a new one for him (certainly not one I have ever heard him bring forward in over a year). Consequently i have to say it is not his reason for believeing in God but simply what he holds to be a strong argument to defend that which he believes for entirely different reasons
Keezee: if i am wrong there then please put me straight.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Jim:
I assumed Keezee was a troll when I saw how much verbal diarrhea he had smeared across the comments section. I'm not going to bother reading all of his screed, but the replies he directed at me seem to contain a 'logic' that is as invisible as his chosen deity.
I have decided that discussing logic with Keezee would be as pointless as trying to explain aerodynamics to a fish so I will ignore him in the hopes that he goes away.
BTW
I enjoy your vids and appreciate the effort involved.
PFWoody488 2 years ago
If logic isn't invisible, tell me where where to find it.
Logic is as invisible as your memories from childhood and the memory that helped you write your comment.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Jim,
It's the only one that is defensible I think...
Scientific and historical 'common ground' seems to fall short in the end without a proper foundation of thought. I believe we have both sets of evidence on our side, but the examination of these come -after- we level on how we are reasoning to and from the evidences.
KeezeeD 2 years ago
Noel, give me teh squirtle pl0x =[
Iced1992 2 years ago
Hey Jim, good to see u mate. Do a Q n A video.
saqib09 2 years ago
Glad you are back fother mucker! :-)
ultimateinfinite 2 years ago
D00D, that is TOTALLY A SQURRTLE in the back of the room, on the topshelf. LOL
Noelplum99 is a poke-nerd!!! hahahahaha
320iguy 2 years ago
No it's franklin the turtle... I think.
ionz75 2 years ago
oh wow.
Pedobear says learning IS fun. LOL
320iguy 2 years ago
good to see you back
SMDavis53 2 years ago
I share your frustration Noel. It annoys me so much that these people don't realize that science isn't compartmentalized. Sure there are different disciplines but the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is the same for all. You cant claim that the internet is "good" science and evolution is not. They both use the same scientific approach to come to their conclusions. Just because you disagree with the conclusions doesn't mean that in that case science doesn't work.
djosephallen 2 years ago
Sock God lives in the washing machine and oh does he require great tribute