Ben Stein, famous for playing the worst actor in a Matthew Broderick film and Eyedrops commercials, now tackling evolution because he found nobody bought Clear Eyes and Viacom decided they wanted to focus on reality T.V. instead of Cartoons, so Ben squabbled around to search for the one group so desperate for famous people they would even accept Darren Ewing, The Discovery Institute, which is famous for constantly confusing me with the Discovery Channel even though it's a polar opposite.
Bullshit. If you watch the interview with Ben Stein you can tell by Dawkins demeanor and ton that he entertained the idea. He even said it's an "intriguing" possibility.
I'm not saying this because i think it will give some validity to my case if Dawkins were a closet theist. The point is that Dawkins harbors "religious" or mystical ideas.
Years ago i had said, when Dawkins lays his head on his pillow at night he experiences the mental schism that all knowledgeable people have.
Almost every creationist has seen the Expelled documentary, and I'll bet good money that less than 100 creationists have actually let Richard Dawkins explain himself before ridiculing him in front of their fellow creationists. Every time I argue with a creationist, they bring up the Expelled documentary, and that makes it quite clear to me that they never even attempted to hear the other side of the story.
Oh, how condescending is Richard by accomodating to ID IT seems like Richard is lately too condescending with everything that suggests a Creator, be it the anthropic principle or ID. Or is it just plain lack of argumentation and logic?
I'm sorry, Richard. You're the one who does not get it. ID is about whether or not design of any sort is detectable in biology. If you think ID is a completely illegitimate form of inquiry, your answer to Stein's question should have been, "It's not possible." As long as you even suggest that to be possible in anyway, you concede that it's a legitimate pursuit. What you call "extending an olive branch" was really conceding the legitimacy of ID inquiry.
I don't believe in ghosts, but there are people who do believe in ghosts.I suppose there could be some sort of soul or something, but we've never had any evidence what-so-ever of a soul. Therefore I concede that ghost hunting is a legitimate pursuit. I think that's a good analogy.
@BlameRepublicans There are plenty of people who vote republican for serious and legitimate reasons. I'm a geologist and an atheist/agnostic by the way. I also help run a small business. Republicans are generally more business/investment-friendly. My problem with many of them is their aversion to science books, but they're not worthless.
@2:40 y does he need 2 ask? cuz he's a mindless moron who's not listenin 2 u as u speak, he's just blockin out the meanin o ur words so it doesn't question his worldview, ech I hate christian apologetics
Dawkins leading researcher in biology ..Stein out of work actor ..sooo who are you going to listen to on the matter of biology the study of life .....
I always thought "Take Ben Stein's money" was a good show. But those questions about the Hindu or Moslem (who says it like that?) God were dumb... unless you look at it as Stein trying to appeal to an audience of people who are probably afraid of atheists.
Is Ben Stein actually serious about defending intelligent design, or is this some really drawn out publicity campaign? Sometimes it is hard to tell. Ben Stein is a quote mining clown.
All anyone has to keep in mind about Ben Stein is that he's a voiceover actor in children's cartoons. He's not a scientist or a researcher or a politician or a policymaker. He's an actor.
There's no reason to take him any more seriously than any other actor.
Ben Stein's lingering pronunciations were funny in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but now, considering his misguided stance on this issue, his drawn-out vowel sounds, such as in the word "design" just make him sound so smarmy and condescending.
Poor Ben is in so far over his head that all he can do is revert to absolute nonsensical rhetorical tricks. He has always considered himself to be extremely intelligent, but here he is confronted with an intellect that is so superior to his that he doesn't even understand the difference.
Ben Stein is a perfect example of the type of zionist rhetoric which holds the entire civilized world hostage to the reactionary muslim world. Oye vay!!!!!!
reading about me repeating the claims made by the scientific consensus must be boring, but reading that you believe in unicorns and in literal interpretations of the bible is so funny.
by "everyone" you mean the aids denialists, the creationists, the uneducated, the unqualified, the IDiots, the crazy, the morons who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible...
a philosophical argument in order to be valid requires empirical validation. without it the "philosophical argument" is equal to a child's claim that fairies live at the end of the garden just because the child says so.
reality has ALL to do with empirical evidence, dumbfuck.
philosophy is one thing, science is another. there's a philosophy of science, btw.
i understand perfectly the difference between reality and fantasy, you don't.
@MrSeymourButtz I may continue to interact with this idiot simply to provide Eternalskeptic with additional material. I noticed he used one of tranny's comment
you are to dumb to interact with anything as an adult. you are a toy. i play with your stupidity.
when you finaly figure out where's the evidence for a finite universe or a god, feel free to present it. the ENTIRE worldwide scientific community awaits for you to present that astonishing pieces of evidence that you are holding back! LOL
HAR HAR HAR Dawkins was really bending over backwards. HAR HAR HAR Here he is trying to bullshit his way out of it. HAR HAR HAR He got caught with his pants down. OH the quote mining!!!! HAR HAR HAR
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. The Descent of Man (1871) p.201"
The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time … so Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated”.
David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History"
"The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be …. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much.
@FSApetheist From the same book you quotemined and purposefully took out of context:
"Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."
Quit quote mining and confusing two different arguments of David Raup
"There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works"
does not contradict
."The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be"
"Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change..."
the record of evolution is quite good and there are trillions of examples for evolutionary transition (whatever that means in your uneducated language).
so...yes, do try again.
the evidence we find in the geological record is compatible with natural selection model. fail again.
why do you persist in presenting anedoctal claims? are you mentally challenged?
Also, both The Moral Argument and the The Argument from Religious Experience, can be laughed at and dismissed outright, so cross them off your list. I'm surprised you added them actually. It leads me to believe you just collected a list of known arguments without thinking about any of them.
@Sinnessa Don't think that you will get off so easy as that. These arguments have been around a long time, so there is more to them than can be so easily "laughed at and dismissed outright." You will have to do better than that!
@TruthWatch Who cares how old they are? I don't have to do better. If you want me to take something seriously, you have to convince me - its as simple as that. You still have all the work to do.
your arguments have been debunked a LOOONG time ago. the ONLY idiots who repeat them are morons like Craig, and the ONLY retards to buy them are complete uneducated fools like yourself. it sells books.
the same crap happens with homeopathy or "power bands", it's an exploration of uneducated ignorant fucks like you giving money to intelectually dishonest pricks, like craig.
@TruthWatch all of your "rational" arguments have known logical inconsistencies. None of them are particularly rational, and none of them are proof. You're pretty good at this ad hominem game, though - a pity that you're still factually incorrect.
@TruthWatch Michael Behe? Really? The man who got his Ph.D. solely to promote a Creationist agenda, and whose work at undermining evolution is repeatedly refuted by verifiable sources? That's who you're holding up as a scientist? Your "truth" is delusion.
@pillowcaselaw Gosh. I guess the University of Pennsylvania got duped when Behe wrote his doctoral dissertation on sickle cell disease, cause according to you he was just faking it so he could be a creationist! Add that to the fact that Richard Dawkins of all peope said that Behe is a creationist (even though he accepts the common descent of humans and other primates) How could we disagree with Dawkins? He is the Atheist Messiah after all.
Behe's papers aren't all bad. when you appeals to ignorance by presenting a baseless claim like IC, yes, he is a dumb retard.
Behe is a dumb cretard. he already had to admit in court he is full of shit regarding IC or ID, read Dover trial notes.
I disagree with some of the Hypothesis presented by Dawkins, not when he states FACTS. that you cleary are SO FUCKING DUMB, that you can't understand them. like evolution.
@transtlantic So once again, he is okay as long as nothing he says conflicts with
something you are philosophically committed to. I feel sorry for anyone who must deal with you on a daily basis, since you no doubt act as immaturely in person as you do here.
obviously something is not ok when it is baseless assertions. it is not a matter of conflict with me personally, it's a matter of a conflict with reality itself. as in reality...IC does not exist in nature.
i think you completely ignore how science works, or any epistemological method that allows validation of claims.
@TruthWatch That's actually verifiably false. Look up the Wedge Strategy on Wikipedia - read that and tell me ID isn't inherently a Christian movement at its core again. Go for it. That's from the founders of ID, admitting that ID is Christian Creationism. For someone called "TruthWatch", well...I'll just leave that there.
@TruthWatch The truth is not in you. You're a liar, ignorant, or both. Either way, your statements here are worthless as they are provably false - and I encourage anyone with half a brain to go read the proof.
@pillowcaselaw Having a bad day? Please tell me you would not make such a fool of yourself on a good day! LOL! If I'm so worthless then you are an idiot for taking your time to post here.
@TruthWatch Yeah, I haven't made a fool of myself. ID is the creation of the people behind Creation Science, and is simply Creation Science with the word "God" removed. It's meant as a beginning point to undermine evolution in the classroom in order to attempt to revitalize Creation Science. You'd know this if you read the Wedge Strategy. Since you obviously haven't, your opinion is meaningless.
@pillowcaselaw Well if my opinion is meaningless it argues even more for you
wasting your time responding to anything I say, doesn't it? Thank you for proving my point so perfectly.
There is nothing wrong with having a philosophical basis upon which to view the world. The theory of evolution has a philosophical foundation in materilaism.
If you say that one must automatically prefer materialism to non-materialism in order to good science, then you reveal your own bias.
@TruthWatch Bar shifting at its finest. That's not the point I made at all, now is it? No, no in fact it is not. It is the provable fact that Intelligent Design is, at its core, Christian Creationism. Though one should rightly question any "science" that relies on immeasurable claims and emotional pleas rather than provable fact.
@pillowcaselaw Just checking to see of there was another objection waiting behind the charge that ID is just creationism. If the Christian wordlview is not the problem (or is it?) Then the next specious charge is "its not real science". You follow the talking points admirably. So which proponents of ID rely on immeasurable claims or emotional appeal? Be careful not to confuse scientists like Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe with philosophers like Alvin Plantiga or William Craig.
Dawkins used the sequential logic to show Stein the fallacy in ID-alien theory which still leaves the premise that the alien form must have come to existence through some natural process bounded by the physics of the universe. Stein immediately forgoes such statement and attempts to tie the life form creation to the unverifiable God of monolithic religions.
Intelligence? Stein got none. Factoid? He lives off of it.
@TruthWatch Er, not quite. Not even remotely. All he's stating is that even if you accept Intelligent Design as true, it does not necessarily imply the Christian God. Better yet, he points out that the "First Cause" argument is fallacious in that it draws a line in the sand that is unsupported by anything but argument from incredulity.
@pillowcaselaw So you make the case for intelligent design, since those who propose it do not say that the Christian God is implicit. Funny that people like Dawkins say that ID is just Christian Creastionism in disguise, but he himself
show that there is no assume this. Dawkins just hates the idea of ID so much that he becomes illogical in trying to discredit it. Thank you for pointing that out.
@Sinnessa Sorry if you are unable to articulate just in what way you think I have not gotten the point. I obviouisly disagree with Dawkins, so what specifically makes you think I am wrong? Let's start there, there might be some hope for you yet.
@TruthWatch You're an arrogant little prick, and it makes my skin crawl to converse with you, and there is probably no hope for you, but lets try anyway.
For a start, you jumped to the wild conclusion that Dawkins hates the idea of ID so much that he is illogical in trying to discredit it. This is a typical fallacy, trying to discredit the person rather than address the actual arguments presented.
You have no logical train of thought here. How have you managed to get to this point?
@Sinnessa My conclusion is hardly wild. It is based on many videos and debates in which Richard Dawkins uses lame arguments. many of which are not logically sound. But this is completely separate from my opinion that Dawkins is a pretentious
@Sinnessa One that jumps out is Dawkins contention that all people who believe in God are delusional. Science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God either way, so belief is no more irrational than non-belief. Each can be justified through rational argument and appeal to inferential evidence.
@Sinnessa Can I prove God exists? Depends on what the person I'm making the case to demands as evidence. There are a number of rational arguments that can be made for existence of God, so the belief itself is not inherently irrational just because you say it is. Therfore your contention that belief in God is delusional fails. So it is not surpirising that you would find this contention of Dawkins to be acceptable. Its straighforwardness has no bearing on whether it is
@Sinnessa You asked for a rational argument for God. I gave you 8. Now you move the goal posts. Give me a rational argument for ANYTHING that does not begin with an assumption of some sort. So I have established that the belief in God is not irrational, therefore it is not delusional. If you are not prepared for a serious discussion about this subject then stop wasting my time.
@TruthWatch What do you care about a serious discussion? You can't even fucking read. Moving the goalposts? Don't make me laugh. The whole point was about proof, the reason I asked is about proof, and you'll never be able to offer proof, will you?
I'm not about to go around in circles with you. I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.
@TruthWatch Just because you don't use profanities, doesn't mean you're not throwing insults out, you silly religious bimbo. Go pray to your desert spectre, lonely boy.
@TruthWatch No no no, you can't turn it around and pretend its me dodging. It was YOU making silly statements and me asking you to back them up. Thats pretty much the 'discussion' in a nutshell. You can't just flip it around and think nobody will notice.
I asked you to demonstrate Dawkins faulty logic - you didn't.
I asked you to demonstrate your god - you didn't.
What exactly was I supposed to offer 'rational justification' for?
@TruthWatch Ok, forgetting the silly shit you said about Dawkins, because I can't even be bothered to argue with you about it. You didn't come through with anything. Dead end there.
The cosmological argument. Assuming you didn't just parrot a list of whatever arguments you could find at short notice and were hoping it would pass muster and shut people up - what are your thoughts on this argument?
@Sinnessa So if you were not going to argue the point, why bring it up?
Just wanted to have the last word on the topic?
Whatever.
The kalam version of the cosmological argument seems plausible.
The Big Bang cosmology tells us that the universe had a beginning at a particular
point in the finite past. This resonates with the Christian doctrine of creation, which essentially says the same thing. I'm assuming that YOU have some thoughts about it as well.
@TruthWatch The kalem argument eats itself. Its not even an argument for god, its an argument that the universe had a cause, a cause which cant be god by its own analysis. In order to consider the argument at all, we have to assume there can be no such thing as infinity. Assuming infinity cannot exist, how can an infinite god exist? Since the argument declares that there can be no infinity, it removes the Christian god from the equation outright, who is supposed to be infinite in many things.
@Sinnessa Your analysis fails because it confuses the mathmatical(quanitative) concept of infinity with the qualitative concept of infinity which Christians apply to God.
God's omniscience is not a mathmatical infinity but the quality of knowing all that is knowable. Despite being a very large number, the number of knowable things is finite, not infinite. I will explain how this concept applies to the other qualities of God
@TruthWatch Yeah, I get the idea, and I knew you'd parrot it. Special pleading at its best. You want a super-special type of infinity that applies only to your god, a type of infinity you have yet to prove, but the rest of the universe we work with is, apparantly, impossible to be infinite.
We are back to square one. I will not take for granted that your god is infinite. Show me evidence or an argument that proves your infinite god exists, BEFORE we continue with the kalem argument.
@TruthWatch No, its not a 'straw man'. This is philosophy 101.
How can an infinite universe have a beginning? Just because it doesnt specifically say the word 'infinity' does not mean it isnt a key component of the argument.
You should know this. You're the one who brought the argument up.
@Sinnessa I am not saying the universe is infinite. The Kalam argument does not say the universe is infinite. You don't get to use the concept of infinity to refute the Kalam argument. You cannot simply assert that infinity is an intergral part of the Kalam without demonstrating HOW. Which part of the argument requires infinity to be logically coherant? If the universe has a beginning, it is finite QED!
If you are saying the universe has no beginning and is therefore infinite then you
are mistating the kalam argument as well as denying what science tells is is true about the universe. The assertion that the universe could be infinite is merely unfounded speculation. Even then a multiverse would still have a beginning and therefore be finite. Either way you fail.
3. "You're using *outdated* arguments with glaring flaws and still fancy yourself as a bit of a philosopher" Do us the grand favor of demonstrating those "glaring" flaws
if they are as obvious as you say it should be easy.
4."Science never claims to know either way if the universe has a beginning or a cause" Fine by me if you want to deny that science has told us about the beginning of the universe, but you'll have to back it up with a cogent argument and some EVIDENCE.
@transtlantic The qualities of God which are often referred by lazy and imprecise thinkers as "INFINITE" are His omniscience and His omnipotence. Neither of these are mathematical in nature. Unless one has a way to measure God's knowledge or power, mathmatics will never enter the discussion. To know all knowable things is to know a finite set of things, no matter how high the number.
My assumptionis justified.
To be omnipotent one need only have as much power as one needs.
@TruthWatch As long as you understand it is just that: an assumption, and not based in any actual reality, with no evidence to back it up with. And nobody else here will let you just assume and think your work is done. You are right now on the edge of using circular logic, and that isnt where you want to be.
So don't get too cocky yet. You've still got all the work ahead of you.
@Sinnessa So far all of your attempts to refute the kalam argument have only been smoke and mirrors, you have not even addressed the argument itself. If you cannot do better than this, I doubt you will ever pass philosophy 101.
@TruthWatch "So far all of your attempts to refute the kalam argument have only been smoke and mirrors,"
How can I refute it? I'm still spoon feeding you your own argument, darling. You're having trouble understanding the basic premises. We'll never get around to anything if you can't even understand the first line of the argument and what it is implying. At this point, I'm starting to think you only just recently discovered the argument on google and are winging it.
It says exactly the opposite of what you say it does. Therefore your question is either disingenous or incredibly inept. Your vague reference to a multiverse and "transcendental infinity" besides smelling like bovine excretion is a begging the question at a colossal level.
So either throw in the towel complaining that I never answered your question or pull your head out your ass and get in the game.
@TruthWatch I didn't say that, you bimbo. I never said the Kalem argument says the universe is infinite, I said the Kalem argument suggests the universe is FINITE, as in NOT INFINITE, the opposite of infinite. It implies that an infinite universe cannot exist. This is what I as trying to tell you hen I said: "Since the argument declares that there can be no infinity" remember?
Don't tell me we've been arguing just because of something you misread.
@Sinnessa Well we agree then. I never said the universe was infinite, the kalam said that it could not be. You WERE trying to say that the concept of an "infinite" God was a contradiction which was a problem for the kalam. I pointed out that the concepts associated with infinity when applied to God were not the same sort mathematical infinity that the kalam sub set refutes. That is why I went to such pains to clarify the Christian concept of God. If I missed the word "not" you missed paragraphs.
brilliant video
msjessypp 5 days ago
i could care less of what dawkins has to say..he speaks rubbish
zachariahm10 1 week ago
Ben Stein, famous for playing the worst actor in a Matthew Broderick film and Eyedrops commercials, now tackling evolution because he found nobody bought Clear Eyes and Viacom decided they wanted to focus on reality T.V. instead of Cartoons, so Ben squabbled around to search for the one group so desperate for famous people they would even accept Darren Ewing, The Discovery Institute, which is famous for constantly confusing me with the Discovery Channel even though it's a polar opposite.
TheBlitMaster 2 weeks ago
Dawkins is talking about panspermia. Ben Stein is inferring a supernatural designer and conflating the two things.
MrMonkeyInk 1 month ago
Ben Stein is an idiot
Johnandvanessa 2 months ago
ahhhhhh ben stein voiced the goofy mask professor in the animated series of the mask. I thought I knew his voice. Still, he's an idiot
wHisperis001 2 months ago
Bullshit. If you watch the interview with Ben Stein you can tell by Dawkins demeanor and ton that he entertained the idea. He even said it's an "intriguing" possibility.
I'm not saying this because i think it will give some validity to my case if Dawkins were a closet theist. The point is that Dawkins harbors "religious" or mystical ideas.
Years ago i had said, when Dawkins lays his head on his pillow at night he experiences the mental schism that all knowledgeable people have.
knowwaie 3 months ago
Almost every creationist has seen the Expelled documentary, and I'll bet good money that less than 100 creationists have actually let Richard Dawkins explain himself before ridiculing him in front of their fellow creationists. Every time I argue with a creationist, they bring up the Expelled documentary, and that makes it quite clear to me that they never even attempted to hear the other side of the story.
Weraisethenerdyflag 4 months ago
Intelligent design DESERVES condescension. Really it deserves to be ignored altogether.
dkthg 4 months ago
Oh, how condescending is Richard by accomodating to ID IT seems like Richard is lately too condescending with everything that suggests a Creator, be it the anthropic principle or ID. Or is it just plain lack of argumentation and logic?
raponte1955 4 months ago
Ben stein: Wooooooooowwww
RunfromtheHeathen 5 months ago
Dawkins rules in logic!
Olderwiserlesbian 5 months ago
I'm sorry, Richard. You're the one who does not get it. ID is about whether or not design of any sort is detectable in biology. If you think ID is a completely illegitimate form of inquiry, your answer to Stein's question should have been, "It's not possible." As long as you even suggest that to be possible in anyway, you concede that it's a legitimate pursuit. What you call "extending an olive branch" was really conceding the legitimacy of ID inquiry.
No quote mine.
MissingChurchill 5 months ago
@MissingChurchill
I don't believe in ghosts, but there are people who do believe in ghosts.I suppose there could be some sort of soul or something, but we've never had any evidence what-so-ever of a soul. Therefore I concede that ghost hunting is a legitimate pursuit. I think that's a good analogy.
yillow1 4 months ago
now, when was the last time Dawkin's opponents were willing to 'accomodate' something they did not believe in ?
StarSpawn06 5 months ago
reasoning with a christian is like asking the wife for a portion of her wages for house keeping.
trailerfitter2 7 months ago
i like the subtle capitalised D :)
l0rd0f0blivi0n 7 months ago
Stein is a Republican. That makes him worthless.
BlameRepublicans 7 months ago 5
@BlameRepublicans There are plenty of people who vote republican for serious and legitimate reasons. I'm a geologist and an atheist/agnostic by the way. I also help run a small business. Republicans are generally more business/investment-friendly. My problem with many of them is their aversion to science books, but they're not worthless.
jbass02 6 months ago
@2:40 y does he need 2 ask? cuz he's a mindless moron who's not listenin 2 u as u speak, he's just blockin out the meanin o ur words so it doesn't question his worldview, ech I hate christian apologetics
cruelbusiness1984 7 months ago
im a sorta peaceful dude but i would readily and happily punsh ben stein in the face ahahahah
managarm1349 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The moral of the story is; Don't be nice to creatards.
TheSkunkCat 7 months ago
Dawkins leading researcher in biology ..Stein out of work actor ..sooo who are you going to listen to on the matter of biology the study of life .....
crackthecorn 8 months ago 6
@crackthecorn Obviously the famous guy, herp, derp.
verevie 7 months ago
@verevie they are both famous ..stein is only really famous in the states and a B rank celebrity at best ..Dawkins is known world wide
crackthecorn 7 months ago
I have lost all respect for Ben Stein.
MrJIMMY3009 8 months ago 5
@MrJIMMY3009 I like that he got hissed when introduced.
GoblinXXX 8 months ago
I always thought "Take Ben Stein's money" was a good show. But those questions about the Hindu or Moslem (who says it like that?) God were dumb... unless you look at it as Stein trying to appeal to an audience of people who are probably afraid of atheists.
GoOrange0711 8 months ago
Is Ben Stein actually serious about defending intelligent design, or is this some really drawn out publicity campaign? Sometimes it is hard to tell. Ben Stein is a quote mining clown.
Emaniac69 9 months ago
Stein is slimey little rat. He needs a beating.
Primordialfan1 9 months ago 7
Stein is a moron.
1955JAFO 9 months ago 7
All anyone has to keep in mind about Ben Stein is that he's a voiceover actor in children's cartoons. He's not a scientist or a researcher or a politician or a policymaker. He's an actor.
There's no reason to take him any more seriously than any other actor.
SnarkLicker 10 months ago 6
@MrSeymourButtz Stop feeding the trolls.
TGAPOO 10 months ago 2
Ben Stein is so out of his league and the funny part about it is he does not even have a clue.!!!
21shasiti 10 months ago 2
Ben Stein's lingering pronunciations were funny in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but now, considering his misguided stance on this issue, his drawn-out vowel sounds, such as in the word "design" just make him sound so smarmy and condescending.
Ghorghinahn 11 months ago 38
"Christan's wallow in denial and call it virtue whilst delighting in ignorance and calling it faith."
scotttebben 7 months ago 8
Ben Stein is a little bitch
alstar999 11 months ago 5
Poor Ben is in so far over his head that all he can do is revert to absolute nonsensical rhetorical tricks. He has always considered himself to be extremely intelligent, but here he is confronted with an intellect that is so superior to his that he doesn't even understand the difference.
hrugga36 11 months ago 5
Ben Stein is an idiot
MountArarat7 1 year ago 95
@MountArarat7 HOW DARE YOU INSULT IDIOTS?!!!
GADGETRONsc 4 months ago
Ben Stein is a perfect example of the type of zionist rhetoric which holds the entire civilized world hostage to the reactionary muslim world. Oye vay!!!!!!
somethingdiffereable 1 year ago 2
@MrSeymourButtz
watch?v=HPpLHLlKN3s
reading about me repeating the claims made by the scientific consensus must be boring, but reading that you believe in unicorns and in literal interpretations of the bible is so funny.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz Of course he won't answer. He's been on this video.... *BIG NEWS!* Yes, I have AIDS. No, it's not a joke.
playing invent-a-number. He doesn't like being caught talking out of his ass.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
watch?v=HPpLHLlKN3s
nah...laughing at your crazyness if funnier. only morons believe in biblical bullshit.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
watch?v=HPpLHLlKN3s
i like this one more. it shows how fucking retarded you are. you believe in unicorns and prayer healing...LOL
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
watch?v=HPpLHLlKN3s
does make sense in showing how damn cray you are.
"Prayer healing"... lol.... no wonder things like the Dover trial are easy wins for science.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic what does "cray" mean?
DancinFool3456 1 year ago
@DancinFool3456
try guess what "lean to ead", mean.
transtlantic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transtlantic I know what it means. It means you are a moron who can't spell.
DancinFool3456 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
can you prove the existence of anything solely by using philosophy?
your answer no doubt will prove that you are projecting your ignorance about the difference between science and philosophy.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
watch?v=HPpLHLlKN3s
prayer healing? LOLOL
bigusdikus0 you are hilarious! LOLOL
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
you proved what? that you are a brainless fuck who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible? yes.
yes, i am a resident doctor.
unemployed? lol... there you go projecting your useless life again.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
where is one single atheist that disagrees with me?
transtlantic 1 year ago
watch?v=HPpLHLlKN3s
shows how fucking crazy you are.
"power healing"? LOL
moron.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
by "everyone" you mean: creationist fucks who believe in literal interpretations of the bible...
poor me! HA HA HA
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
ofc i know the difference between philosophy and science as i've shown clearly with my examples that you were incapable of counter arguing.
you are an uneducated brainless jobless fuck.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
you clearly ignore what philosophy is and what science is
i already asked you how you prove that a premise is true, but up till now you keep dodging the question.
it's obvious that you are brainless, spineless...just uneducated, dumb and ignorant of basic knowledge.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
watch?v=HPpLHLlKN3s
shows how damn crazy people like you are.
by "everyone" you mean the aids denialists, the creationists, the uneducated, the unqualified, the IDiots, the crazy, the morons who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible...
poor me!
LOLOLOL
moron.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
a philosophical argument in order to be valid requires empirical validation. without it the "philosophical argument" is equal to a child's claim that fairies live at the end of the garden just because the child says so.
reality has ALL to do with empirical evidence, dumbfuck.
philosophy is one thing, science is another. there's a philosophy of science, btw.
i understand perfectly the difference between reality and fantasy, you don't.
moron.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz
you mean this vid?
watch?v=HPpLHLlKN3s
transtlantic 1 year ago
@MrSeymourButtz I may continue to interact with this idiot simply to provide Eternalskeptic with additional material. I noticed he used one of tranny's comment
to me in the recent video.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
you are to dumb to interact with anything as an adult. you are a toy. i play with your stupidity.
when you finaly figure out where's the evidence for a finite universe or a god, feel free to present it. the ENTIRE worldwide scientific community awaits for you to present that astonishing pieces of evidence that you are holding back! LOL
transtlantic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Duped? HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
Embarrassing isn't it Dickie Boy?
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
retard...where's my single example of design?
transtlantic 1 year ago
HAR HAR HAR Dawkins was really bending over backwards. HAR HAR HAR Here he is trying to bullshit his way out of it. HAR HAR HAR He got caught with his pants down. OH the quote mining!!!! HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius I see you're trying to be funny.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa
the sad part is that he isn't. madmax really is as insane as he appears to be.
transtlantic 1 year ago
Comment removed
DancinFool3456 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. The Descent of Man (1871) p.201"
Evolutionary Racism of Charles Darwin.
FSApetheist 1 year ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 1 year ago
The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time … so Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated”.
David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History"
I love it so
FSApetheist 1 year ago
"The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be …. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much.
FSApetheist 1 year ago
@FSApetheist From the same book you quotemined and purposefully took out of context:
"Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."
~ David Raup
Sinnessa 1 year ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 1 year ago
@Sinnessa
Quit quote mining and confusing two different arguments of David Raup
"There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works"
does not contradict
."The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be"
You failed again.
FSApetheist 1 year ago
@FSApetheist The quote you posted is a favorite quotemine of creationists. I just found it funny you quoted it thats all.
What are you quoting it for anyway? Is it to support something? Refute something? Something to do with the video? What?
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@FSApetheist Here's another:
"Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change..."
~ David Raup
Sinnessa 1 year ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 1 year ago
@Sinnessa
"This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change."
does not contradict
"The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time"
Try again.
FSApetheist 1 year ago
@FSApetheist
the record of evolution is quite good and there are trillions of examples for evolutionary transition (whatever that means in your uneducated language).
so...yes, do try again.
the evidence we find in the geological record is compatible with natural selection model. fail again.
why do you persist in presenting anedoctal claims? are you mentally challenged?
transtlantic 1 year ago
That is just one of the argument’s many flaws.
Christians must be crazy to use an argument that claims their god cannot exist.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
Also, both The Moral Argument and the The Argument from Religious Experience, can be laughed at and dismissed outright, so cross them off your list. I'm surprised you added them actually. It leads me to believe you just collected a list of known arguments without thinking about any of them.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa Don't think that you will get off so easy as that. These arguments have been around a long time, so there is more to them than can be so easily "laughed at and dismissed outright." You will have to do better than that!
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Who cares how old they are? I don't have to do better. If you want me to take something seriously, you have to convince me - its as simple as that. You still have all the work to do.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa In order to be convinced, you have to be open to different points of view.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
your arguments have been debunked a LOOONG time ago. the ONLY idiots who repeat them are morons like Craig, and the ONLY retards to buy them are complete uneducated fools like yourself. it sells books.
the same crap happens with homeopathy or "power bands", it's an exploration of uneducated ignorant fucks like you giving money to intelectually dishonest pricks, like craig.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic You still off your meds?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch all of your "rational" arguments have known logical inconsistencies. None of them are particularly rational, and none of them are proof. You're pretty good at this ad hominem game, though - a pity that you're still factually incorrect.
pillowcaselaw 1 year ago
@pillowcaselaw I'd be happy to discuss any of them. I'm not convinced that what you say is true at all. Why not demonstrate rather than just assert?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
you've been asked to demonstrate evidence for your god, immaterial or spiritual crap. till now: zero.
transtlantic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transtlantic You forgot to call me a retard, you must be slipping.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Michael Behe? Really? The man who got his Ph.D. solely to promote a Creationist agenda, and whose work at undermining evolution is repeatedly refuted by verifiable sources? That's who you're holding up as a scientist? Your "truth" is delusion.
pillowcaselaw 1 year ago
@pillowcaselaw Keep smoking whatever it is, it is doing a great job of hiding from you the reality you are obviously so afraid of.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@pillowcaselaw Gosh. I guess the University of Pennsylvania got duped when Behe wrote his doctoral dissertation on sickle cell disease, cause according to you he was just faking it so he could be a creationist! Add that to the fact that Richard Dawkins of all peope said that Behe is a creationist (even though he accepts the common descent of humans and other primates) How could we disagree with Dawkins? He is the Atheist Messiah after all.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
Behe's papers aren't all bad. when you appeals to ignorance by presenting a baseless claim like IC, yes, he is a dumb retard.
Behe is a dumb cretard. he already had to admit in court he is full of shit regarding IC or ID, read Dover trial notes.
I disagree with some of the Hypothesis presented by Dawkins, not when he states FACTS. that you cleary are SO FUCKING DUMB, that you can't understand them. like evolution.
now fuck off.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic So once again, he is okay as long as nothing he says conflicts with
something you are philosophically committed to. I feel sorry for anyone who must deal with you on a daily basis, since you no doubt act as immaturely in person as you do here.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
obviously something is not ok when it is baseless assertions. it is not a matter of conflict with me personally, it's a matter of a conflict with reality itself. as in reality...IC does not exist in nature.
i think you completely ignore how science works, or any epistemological method that allows validation of claims.
it's obvious that you are an idiot.
transtlantic 1 year ago
Nice shirt, dude.
Spherical3 1 year ago
what if? what if jesus is and was a myth?
stealthgerm 1 year ago
How can anyone trust Ben Stein? I mean, he was totally duped by the retard Ferris Bueller!!!
xcellken1 1 year ago 6
@TruthWatch That's actually verifiably false. Look up the Wedge Strategy on Wikipedia - read that and tell me ID isn't inherently a Christian movement at its core again. Go for it. That's from the founders of ID, admitting that ID is Christian Creationism. For someone called "TruthWatch", well...I'll just leave that there.
pillowcaselaw 1 year ago
@pillowcaselaw Yes ID is as inherently christian an idea as evolution is inherently Buddhist. Well done.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch The truth is not in you. You're a liar, ignorant, or both. Either way, your statements here are worthless as they are provably false - and I encourage anyone with half a brain to go read the proof.
pillowcaselaw 1 year ago
@pillowcaselaw Having a bad day? Please tell me you would not make such a fool of yourself on a good day! LOL! If I'm so worthless then you are an idiot for taking your time to post here.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Yeah, I haven't made a fool of myself. ID is the creation of the people behind Creation Science, and is simply Creation Science with the word "God" removed. It's meant as a beginning point to undermine evolution in the classroom in order to attempt to revitalize Creation Science. You'd know this if you read the Wedge Strategy. Since you obviously haven't, your opinion is meaningless.
pillowcaselaw 1 year ago
@pillowcaselaw Well if my opinion is meaningless it argues even more for you
wasting your time responding to anything I say, doesn't it? Thank you for proving my point so perfectly.
There is nothing wrong with having a philosophical basis upon which to view the world. The theory of evolution has a philosophical foundation in materilaism.
If you say that one must automatically prefer materialism to non-materialism in order to good science, then you reveal your own bias.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Bar shifting at its finest. That's not the point I made at all, now is it? No, no in fact it is not. It is the provable fact that Intelligent Design is, at its core, Christian Creationism. Though one should rightly question any "science" that relies on immeasurable claims and emotional pleas rather than provable fact.
pillowcaselaw 1 year ago
@pillowcaselaw Just checking to see of there was another objection waiting behind the charge that ID is just creationism. If the Christian wordlview is not the problem (or is it?) Then the next specious charge is "its not real science". You follow the talking points admirably. So which proponents of ID rely on immeasurable claims or emotional appeal? Be careful not to confuse scientists like Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe with philosophers like Alvin Plantiga or William Craig.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
Dawkins used the sequential logic to show Stein the fallacy in ID-alien theory which still leaves the premise that the alien form must have come to existence through some natural process bounded by the physics of the universe. Stein immediately forgoes such statement and attempts to tie the life form creation to the unverifiable God of monolithic religions.
Intelligence? Stein got none. Factoid? He lives off of it.
ninuxy 1 year ago 6
live life out of a dusty book of fairy tales=fools.lets see GOD grant a amputee a new arm or leg.that would convince me.
billbo1154 1 year ago
live life out of a dusty book of fairy tales=fools
billbo1154 1 year ago
Poor Richard Dawkins, he was duped into making a fool of himself, ie saying
what he relly thought. This presentation is his attempt to spin things back in his
favor. Was there selective editing in the interview? NO. Did Stein bully Dawkins
or berate him? NO. Sounds like whining.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Er, not quite. Not even remotely. All he's stating is that even if you accept Intelligent Design as true, it does not necessarily imply the Christian God. Better yet, he points out that the "First Cause" argument is fallacious in that it draws a line in the sand that is unsupported by anything but argument from incredulity.
pillowcaselaw 1 year ago
@pillowcaselaw So you make the case for intelligent design, since those who propose it do not say that the Christian God is implicit. Funny that people like Dawkins say that ID is just Christian Creastionism in disguise, but he himself
show that there is no assume this. Dawkins just hates the idea of ID so much that he becomes illogical in trying to discredit it. Thank you for pointing that out.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Its like you're intentionally missing the point.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa All right I'll play your game, just what point am I deliberately missing?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch The point spoon fed to you in the video you're (apparantly) watching.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa In other words, you have no idea. Well, nice talking to you.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch You're right. I have no idea how to explain the point of the video to you if you don't already know after watching it yourself.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa Sorry if you are unable to articulate just in what way you think I have not gotten the point. I obviouisly disagree with Dawkins, so what specifically makes you think I am wrong? Let's start there, there might be some hope for you yet.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch You're an arrogant little prick, and it makes my skin crawl to converse with you, and there is probably no hope for you, but lets try anyway.
For a start, you jumped to the wild conclusion that Dawkins hates the idea of ID so much that he is illogical in trying to discredit it. This is a typical fallacy, trying to discredit the person rather than address the actual arguments presented.
You have no logical train of thought here. How have you managed to get to this point?
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa My conclusion is hardly wild. It is based on many videos and debates in which Richard Dawkins uses lame arguments. many of which are not logically sound. But this is completely separate from my opinion that Dawkins is a pretentious
jackass.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Which argument in particular?
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa Don't have time to go in depth just now, but this trio of videos should
make a good start " Richard Dawkins' Central Argument Refuted"
Have to go to work now.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch You don't have to go in depth. Just give a quick example of a lame argument made by Dawkins.
You said there are many. Just pick one. Simple.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa One that jumps out is Dawkins contention that all people who believe in God are delusional. Science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God either way, so belief is no more irrational than non-belief. Each can be justified through rational argument and appeal to inferential evidence.
More later.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
Can you prove god exists? No. Is belief in god belief in something without evidence? Yes.
What do we call someone who believes in something without evidence? Rational? No. Irrational? Yes. Delusional? Probably.
I don't see what the problem is with Dawkins statement. It seems straightforward to me.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa Can I prove God exists? Depends on what the person I'm making the case to demands as evidence. There are a number of rational arguments that can be made for existence of God, so the belief itself is not inherently irrational just because you say it is. Therfore your contention that belief in God is delusional fails. So it is not surpirising that you would find this contention of Dawkins to be acceptable. Its straighforwardness has no bearing on whether it is
right or wrong.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Give me one piece of evidence or one rational argument for god.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa Pick one:
The Ontological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Argument from Contingency
The Teleological Argument
Argument from Consciousness
The Moral Argument
The Argument from Religious Experience
These are all well known rational arguments for the existence of God.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Give me one that doesn't rely on an assumption in a premise, or one supported by evidence.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa You asked for a rational argument for God. I gave you 8. Now you move the goal posts. Give me a rational argument for ANYTHING that does not begin with an assumption of some sort. So I have established that the belief in God is not irrational, therefore it is not delusional. If you are not prepared for a serious discussion about this subject then stop wasting my time.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch What do you care about a serious discussion? You can't even fucking read. Moving the goalposts? Don't make me laugh. The whole point was about proof, the reason I asked is about proof, and you'll never be able to offer proof, will you?
I'm not about to go around in circles with you. I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa So much the better. I'm not in the mood to watch you argue in circles.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Yeah, roll over and play dead then, you arrogant prick.
What a waste of time you are.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa So namecalling is the best you have? Typical atheist hack.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Just because you don't use profanities, doesn't mean you're not throwing insults out, you silly religious bimbo. Go pray to your desert spectre, lonely boy.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa At first it appeared that you wanted to have a real discussion.
Bit that went away as soon as you asked to make a choice and offer some rational
justification of your position. This was apparently too much to ask.
All you have to offer is juvenile ridicule. Sad.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
how can one have a "real discussion" with a moronic fuck like yourself? you don't anything about basic science or even philosophy.
people DO present a rational justification for a rational position based on trusting what is real.
you just CHOOSE to ignore, be a religious bimbo and pray to the ol'mighty desert spectre. you are a dumbfuck.
i already pointed out and others as well that your "arguments for god", all have been debunked, are pure bullshit. you choose to deny the counter.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Thank you for showing us how the irrational resoind to those they disagree with.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch No no no, you can't turn it around and pretend its me dodging. It was YOU making silly statements and me asking you to back them up. Thats pretty much the 'discussion' in a nutshell. You can't just flip it around and think nobody will notice.
I asked you to demonstrate Dawkins faulty logic - you didn't.
I asked you to demonstrate your god - you didn't.
What exactly was I supposed to offer 'rational justification' for?
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa I demonstrated that Dawkins statements about people who believe in God are not supported logically.
You asked for "Give me one piece of evidence or one rational argument for god."
I gave you 8 to choose from, so far you have declined to do so for reasons known
only to yourself. These are well known rational arguments for the existance of God. Which one did you want to discuss?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Ok, forgetting the silly shit you said about Dawkins, because I can't even be bothered to argue with you about it. You didn't come through with anything. Dead end there.
The cosmological argument. Assuming you didn't just parrot a list of whatever arguments you could find at short notice and were hoping it would pass muster and shut people up - what are your thoughts on this argument?
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa So if you were not going to argue the point, why bring it up?
Just wanted to have the last word on the topic?
Whatever.
The kalam version of the cosmological argument seems plausible.
The Big Bang cosmology tells us that the universe had a beginning at a particular
point in the finite past. This resonates with the Christian doctrine of creation, which essentially says the same thing. I'm assuming that YOU have some thoughts about it as well.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch The kalem argument eats itself. Its not even an argument for god, its an argument that the universe had a cause, a cause which cant be god by its own analysis. In order to consider the argument at all, we have to assume there can be no such thing as infinity. Assuming infinity cannot exist, how can an infinite god exist? Since the argument declares that there can be no infinity, it removes the Christian god from the equation outright, who is supposed to be infinite in many things.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa Your analysis fails because it confuses the mathmatical(quanitative) concept of infinity with the qualitative concept of infinity which Christians apply to God.
God's omniscience is not a mathmatical infinity but the quality of knowing all that is knowable. Despite being a very large number, the number of knowable things is finite, not infinite. I will explain how this concept applies to the other qualities of God
if need be, but I think you get the idea.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Yeah, I get the idea, and I knew you'd parrot it. Special pleading at its best. You want a super-special type of infinity that applies only to your god, a type of infinity you have yet to prove, but the rest of the universe we work with is, apparantly, impossible to be infinite.
We are back to square one. I will not take for granted that your god is infinite. Show me evidence or an argument that proves your infinite god exists, BEFORE we continue with the kalem argument.
Sinnessa 1 year ago 2
@Sinnessa
actually it is quite possible that our universe is infinite. at least we can consider a multiverse and call that evidence for existencial infinity.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Exactly. The argument is flawed and out of date.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa The Kalam argument does not mention infinity. So your "super special" infinity won't wash. To review the argument itself:
1.(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2.(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
1.(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
2.(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
1.(5) God exists.
I don't see infinity mentioned. You put up a strawman.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch No, its not a 'straw man'. This is philosophy 101.
How can an infinite universe have a beginning? Just because it doesnt specifically say the word 'infinity' does not mean it isnt a key component of the argument.
You should know this. You're the one who brought the argument up.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa I am not saying the universe is infinite. The Kalam argument does not say the universe is infinite. You don't get to use the concept of infinity to refute the Kalam argument. You cannot simply assert that infinity is an intergral part of the Kalam without demonstrating HOW. Which part of the argument requires infinity to be logically coherant? If the universe has a beginning, it is finite QED!
If you are saying the universe has no beginning and is therefore infinite then you
TruthWatch 1 year ago
are mistating the kalam argument as well as denying what science tells is is true about the universe. The assertion that the universe could be infinite is merely unfounded speculation. Even then a multiverse would still have a beginning and therefore be finite. Either way you fail.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch Lets start throwing the fails out, shall we? Like fucking computer game nerds.
Your whole god is unfounded speculation: Fail.
The assertion that god is omnipotent and omniscient is unfounded speculation: Fail
You're using *outdated* arguments with glaring flaws and still fancy yourself as a bit of a philosopher: Fail
Science never claims to know either way if the universe has a beginning or a cause: Fail
Either way you Fail.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa Looks like you have several big FAIL to contend with.
1. "Your whole god is unfounded speculation" Sorry this is a mere assertion. One you happen to be fond of tho sure, but not demonstrated.
2."The assertion that god is omnipotent and omniscient is unfounded speculation"
This was included to clarify the Christian concept of God, because you had got it wrong to begin with.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
3. "You're using *outdated* arguments with glaring flaws and still fancy yourself as a bit of a philosopher" Do us the grand favor of demonstrating those "glaring" flaws
if they are as obvious as you say it should be easy.
4."Science never claims to know either way if the universe has a beginning or a cause" Fine by me if you want to deny that science has told us about the beginning of the universe, but you'll have to back it up with a cogent argument and some EVIDENCE.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch I'll ignore most of this you've posted, since you're ignoring most of mine.
I'll ask again: how can an infinite universe have a beginning?
Its a simple question.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa Once you establish that thi universe IS indeed infinite, we can discuss that. Until then it yet another FAIL in a growing list.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
there is no "qualitative concept of infinity" as infinity is a variable of quantifiable attributes.
you are assuming god is omniscient. you have no way to prove your assertion.
infinity is represented mathematically. therefore infinity is ALWAYS subject to quantifiable attributes.
"quality of knowing all", implies a measurable proportion, ergo mathematics. PLUS qualitative can be translated into mathematical perspective.
you are assuming the number of things to know is finite. FAIL
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic The qualities of God which are often referred by lazy and imprecise thinkers as "INFINITE" are His omniscience and His omnipotence. Neither of these are mathematical in nature. Unless one has a way to measure God's knowledge or power, mathmatics will never enter the discussion. To know all knowable things is to know a finite set of things, no matter how high the number.
My assumptionis justified.
To be omnipotent one need only have as much power as one needs.
Once again :FAIL
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch As long as you understand it is just that: an assumption, and not based in any actual reality, with no evidence to back it up with. And nobody else here will let you just assume and think your work is done. You are right now on the edge of using circular logic, and that isnt where you want to be.
So don't get too cocky yet. You've still got all the work ahead of you.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa So far all of your attempts to refute the kalam argument have only been smoke and mirrors, you have not even addressed the argument itself. If you cannot do better than this, I doubt you will ever pass philosophy 101.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch "So far all of your attempts to refute the kalam argument have only been smoke and mirrors,"
How can I refute it? I'm still spoon feeding you your own argument, darling. You're having trouble understanding the basic premises. We'll never get around to anything if you can't even understand the first line of the argument and what it is implying. At this point, I'm starting to think you only just recently discovered the argument on google and are winging it.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa Still more empty assertions and no real arguments.
Perhaps your spoon would find better employment in feeding yourself the argument
since you show no evidence of having grasped its contentions let alone its implications.
Shall we move to a remedial level of philosophy, perhaps a bit of "how to build an argument" or "logic for dummies"?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
your move "darling".
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch You can't even answer a simple question. How are we supposed to continue?
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa Looks like you are looking for an excuse to bail.
Very well we have now entered the remedial level of philiosophy.
Your question:" How can an infinite universe have a beginning?"
is directed specifically at William Lane Craigs subset of arguments in defense of Kalam, not at the Kalam proper.
In the first sub set of the argument we see this premise: "1.An actual infinite cannot exist."
Proving once again what I said earlier kalam does not say that the universe is infinite.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
It says exactly the opposite of what you say it does. Therefore your question is either disingenous or incredibly inept. Your vague reference to a multiverse and "transcendental infinity" besides smelling like bovine excretion is a begging the question at a colossal level.
So either throw in the towel complaining that I never answered your question or pull your head out your ass and get in the game.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch I didn't say that, you bimbo. I never said the Kalem argument says the universe is infinite, I said the Kalem argument suggests the universe is FINITE, as in NOT INFINITE, the opposite of infinite. It implies that an infinite universe cannot exist. This is what I as trying to tell you hen I said: "Since the argument declares that there can be no infinity" remember?
Don't tell me we've been arguing just because of something you misread.
Sinnessa 1 year ago
@Sinnessa Well we agree then. I never said the universe was infinite, the kalam said that it could not be. You WERE trying to say that the concept of an "infinite" God was a contradiction which was a problem for the kalam. I pointed out that the concepts associated with infinity when applied to God were not the same sort mathematical infinity that the kalam sub set refutes. That is why I went to such pains to clarify the Christian concept of God. If I missed the word "not" you missed paragraphs.
TruthWatch 1 year ago