more ranting from an ignorant ATHEIST

[SuperDuperAtheist]

It seems to me that your anger is not concerning theists, atheism or god, but absolutism. All atheist I have met or know personally believe that there is simply no evidence of any deities whatsoever and therefore come to the conclusion that god does not exist. Furthermore, the "magical" accounts of the bible likewise do not hold water due to lack of any evidence. So its really a scientific conclusion, not blind absolutism. What evidence to you have that concludes there "could" be a god?

[istheretruth]

@SuperDuperAtheist

"What evidence to you have that concludes there "could" be a god?"

oh wow, why didn't you just ask me how I know that 2+2 = 4?

The Universe exists

It doesn't necessarily account for its existence

It doesn't have an eternal duration.

It could have been caused by something outside of its self, and that something could have been conscious!

It's not hard if you only allow yourself to follow the possibilities provided by our ignorance of how we came to be.

[robvlob]

So God is still working on evolving his perfect perfection. Makes perfect sence

[robvlob]

@robvlob *sense

[kvblakely]

You explanation was just a bunch of words strung together... it explains nothing. If God's ultimate plan needs innocent children to starve to death in order to rid the world of evil... it seem like a rather ill conceived plan for someone so "powerful". Seems he could snap his fingers and all evil would be eliminated. If you are the creator of all things... why create evil in the first place? You're really just trying to explain Gods apathy. Prove God doesn't exist? The is NO proof that he does

[istheretruth]

@kvblakely people can prevent people, children from starving to death you fuckin' moron....we've had this ability from day one....but never had the want to, to actually do it...and fucktards like you walk around blaming the god that you say doesn't exist.....try lending a hand to the cause and teaching others to do so, you pathetic excuse for a thinker. ; - )

[kvblakely]

@istheretruth Funny, you seem to think swearing and calling people names is somehow a compelling rebuttal to an alternate belief. It sounds rather childish. But this is what happens when someone questions ones beliefs. They lash out with profanity and violence... This is why the world is full of wars. If you don't believe my God is loving I will kick your ass. Brilliant !

[kvblakely]

PS - You are absolutely right, humans could solve starvation and most chose not to. I don't blame a God at all. I blame the people who sit around and pray for a solution rather than actually do something constructive. FYI - Don't pretend to know me. I volunteer and am involved in more causes than you care to know. But by all means, call me any name you want... whatever makes you feel better about yourself... I don't require your acceptance... and I don't require a God to be charitable!

[PIKLEWEAZL95]

you moron so god is willing to to let those children starve and he just blames us he should have created us smart enough to resist Satan then we would have never had this problem so if god is omnipotent then he would have seen this coming so he ether saw it coming but refused to prevent it which means he is not omni-benevolent or he did not see it and is not omnipotent and i can see 1 argument against this "it is all part of his divine plan" which is a preconceived idea and illogical

[TheChegster]

@istheretruth Of course we have the power, but so does god. Does the fact that he help them mean that he doesn't have the want to either? What an asshole!

[istheretruth]

@TheChegster alright my silly friend. you can't for -argument sake- pretend that a god exists, andthat human death is the end to existence simultaneously. and that's exactly where you are going to have to go with this if you wish to follow it through to its logical conclusion, and still support your critique....to hold god responsible for an imperfect world, is to also say that the world is in a completed state...and that suffering has no purpose, and death ends existence....-cont-

[istheretruth]

without these 3 things being true simultaneously, your argument falls apart. but I do agree that if this is all that we will ever get in our existence and death is the end...then yes, any creator responsible is not worth calling god.

[TheChegster]

@istheretruth You make a good point. I'm not saying "a god" doesn't exist. I'm saying that he is most likely not the god that the bible describes; which I say because the bible god wouldn't create the possibility of evil in the first place. And props for not swearing or insulting. you've separated yourself from the rest of the idiots on youtube

[MrRDuggs]

"I rode my bicycle through your window" lol

[istheretruth]

@MrRDuggs did you suck on my dingle covered fuzzies immediately after?

[MrRDuggs]

@istheretruth wow, lol unprovoked much? i found a funny way to change the song and i get you asking me if i sucked your "dingle covered fuzzies". assuming this is innuendo for me doing the nasty with you in some way, no, your hooker mother has that one covered.

[istheretruth]

@MrRDuggs suckin my fuzzies makes you smile, no? keep up the good work you -sligh suckin' man you- I want to keep it on the fuzzy suckin' level with you though...nothing beyond that really interests me...do you dig?

[MrRDuggs]

@istheretruth no, i dont fucking "dig", go suck your own "fuzzy" if you want it so badly.

[istheretruth]

@MrRDuggs I'm losing patients with you Duggs......now get down there and suck real nice like the good fuzzy sucker that you are ; - )

[MrRDuggs]

@istheretruth no thanks :) ask your nearest priest. he might be interested.

[SeriousRetail91]

song was gay, did not watch.

AU!

[estimatd]

"not liking the idea of a universal creator is not enough to make it absurd, or impossible" - neither are your words not not liking the idea of the existence without a creator enough to make it truth that there is a creator. You're not proving anything besides circles, by your logic, if science has not proved anything than neither has faith because in the end they are just theories and words. And that is why your "CASE CLOSED!!!!" is the only thing here that we know in certainty doesn't exist.

[manzed]

Oh sorry - i really assumed that when you say "something that can act outside " that you ment god. Does that mean you don't believe our universe was created by god?

And if you do think it was created by "something" - tell me now:

How is "something" able to create without being able to tell if there is something missing that has to be created, because everything was already there - for an infinite time being?

[istheretruth]

"Does that mean you don't believe our universe was created by god?"

I think that I've made it pretty clear by saying "something" that it is not by necessity a god.

"How is "something" able to create without being able to tell if there is something missing that has to be created" Is this a declaration of knowledge, concerning how someone or something would perceive or sense reality before our universal time line begins to exist? how did you obtain such knowledge?

[manzed]

You are still avoiding my question - how is any"thing" able to create outside of time if we agree on the fact that creation needs:

A: An idea to produce something that wasn't there before

B: A timeframe that includes before and after

Maybe you have another definittion of creation, then share it.

BTW - of course i can't really tell what is outside of our known universe. I was using deductive reasoning to demonstrate that there are logical gaps in assuming a creator.

[istheretruth]

"You are still avoiding my question - how is any"thing" able to create outside of time if we agree on the fact that creation needs:" actually, you were asked a similar question that you have yet to answer..... if there is moment (for lack of a better word) before time begins, and all cause and effect phenomenon require time, then why does a universe exist? -continued-

[istheretruth]

"I was using deductive reasoning to demonstrate that there are logical gaps in assuming a creator." couldn't the same argument be made for the existence of the universe to begin with? are we not actually searching for the one thing that exists without beginning, without end, to avoid such a paradoxical existence. Why do you think that so many of the great thinkers in the last 2,500 years have deduced a god? I still say that god is not necessitated from our perspective, but something is.

[istheretruth]

It could be what some would call a god, or it could be as simple as a pre-existing canvas so to speak, and of course energy ....... but why such a universe begins to exist in the first place is still something to ponder. There could be a greater reality (eternal) outside of our universe, and it could be controlled by a god like being.

I think that we both know that where we go with this question is preference driven...cause is surely isn't knowledge driven.

[manzed]

Still waiting..

[istheretruth]

to be honest, there is nothing much to respond to. we both obviously believe that some sort of time was available before our universe and time perceived dimension began. you're appealing to time with 2/ or multi-directions to go in, yet you have yet to explain what a different direction in time is. It appears to be some form of abstract that you think you can play with and manipulate the discussion with. -continued-

[istheretruth]

You thought wrong. If we're going to propose such an abstract idea, then why is the abstract idea of god off limits? This is what I run into with you guys repeatedly. It becomes ever so clear that I am not fighting some sort of knowledge that you possess, but instead it is ignorance, imagination, and preference - Pretty much the same as the religious peeps that you despise. -continued-

[istheretruth]

Once for me, please explain exactly what multi-directional time is, if we were moving in "another direction" would we know it? what are you referencing directions with? from what reference point can multi-directions of time be observed? Just because you can draw lines on a piece of paper doesn't make the concept real. Hey I'm in a time dimension moving in a slightly different direction than you, but I have gadget that enable me to blog within all time directions....can you falsify this?

[manzed]

You are still avoiding my question!

I dont care what your problems are with the "other guys", but i can see that you have a problem answering my question.

I suggest to google about "Time symetry", "Quantum arrow of time" ,"Negative time" to get a clue.

Given what we know about Quantum Mechanics then "Creation by some conscious being" appears simply illogical.

That's my statement, now refute it - instead of fooling around.

[istheretruth]

This is abstract science, not proven reality. It can't be tested. "Given what we know about Quantum Mechanics then "Creation by some conscious being" appears simply illogical." no it doesn't. how so? in your mind it appears absurd knowing nothing at all about how our universe actually began. How do I know this? Because you actually know nothing about how our universe actually began. QM is a phenomenon of time and space perhaps... How do you know that it exists outside of our time dimension?

[istheretruth]

"That's my statement, now refute it - instead of fooling around." nothing to do BUT fool around with your assertions. Nothing to refute. Do I need to refute theoretically, that what you say is impossible? there are many things that are theoretically possible, so there is no need to fool with that. What I'm wanting from you is simple.You tell me what we KNOW that necessitates gods nonexistence? So far you've failed miserably except to display an emotional plea that god not exist. ; - )

[istheretruth]

Just so that we do not misunderstand each other here, let me explain to you exactly what I mean by abstract science. There is no proof that such a condition ever existed, it is theoretical in nature....and let's be honest, even if this condition did exist, it still doesn't answer the question of a creator (which could have existed prior to this condition, in fact the condition could even be the canvas of a creator... -continued-

[istheretruth]

Not to mention that it's even possible that such a condition + energy gave rise to consciousness before the universe actually began, and you are not going to be able to appeal to any sort of knowledge to refute this possibility. Some say "there is no reason to believe that a creator exists" and I say very confidently that "there is no reason to assume that a universe can exist without a creator" until we know that one can. true neutrality my friend!!

[manzed]

"nothing to do BUT fool around with your assertions. "

OK - that sounds outright ignorant and foolish.

You seem to be interested in logic only if its something you can grasp and knowlegde only if its what you propagate as such. Case closed

[istheretruth]

lmao....if something could be true in theory, it doesn't make it true...you not liking the idea of a universal creator is not enough to make it absurd, or impossible. CASE CLOSED!!!! I'll do the case closing on my videos ; - )

[manzed]

You avoided my question by asking me the opposite - but ok. I will answer it hoping you do the same.

If i get you right then you asked: "Why is there something if time wasn't there "before"?"

Fact is that time was there, just not in favour of one direction, basicly flowing in ALL possible directions (that's knowlegde concluded by quantum phyiscs so far). So it means "before" then quantum decoherence time is in a superstate of all possible timelines (look up double slit experiment)

cont.

[manzed]

Secondly i can imagine several ways of how a 4th dimensional world comes into existance without the need of a creator.

I give you an example - an analogy from geometrics:

Let's say there are two 3 dimensional spheres (think of soap bubbles). The moment they intersect a 3rd geometrical body "appears" out of nothing - a 2-dimensional disc.

This way it's possible to think that our 4th dimensional universe is the intersection of two 5-dimensional universes - no creator needed. Answer now?

[manzed]

if god created time - at what time he decided to create?

[istheretruth]

4:14 PM 12,000,000,000 B.C. ??????

[istheretruth]

In all seriousness, we don't know if anything can happen outside of time......yet doesn't this cause problems of sort. firstly, why does a universe come into being to begin with if time is ever absent . energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, so this causes major problems as well. if time has an origin, and nothing can happen without time, then our universe is a paradox. so the most logical assumption would be that cause and effect must have another way.

[manzed]

Withou an arrow of time pointing in one direction there is no cause and effect - no way to tell if something was missing that had to be created.

Ergo no decision, no intelligence involved - no creator.

Everything was there before - just in a different state. It's not logical to assume there was a creator which "created us after his image" but is not bound to the same physical laws as we do.

It's more likely that our universe is one of many evolving - just like everything around us.

[istheretruth]

you didn't address here...nothing at all. You threw out some opinions, and unrelated fluff. "if time has an origin, and nothing can happen without time, then our universe is a paradox." this still trumps anything that you say. humans experience time in one direction.... time is finite in duration, it begin to exist...this is what we have, even if you do not like it.

[istheretruth]

if the universe begins to exist, and time is finite (which it absolutely is) then it is not a stretch to propose that such a universe doesn't account for its own existence. this whole, let's pretend that the universe doesn't really have a point of origin, or let's appeal to time lines/ beyond to postulate a universe that begins but doesn't have a start point. when in reality it is not supported by human logic, isn't even established as plausible.

[istheretruth]

there is no reason to believe that cause and effect can happen outside of time, but at the same time there is no reason to believe that a universe could exist with a finite duration. yet this is what we find...the only way to solve this is to propose something that can act outside of our universal time line. I'm not in the game of pretending this or that, but instead I prefer to get to the meat of our actuality.

[manzed]

"the only way to solve this is to propose something that can act outside of our universal time line" how can "something" act with a directed will if the quantum arrow of time is not in favour of a direction ? What we observe in our universe is the spontanious collapse of the quantum states into one that is the most probable., resulting in only one direction of time Again, assuming "goddidit" without telling "how" doesn't answer the question - it just pushes it further.

[istheretruth]

lmao..sorry no offense but a direction in time, this direction, some other direction is an abstract idea at best. so which direction does time move in? it goes from the present to the future from our perspective, and leaves a trail that we call the past...what if the arrow would have pointed in your proposed by deduction "other direction" would we die first before we are born?.. -continued-

[istheretruth]

or would it had been the same as we experience now? what you propose really doesn't address what I have said. and it doesn't answer anything either.

[istheretruth]

"assuming "goddidit" without telling "how" doesn't answer the question" for the record, I don't claim to know that "goddidit" as you seem to pull out of your ass. Do you always use stereotypes, in defense of your position...... has it been effective for you? because I have to be honest, im not very impressed with it. Would it be that hard to ask someone exactly what it is that they believe before you just assume?

[istheretruth]

actually I show that none of them prove that gods nonexistence is a fact.....why do you need to strengthen a fact? sounds a little silly, don't you think

[civwarfan]

God cannot be both omnipresent and transcendent. Period. Therefore your definition of "God" is flawed or God does not exist.

[istheretruth]

I didn't define god as omnipresent, so there goes that argument. I really don't know if the word omni has a real meaning in reality. I simply defined god as the original conscious arbiter that causes the universe to exist.. does it need to be omni anything to have control of the universe? likely all it needs is infinite duration, enough power to begin the universe, and enough to end it to have control of a finite universe.

[Dhorpatan]

How did I stick my foot in my mouth chief?

[istheretruth]

yeah...I've got that video coming

[massspectrician]

If god does exist, we don't detect him/her/it in any conventional sense of naturalistic observations.

While it is errant to say outright that he does not exist, the burden of proof lies on those who assert that he does; not those who provide skepticism.

Being that god hasn't been detected reproducibly, in any way, I would argue the parsimonious position that god either does nothing definitively or does not exist. That is to say, at least until I am shown to be wrong through empiricism.

[istheretruth]

"Being that god hasn't been detected reproducibly" do you know this as fact or are you saying that we have not discerned such?

"I would argue the parsimonious position that god either does nothing definitively or does not exist" and this is a declaration from ignorance as well. Do you even have "god evidence" in mind here. Specifically, what would you say that a great piece of god evidence would look like?

[massspectrician]

Reproducible God evidence:

1. Manifestations through prayers that request such. (Result - not conclusive)

2. Prayer requests for tangible improbable outcomes. For example I pray for god to turn the result of a dice roll to 6 for the next 100 rolls, and then it is observed, and is reproduced over and over. (Must control experiment).

I could go on.

Quoting my above statement and simply calling it a declaration from ignorance seems contrived at best.

[istheretruth]

ok so let me get this straight...a god that systematically grants wishes so that we can see the results and study them, a god that makes the dice fall the same way every time? so basically a universal prayer granting machine that does tricks for us humans? do you find any thing wrong with this view?

[massspectrician]

Of course there are problems with it. Whenever we try to comment on the supernatural we end up with massive logical lapses. I focused on prayer as this is often the avenue that theists take when they claim to 'know god'. I am not sure what manifestation they receive from god to end up with anything that resembles 'knowledge' but that is why I focus on this aspect. As I never was convinced that god exists, as a young child, through prayer, I feel that I have satisfactorily falsified this claim.

[istheretruth]

"I feel that I have satisfactorily falsified this claim." I think that you did too...provided the claim was that a universal prayer granting machine that does tricks exists, unfortunately you didn't falsify a god that acts, not by necessity but by sovereign will and arbitration ;-)

[massspectrician]

The claim I feel I have falsified regards the statement: "prayer leads you to 'know god'". I am making no comment on god's existence, here, only on the futility of prayer.

If god acts, then what is it that he does? Is there evidence that shows that anything is done at god's will.

I think that whenever god is described the language always involves taking someone's word for it. As a naturalist, I remain totally skeptical of snake-oil salesmen who seem to do little more than peddle easy answers.

[massspectrician]

On Logic:

An attempt to establish the truth value of the hypothesis, 'God exists'.

Step One, form the null hypothesis, 'God does not exist'.

We must now show that the null hypothesis is false. Can we conclusively do this? No.

This isn't as it might intuitively appear a defeat of the atheist position, however. It is actually a defeat to the original hypothesis. And we must conclude, as the burden of proof demands, that the truth value of the hypothesis can not be established and is trivial.

[anarchyclayman]

god does not exist.

[istheretruth]

hey...wonderful...thanks for showing us your emotional attachment to the nonexistence of something so far out of your ability to declare that it makes me laugh like a ten year old school girl...hahahahaha thanx for the laugh ;-)

[anarchyclayman]

let me clear this up for you.

your belief in this non existent thing requires that humanity lives in the past, using logic and reason from two thousand years ago.

religious zealotry places outrageous demands on human society. any human that investigates the historical nature of the religions of this world comes to the simple conclusion, that god was invented by men, for men.

you would come to that same conclusion if you would only do some homework.

you fear the imaginary afterlife, don't you?

[istheretruth]

wow....you sure deduced alot of stuff!!! where did you pull it from, your ass?

[anarchyclayman]

you'll find the history section of your library an interesting place to pull your head out of your arse. most libraries have an extensive bible collection as well. once you wipe the shit from your eyes, you should try to read the various versions of religious dogma. when you've done that, give the natural history section a look over. it'll help you understand a lot of things that you used to use 'goddidit' to explain.

[istheretruth]

let me try to unretard you here....I have said nothing about the bible...ONE ASSERTION YANKED FROM YOUR ASS

"I fear the imaginary afterlife" ASSERTION NUMBER TWO pulled out of the ole puppethole...\

Are you sure that you want to discuss this with me, because so far it seems like you do not pay much attention to detail...and I do..So I would likely cyber smack your ass to the ground in any discussion ;-)

[anarchyclayman]

"So I would likely cyber smack your ass to the ground in any discussion ;-)"

fucking ridiculous

where do you get your beliefs? you were born without the dogmas of religion, so you had to be told. the logical conclusion is either you were told and blindly follow or you have read the bible without investigating it. unretard?

please, do some homework and stop insulting people. it only exposes your lack of intelligence.

[istheretruth]

again child...Please back up your assertions of what you say that I think and what I believe. I insult you because up till this point you talk like a moron. Why not engage me on something that I have actually said? or better yet something actually related to the video that you are commenting on?

[RealityBend]

Oh, wow, you found an ignorant person that differs from your belief? I think someone hasn't taken a look at vfx. I can find an ignorant person in any religion. Especially christianity FYI

ATHEIST/DEISM FOREVER the christian god doesn't exist, but one could have created the universe and maybe life. but not humans.

[istheretruth]

wow It's great to listen to an igmo who actually thinks he knows something, and then he feels that he has the knowledge to declare the nonexistence of something in an existence that would swallow his entire intellect and never even taste it. ;-) don't waste my time junior...go do something more in line with a 16 year old mind.

[RealityBend]

Wow, satirical enough? I don't think i have ever encountered a comment with such overwhelming sarcasm! Do you feel like you are bringing up a point when you are referring to me in the third person? because you seem to imply that because of my age i am not knowledgeable in anything at all? (Argumentum ad hominem)

Just because you are arrogant does not give you the right to condescend.

I don't recall you winning any sort of debate, all you have done so far is name call. a fine job indeed!

[istheretruth]

let me clue you in...You have presented no arguments so far. What you have done is come in and pull a bunch of stereo typical assertions out of your ass, having NOTHING to do with anything that I have said... The problem is not your age you say? then what is it? Low IQ, blinding hatred for religion? you tell me.

[RealityBend]

Let me clue you in, I simply posted a comment of my opinion. (which was that you were denouncing atheists by comparing them to a youtube atheist) I was not implying any sort of debate. All i have done is show my opinion. You however, jumped up like a seven year old and name called. "IGMO" was the term. To that extent, you furthered your arrogant childish behavior by stating that someone's thought is objectionable because of its age. Well done.

[NemoUtopian]

this does not seem to do anything to refute Epicurus.saying that god is in the process of eradicating evil fails because it in no way explains A)why he allowed evil to exist in the first place?B)why he is bothering to allow it to exist while he goes through this process?saying that at some future point evil will not exist does nothing to refute the existence of evil and why god would ever permit it.

[istheretruth]

the permitting of evil is not a problem, actually it is the most easy to understand of all of the mysteries that would accompany the idea of god. put a being with the mental ability of a human in an environment, and give them only good choices and no bad choices to make? does this actually make sense to you? I doubt that it does, but you will likely use this for the sake of keeping the god concept exactly where you want it to remain in your mind ;-)

[Largo64]

"put a being with the mental ability of a human in an environment, and give them only good choices and no bad choices to make? does this actually make sense to you? "

Yes. If you are a parent you recognize that your child will be subject to temptation and vulnerable to harm, but that's just the world as it is. But if you had ultimate power would you allow your child to be injured, or tempted? It doesn't take evil or pain to challenge human beings. There is enough to learn to keep us challenged.

[Largo64]

I don't believe you refuted Epicurus.

[istheretruth]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he's not Omnipotent;

Is he able but not willing, then he is malevolent;

Is he both able and willing, then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing, then why call him God? "

I will go through each of these later today, and show you what I am talking about

[istheretruth]

ok, so let's look at the first one

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he's not Omnipotent"

this assumes that the current state of the universe is the standard that god must be judged by, that wouldn't work in the middle if you judged a teacher, by this kind of standard say in the middle of a course, and let's say that one of the students did not know what they should. w

[istheretruth]

would it be proper to say that the teacher was incapable of teaching the student or would it better to wait till the end of the course? but in this way this is going directly after god, in the middle of a finite process for his inability or unwillingness to prevent evil. Do you see what I'm saying? I'll get to the others in a few .....

[Largo64]

The teacher analogy doesn't work because even the best teacher is not omnipotent. But if you make the claim of omnipotence for god, he must either accept or defeat evil. If accepting, maybe not "malevolent" but surely not good. If unable to do anything, then weak. Your timetable doesn't fly because omnipotence isn't constrained by time.

[istheretruth]

"Your timetable doesn't fly because omnipotence isn't constrained by time." maybe it isn't constrained by time, but we still live in a changing finite universe. Why not say, if god were truly omnipotent he wouldn't allow babies to be born, and grow into adults...If he were truly omnipotent they would be adult from the very beginning?

[istheretruth]

Omnipotent means that god is able to do anything that is logically possible for God to do, but for the sake of argument, the biblical god declares that it is indeed not subject to time...but why would that have some kind of bearing on the fact that we are?

[istheretruth]

"is he able but not willing, then he is malevolent;" this is highly speculative when talking about a god who controls the universe, and causes it to exist for a purpose...It assumes that a moral god would create a universe with nothing but good, and nothing but good options. having the ability to do something bad gives a real meaning to doing something good. To me this is the weakest of the assertions in this puzzle.

[Largo64]

"It assumes that a moral god would create a universe with nothing but good, and nothing but good options."

Well, why not? Isn't that what Christians tell us heaven is? That's supposed to be the goal, isn't it? But Isaiah says God created evil. Elsewhere the bible says only God is good. Those two concepts seem contradictory. Malevolence suggests a desire to do harm, but I wouldn't call the god of the bible good.

I know Epicuris wasn't talking about that god but something more generic.

[istheretruth]

-It assumes that a moral god would create a universe with nothing but good, and nothing but good options.-

"Well, why not?"

This displays your belief that we humans desire to live in a universe like this, but you only need to look to the video gaming industry to see we do not seek this kind of reality. A game with no consequences to your actions, would be a video game that would never sell. It is the problems that we have that drive us to learn, agreed?

[Largo64]

Video games are a seeking not for a kind of reality, but of unreality. In video games there are actually no consequences to your actions. You get to die over and over again and come back and play until you figure it out.

[istheretruth]

"You get to die over and over again and come back and play until you figure it out." that's true, but it still doesn't change the fact the game would be meaningless without the boundaries and chance of losing

[Largo64]

Good and evil don't always involve consequences. If a child is born with, say, spinabifida, is that a consequence of something that child did? Or is that just evil? IF there is a super being capable of preventing that and this being chooses not to prevent it, is this being not malevolent, or at least indifferent to the suffering of the child?

[istheretruth]

"If a child is born with, say, spinabifida, is that a consequence of something that child did?"

no, we are all affected by the conditions of biology and life in general. but if we are talking specifically about the biblical god, then we have to consider that physical death is just a transition. to us death is a boundary, but in reality it may not be.

[Largo64]

You may be right, but what has that to do with Epicuris' argument. He was merely working from the definitions of words. If all powerful/then . . . From that perspective Epicuris was correct. The other arguments you present may be philosophically correct, but they don't answer Epicuris. And they don't prove god.

[istheretruth]

It still has not actually been established that a god with the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence

would not be able to allow evil in a finite process while still being willing and able to solve it through a process. This can be said even using the definitions (which are by the most part highly speculative) If there is something like "universal evil" Do you think that humans can definite at this point?

[Largo64]

"able to allow evil in a finite process while still being willing and able to solve it through a process."

I think you are hedging here. If able but willing "through a process." Now you've addressed one part of Epicuris' argument by leaving out another - omnipotence. The point is that with omnipotence no "process" is necessary. What the omnipotent wills simply is.

[istheretruth]

one of the acceptable definitions of omnipotent is= God is able to do anything that is logically possible for God to do. and many xtians, jews and muslims use this definition. And this does not exclude the possibilities of boundaries. So a logical boundary could be that allowing free choice only gives god the possibility of dealing with evil in a finite process.

[istheretruth]

my point has always been that it is not far fetched to think that there may be an existing logic that trumps all, even god.....or indeed this logic may be part of god. either way...this whole boundless idea of god may be nothing more than abstract arbitration.

[Largo64]

"one of the acceptable definitions of omnipotent is= God is able to do anything that is logically possible for God to do."

Acceptable to whom? By definition it is logically possible for the omnipotent to do anything ... period. It absolutely does exclude boundaries. That is what omni means. ALL! That is why, IF there is an omnipotent god, the idea of free will is ridiculous. I do believe we have free will, but only because I do NOT believe in a god. You get the last word. I'm finished with this.

[istheretruth]

finished or not, you are indeed wrong on this one... OMNI means all....that is all that it means, and you have not actually made a case for why all cannot have logical boundaries. I would like to think that it is done in the name of logic, but the actuality says it is done in the name of creating arbitrary paradoxes (and that is done in the name of your dislike for god concepts presented by religions) peace and prosperity ;-)

[Largo64]

"This can be said even using the definitions (which are by the most part highly speculative)"

I think the definition of omnipotent is not speculative, but as absolute as a definition gets. Omnipotent means all powerful. There is no speculation there, nor any limit. Epicuris' whole point was that, since omnipotence can literally do anything, whatever happens is the will of the omnipotent. Then there's the word "if." IF god is omnipotent/then... The speculation is only relative to the absolute.

[istheretruth]

"Is he both able and willing, then whence cometh evil?" if you're going to bring to being a creature like a human, why would you do something as pointless as giving them only good options, and no bad? It seems like a pointless existence to me. So it very well could be that god is able and willing to allow people to choose good or bad.

[Largo64]

"why would you do something as pointless as giving them only good options, and no bad? It seems like a pointless existence to me." If heaven has only good options and no bad, is it pointless? Isn't that what Christians hope and aim for? If there were a heaven without pain, wrong or physical constraints, would it be pointless if the opportunity to acquire knowledge were unlimited? What makes modern lives more satisfying than ancient ones is that we can learn without struggling just to survive.

[istheretruth]

"Isn't that what Christians hope and aim for?"

I agree, but I'm not sure that you will find any biblical declaration that the ability to commit evil will be eradicated in heaven. I must appeal to you on the "It doesn't take evil or pain to challenge human beings." as a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. Problems are what challenge us...bad choices do cause some problems...but I'm saying that good would have no ultimate meaning without bad.

[istheretruth]

So in that sense, memory of the physical universe may give balance and meaning to a much better situation in heaven.

[Largo64]

"I'm saying that good would have no ultimate meaning without bad."

Nor would pleasure be understood without the existence of pain. I agree. But Epicuris was not talking about the intrinsic conditions of life (good/bad, positive/negative) except as they relate to a super being outside ourselves. He was placing conditions on this being, which seems right to me.

[istheretruth]

Epicuris' argument only works with certain presuppositions like.... most importantly, his ability to accurately decide what constitutes evil, what exactly would be the state of a god created universe..... It fails if he misses the mark on these issues. It is completely arbitrary to say god wouldn't do this if he were truly omnipotent when the implications of omnipotent is not truly understood.

[Dhorpatan]

"he were truly omnipotent when the implications of omnipotent is not truly understood"

^%^^Almost all of your rebuttals and

counter-arguments are worthless

arguments from ignorance and uncertainty.

That's one of several reasons why I feel

none of your rebuttals have refuted my

postulations and ability to say

as fact, that God does not exist.

[istheretruth]

my rebuttals show how you that you take concepts beyond human experience, comments by ignorant people...you use this stuff to try and say that a god doesn't exist, as if something that someone says has a bearing on the existence of a first cause conscious arbiter. anyone with half a brain can see the flaws in all of your arguments.

[istheretruth]

"Almost all of your rebuttals and

counter-arguments are worthless

arguments from ignorance and uncertainty."

oh this you missing the real meat of the rebuttal as it is not an argument from ignorance and uncertainty...but instead it is repeatedly demonstrating that your arguments are from ignorance and uncertainty. I told you in the beginning that your "god doesn't exist as fact" was easy to refute....and by golly I was right!!

[istheretruth]

All I had to do was show a reasonable doubt to your arguments...and this best way to do this was to show that all of the terms that you were using were nothing more than abstract arbitration rooted in what we do not know, not what we do know.

[istheretruth]

and furthermore, by saying that god need do this to be omnipotent is self defeating....as you know a truly omnipotent being need not do anything, as you say that it is boundless.....and then a boundary is thrown at this being by arbitration......

[istheretruth]

"Is he neither able nor willing, then why call him God? " absolutely no need in going over that one, as it is all covered in the former.

[Largo64]

I think you are right about the guy's rigid position that a god could not possibly exist. I call myself an atheist, but I do not state flatly that a god is impossible. All I can state is that no irrefutable evidence has been adduced thus far.

[TETSUno1]

Not much of a refute really, is it? I tend to do the same thing when someone does the moving an unmovable object, so I can't really blame you for trying to pass it off as one.

What was the infinities thing, how was it formulated? Was it any good?

[istheretruth]

"moving an unmovable object" is obviously an abstract idea with no real meaning, if an object is truly unmovable, then nothing will move it. the second that something moves the object, it has proven to be movable. where is the real problem here? so what, we humans have the ability to contrive paradoxes, but I doubt that it has any actual relation to reality.

[istheretruth]

as for Dhor's -sim infinities- argument. I have several videos on it. I will put links up later today embedded in this video and in the side section.

[TETSUno1]

Cool, unfortunately "This video is not available in your country." for some unfathomable reason... so it won't really help me much.

Btw, I was going to give my opinion why your refute is kinda weak... but since the video stopped being available, I can't watch it again...

*shrug*

[istheretruth]

I'm watching the video right now

[TETSUno1]

Watching your video? Damn, I still can't see it, nor understand why would it not be available in Finland...

Weird... oh well, I'll catch you next time, especially since Largo64 appears to think pretty much the same way as I do :)

[tmafkap]

You could also say hint at the fact that good and evil are subjective and therefore depend on the perceiver. Like the old paradox of Sokrates: nobody wants to commit evil things, then why are people doing evil? Methinks that paradox is a good answer to old Epikur (who was a lazy sonuffabitch, that's why I like him),

[istheretruth]

yeah, we talked about the relative nature of evil but he maintains that evil is an objective reality among other absurdities that he tries to sell IMO...I'll put it all in the follow up

[DrObswolovitch]

i liked the video (most of it) but the title... why emphasise "atheist"? surely "ignorant" is the key word here? his ignorance is what you were attacking, and indeed i feel it is ignorant of him to make these assumptions, however (i am not saying this is the case merely that it is always a point to consider when dealing with those we deem "ignorant") is it not possible that it is not he who is ignorant but rather that you are ignorant of something which he is not? leading to failure to get his..

[DrObswolovitch]

point?

[istheretruth]

also I emphasized "atheist" because I was targeting atheist viewers ;=)

[istheretruth]

yeah, I got his point very well...which remains that gods nonexistence is a fact.  no misunderstandings

[retepvosnul]

Why not just blog about it? This is silly.

[istheretruth]

ahhhhh, then don't watch the video...thank you so much for your unsolicited comment though ;-0

[unbeliever1000]

Actually the comment was implicitly solicited by the very virtue of posting such a vid with an open comments section.

[retepvosnul]

Do not worry, I didn't.

[DeadSquirrelNet]

I liked the song, it was more interesting than the text. Istheretruth is bringing up the old, old "God Works In Mysterious Ways" argument. Unless he can give some explanation as to why God would want millions to die of starvation and AIDs in Africa and babies to be born with fatal or permanently crippling defects, just claiming that it's all part of God's plan rings a little hollow. We can't prove that no God exists, but the Christian God seems highly unlikely.

[istheretruth]

"the old, old "God Works In Mysterious Ways" argument" ahhh speaking of what you do not have a clue...My argument could be the old "God Works In Mysterious Ways" argument - or the god hides under a rock argument - or god lives in tokyo argument - or god cannot be discerned but god is right in front of us - or god is the arbiter of the universe, from outside of the universe- DOES IT REALLY MATTER,

[istheretruth]

when all I need to do is raise reasonable doubt and show that he does not in fact know that god doesn't exist. I'm not sure you are familiar with our complete discussion, so why not figure out what exactly we are discussing before putting forth an uninformed opinion ;-)

[onotheo]

Anybody claiming that god absolutely doesn't exists is just as ignorant as the one who claims god absolutely exists.

[arlopickens]

I think that song is proof that god doesn't exist.