"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
It's a circular argument mate, look it up. It's used to confuse people, so you can build a straw man off their "ignorance" of the circular argument and appear to be the more informed person.
He didn't offer anything else other than religion, he didn't even come close to how in depth scientific tests can delve. He just jumps to his MO which was clearly primed and ready form his physical posture during half the conversation. He looked like he couldn't wait to try and convert her to his cult.
One could've just said that science took us to the moon! If that's not a clear example of how the scientific method actually works then I don't know what is!
Testing is not the best way to know something.Indeed,deduction is,as we can see in logics and mathematics, which are the only sciences that can not be proven wrong later out of better evidence.In all natural sciences we can gain better evidences in later times,that proof our theories to be wrong.Non the less,testing is a good way in the phenomenal world.
You explain we cannot trust people because they disagree, how does that disprove one or the other? If I know the sun is hot, and someone else says they know it is cold, and we fight over it, it doesn't change the fact that one person is right.
Also you state that the more people there are asking the same question and get the same result, the more confident we can be in the answer. If the world has say a billion people seeking out God and finding him, doesn't that give God some credibility?
Your answer in the end is intersubjective agreement. She doesn't want to admit that there is no objective measure of truth, perhaps afraid hell respond with relativistic ideas. Give science enough time and it will be able to prove things like the external world functions "blah blah blah" and will end the barrier between minds. All reservations about the nature of reality will fade away.
You are a human being... so are you saying I shouldn't believe you?
The fundamental problem with science is that the answer you get depends entirely on the question asked, which initially depended on your original understanding of the problem. Can you see some limitations?
Even Francis Bacon began with the supposition that the God created a rational universe that could be understood.
@jaquinlan It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got. If we can't answer a question using science, then we certainly can't answer it using religion.
The problem with religion is that the answer you get for questions you did or didn't ask, has no validity in relation to your original understanding of the problem.
Limitations? lol the entire modern medical field is based on this process and not only has allowed us to live longer but healed many diseases. The scientific method used to testing is truth because it WORKS. Nothing else works, literally everything else is clearly just assumptions that fail every time.
I think the problem here lies in the word "test". once you go past the explanation of certain terms, only to argue about its implications, some things get lost in translation.
Let us look at what a test actually has to do.
A test is used to confirm a certain idea.
Lets say I think when I drop an apple, it will fall.
Now I can do this once, and conclude this is the truth, or I could do it 100 times and say it's the truth.
I don't think that it is that good a question to be honest. Testing is pretty obviously a good vehicle to the truth. The scientific method outlines the best method we have to be as accurate in what we decide is true and not. The alternative is guessing, and I know which option I perfer. Testing is also a nautural and universally experienced learning method. Babies test their environment by putting things in their mouths and so on. We rely on our learned experiences everyday.
Cats WON'T have a debate about something after what happened to one of them in a box once, but dogs have but never been observed too.
If we do find a book with the answers in it, should we not 1st test the validity of this book? It could be a book written by a sungularity trying too escape from its contructed firewalled room.
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
It's a circular argument mate, look it up. It's used to confuse people, so you can build a straw man off their "ignorance" of the circular argument and appear to be the more informed person.
He didn't offer anything else other than religion, he didn't even come close to how in depth scientific tests can delve. He just jumps to his MO which was clearly primed and ready form his physical posture during half the conversation. He looked like he couldn't wait to try and convert her to his cult.
DjKahle 5 months ago
One could've just said that science took us to the moon! If that's not a clear example of how the scientific method actually works then I don't know what is!
KamasutraButterfly 5 months ago
Testing is not the best way to know something.Indeed,deduction is,as we can see in logics and mathematics, which are the only sciences that can not be proven wrong later out of better evidence.In all natural sciences we can gain better evidences in later times,that proof our theories to be wrong.Non the less,testing is a good way in the phenomenal world.
EwekEmelot 6 months ago
"Truth is stating a mass or energy in its correct time and space" ~deshaebeasley
deshaebeasley 7 months ago
How do we know testing works? How about the computer you are freaking typing on?
MeakerSE 7 months ago
You explain we cannot trust people because they disagree, how does that disprove one or the other? If I know the sun is hot, and someone else says they know it is cold, and we fight over it, it doesn't change the fact that one person is right.
Also you state that the more people there are asking the same question and get the same result, the more confident we can be in the answer. If the world has say a billion people seeking out God and finding him, doesn't that give God some credibility?
curtisarends 9 months ago
I tried to explain this in the video, but I think you nailed much better.
twooffour 11 months ago
i enjoyed your response to this video very much, thank you for posting
503mindst 1 year ago
Your answer in the end is intersubjective agreement. She doesn't want to admit that there is no objective measure of truth, perhaps afraid hell respond with relativistic ideas. Give science enough time and it will be able to prove things like the external world functions "blah blah blah" and will end the barrier between minds. All reservations about the nature of reality will fade away.
beenz07 1 year ago
You are a human being... so are you saying I shouldn't believe you?
The fundamental problem with science is that the answer you get depends entirely on the question asked, which initially depended on your original understanding of the problem. Can you see some limitations?
Even Francis Bacon began with the supposition that the God created a rational universe that could be understood.
jaquinlan 1 year ago
@jaquinlan "You are a human being... so are you saying I shouldn't believe you?"
That's what I'm saying.
rocketmagnet 1 year ago
@rocketmagnet hmmm... So I guess I should believe humans beings because I shouldn't believe that I shouldn't believe humans beings?
All I'm trying to say is that truth can be found outside of the scientific method - it's a great method, but it's not perfect or all-encompassing.
jaquinlan 1 year ago
@jaquinlan It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got. If we can't answer a question using science, then we certainly can't answer it using religion.
rocketmagnet 1 year ago
@jaquinlan
The problem with religion is that the answer you get for questions you did or didn't ask, has no validity in relation to your original understanding of the problem.
twooffour 11 months ago
@jaquinlan
Limitations? lol the entire modern medical field is based on this process and not only has allowed us to live longer but healed many diseases. The scientific method used to testing is truth because it WORKS. Nothing else works, literally everything else is clearly just assumptions that fail every time.
LambdaQuarks 9 months ago
I think the problem here lies in the word "test". once you go past the explanation of certain terms, only to argue about its implications, some things get lost in translation.
Let us look at what a test actually has to do.
A test is used to confirm a certain idea.
Lets say I think when I drop an apple, it will fall.
Now I can do this once, and conclude this is the truth, or I could do it 100 times and say it's the truth.
"see post above"
pklukepk 1 year ago
I don't think that it is that good a question to be honest. Testing is pretty obviously a good vehicle to the truth. The scientific method outlines the best method we have to be as accurate in what we decide is true and not. The alternative is guessing, and I know which option I perfer. Testing is also a nautural and universally experienced learning method. Babies test their environment by putting things in their mouths and so on. We rely on our learned experiences everyday.
guerrillaroach 1 year ago
Thank you for this honest video. You are basically saying that testing is better than arguing with people :-) I am of the same opinion!
However, I do think, when approaching metaphysical questions, we need a more holistic approach than merely observing materialistic phenomena.
ReturningAndRest 2 years ago
Cats WON'T have a debate about something after what happened to one of them in a box once, but dogs have but never been observed too.
If we do find a book with the answers in it, should we not 1st test the validity of this book? It could be a book written by a sungularity trying too escape from its contructed firewalled room.
nexus6pris 2 years ago
Thanks!
rocketmagnet 2 years ago
That was a very interesting question and a really great response! Thanks for your ideas! :)
Omega5001x 2 years ago
Her answers and mannerisms seemed suspicious to me, as if she was acting. I looked through his other vids, and they ALL have this feature in common.
h8uall66 2 years ago
I didn't get that impression.
rocketmagnet 2 years ago
i suspect that he asks a lot of people these questions and only posts the videos of the awkward people who didn't pwn him.
yetidetective 2 years ago