These "defenders of the faith" that are forced to investigate science (because they are living in the 21st Century now), have a much bigger problem than ever before. They, like the maker of this video, hope to find and prove a creator through investigation of space-time, quantum mechanics, physics, etc., BUT, none of what they discover proves that the creator they find is the SAME person as their Jesus character. In fact, it shows that Jesus is more likely NOT that same creator of the Universe!
I checked this video out and part 2 because you made the claim that atheists are afraid to watch them...
Suffice it to say I'm not afraid to listen to claim after claim after claim with nothing to back them up. "God is this, god is that." Asserting something is in no way proof of what you are asserting.
@namesameasu Nope, my mind is evidence of what my brain is capable of (thinking), not of a god, and how I experience my mind (aka thinking) is certainly not evidence of a god either, that's just silly.
If THAT'S all you've got, I REALLY have better things to do....
@BastEternal How do your thoughts appear, sound, taste, feel, or smell? Just wondering -- though I can't describe such "wondering" physically.
"not evidence of a god either"
I believe it's consistent in itself, and with our present knowledge of consciousness, that the phenomenon of thought comes from a greater consciousness, and that the brain is merely our channel, and vantage point, of thought, not its producer. Why do you believe it isn't, when your common sense tells you otherwise?
@namesameasu What kind of question is that? According to the dictionary, that is not what thoughts are. Thoughts are simply a product of your brain, ideas, pictures, a result of electrical, neurological impulses. If you are going to posit anything more than that, you will have to provide evidence.
And please don't assume to know what my "common sense" tells me. I don't play that game, making up stuff about what another person thinks and then arguing strawmen.
@namesameasu My common sence tells me that I need to have evidence before even thinking something is real, What I think is not evidence of what I claim, I can tell you I am an unicorn but just the ones who really think of it see me as a unicorn and the ones who doesnt face eternal torment in a place where unicorns eat you but you dont die, Religions are born because of ignorance and fear of the dark, Not knowing what is there or disliking what is to come after death.
@namesameasu No. We have perfectly reasonable explanations for our senses, that do not require a god. The obvious answer lies in biology. Nerves and brain chemistry tell us where feelings come from.
Feelings are evidence of feelings, not evidence of god. Apply this same analogy to trees. Trees exist, therefore god? Obviously not. Acorns exist, therefore trees.
There is no space-time beyond the universe -- thus, no energy"
How do you know that?
And after that your arguments points become a series of disjointed non-sequitors and overall unintelligible. Well, to be honest, the first three points were quite disjointed as well. Kind of hard to respond to utter gibberish.
"- Since there cannot be more than one mind beyond space-time (as that would be measurable and quantifiable), then this mind must be absolute: without comparison."
1 is a quantity. (haven't you ever ordered something online lol i.e. "QTY:1")
Learn some math...a brain is a terrible thing to waste.
@tapasoflife "1 is a quantity. (haven't you ever ordered something online lol i.e. "QTY:1")"
"One" isn't a quantity until linked with other numbers. This is proven by it's capacity to be absolute -- since "one," on its own, need not be relative.
@tapasoflife He's got to learn more than math! His level of understanding is risible - he seems to be average though on his side of the atlantic. He does not suceed in proving anything it borders on pathetic.
@tapasoflife If I ordered something online, then it would "1" as opposed to two, three, etc. "One," conceptually, would just be the thing-in-itself, beyond measure, which would be the case with any absolute.
So the start of this is the speak bull and expect people to think you have a clue. Start with a bit of quantum physics then try to link the science of study of the very small to much larger better understood subjects. In other words bull. I hope you make sense in the next video. Supposition is laid on supposition without in depth explanation making assumption's on the listeners knowledge and understanding without showing your own. You speak to fast without proper gaps. (very bad lecturing)
"Such a cause would also be eternal (i.e., distinguishable from "infinite" by its having no relation to "time"
How can a something that is both eternal and causal exist at the same time? Since it's eternal existence would force that being into a state of infinite causal regress. Which is logically impossible. Even an all powerful god can't get around this MAJOR logical problem.
"Overall, such a "cause" would subsist in the same manner that functions do of things (i.e., as a foundation for existence). Its causality would be in the purpose of things, just as we do things for a purpose."
How did you come to this knowledge? How do you know that in which can not be observed or measured? If this thing is transcendent, then how did you come to this knowledge?
@ProblematicIdea (Pt II) "How do you know that in which can not be observed or measured?"
Because even though our first-hand consciousness cannot be observed or measured, it's the experience for which we can "know" anything.
"How can a something that is both eternal and causal exist at the same time?"
Because God would be the unity of opposition: Transcendence = Immanence (discussed in part 3, I believe). Even though God is transcendent, God exists in all things, as well.
You have data that can be tested, verified and proven to be accurate to prove this comment true? If not. How do you know there is NO energy beyond our space time?
"If the effect is space-time itself, then the cause of it must be transcendent of space-time"
This makes no sense. From what I'm gathering from your wording, is that space-time created itself. If space-time did create itself, then you just eliminated your transcendence cause argument.....
Because energy is dependent on space-time by definition, and there would be no reason to assume it without it.
"space-time created itself"
This is the atheist's belief: that a point in space-time (a singularity) created space-time. I'm as confused about it as you are. My point is, rather, that something not required of space-time created space-time. Since creation itself requires space-time, it must be non-spatial thought itself.
I think I've debated you in the past. I remember enjoying our debate profusely. Though I was under another screen name.
"Because energy is dependent on space-time by definition, and there would be no reason to assume it without it."
Maybe, but how do you know their isn't another space-time beyond our universe? Their even exists evidence that counters your point. That energy, space and time do exist in other universes, and we're all connected in some way.
And a final question before I wander off to finish decorating the tree: If there is no outside frame (Which if we follow your postulates, there couldn't be) then what frame of reference do we ascribe god? That frame of reference contradicts earlier posits and actually detracts from your argument. When you step back and consider a question logically, this is actually a fallacy in that you answer an unknown with another unknown.
This doesn't mean we turn to god to fill in the gaps though. That would be more akin to saying "A caused B B caused C a miracle happened and we have X" The most logical position is to say "I don't know what caused the big bang...yet"
Besides, your entire premise leads to another uncomfortable question:
"Who caused god?"
Otherwise: Video was decent. You tried to make a very sound argument but relied on assumption too much. Further, you then argued for only one specified religion. Why not odin?
@namesameasu Hehe, just saw your last call into AE.And you exactly failed to answer the same questions I asked you.Are you still so convinced that your claim is so "logical"?
@gastarbeiter1 I didn't fail. They're just better debaters, and know how to divert attention. I answered their questions. Their whole show is based on four words: "We want physical evidence." I respond twice, in fact: that there is no "physical" evidence that others can observe. But we do have evidence for ourselves: our own minds. We all have the same experience with the non-physicality of our minds in regards to meaning and purpose. If everyone has the same experience, it's not a delusion.
@namesameasu ""We want physical evidence.""..then watch that episode again.
"that there is no "physical" evidence that others can observe."...well and they asked you what reason do you have then to believe so.Thats what you couldn't answer properly.As well as not being able to show that minds can and do exist without brains.
"in regards to meaning and purpose."..that doesn't constitute that minds can and do exist without brains.Thus you failed.
@gastarbeiter1 If a crucial aspect of mind is experienced by all, yet cannot be physically designated or passed on completely to others for them to observe, then it's reaasonable to conclude it's non-physical. If something is non-physical, yet known, then it's reasonable to conclude that physical matter is dependent on _it,_ rather than that it is dependent on physical matter. This is because if it wasn't crucial to physicality, then we wouldn't even be aware of it.
@namesameasu "to conclude it's non-physical."..I do agree that there are concepts which are a product of the mind but that in no way shows that the mind is not of the brain.And those who are spread the most successful are called memes.How does that validate your claim that minds can and do exist without brains and are not product of the brain?
"that physical matter is dependent on _it"...no?Why?
@namesameasu without physical evidence everything else would just be useless words. If you have no evidence and you have a claim....then you will ALWAYS fail to convince rational people of what you say.
(You will be able to convince gullible people though)
@tapasoflife "without physical evidence everything else would just be useless words"
How do you know everything that is in reality is physical? Can you physically prove such a claim. Because if you can't prove this, then you're beggihg the question for insisting on physical evidence alone for knowledge claims.
"They're just better debaters, and know how to divert attention."
Please provide links to the shows where they do this to you. Since it's a common and despicable tactic of William Lane Craig, it certainly isn't something atheists should be doing.
"We all have the same experience with the non-physicality of our minds in regards to meaning and purpose."
What common experience is that, and why isn't this evidence for physical existence?
So, how is useless in context until such info becomes available.
> Overall,etc
see above
>Such cause
See above.
>Such a state etc
^ >Everything else requires the first premise to be knowable.
Since it is (At this time) not known due to lack of evidence, only hypothesis and other peoples ideas put forth. The problem is that until evidence arises that the universe oscillates, or even gives births to smaller universes or other theories, the question may well never be answered
Frame of reference at singularity is the singularity itself. Thus time is both infinite and finite. It is only through an outside perspective that the question becomes relevant.
>The Big Bang "created" space-time
See above
>There is no space-time beyond the universe
There is no known beyond the universe either(Theoretical however...)
> If the effect is space-time itself
no information leaked through to give hints as to how the singularity came up
@namesameasu Reagrding singularity (I'll abbreviate where possible to not spam the comments) The singularity neither causes nor is caused by. The effects of mass at densities simply has a property which implies (By relativity and observed) that space time as a reference would bend. In the case of a singularity, a person within wouldn't be aware of it. However, since the universe was entirely consistent of the singularity, there wouldn't be any other frames.
@namesameasu the thing to keep in mind there though, is that if it is knowable, then it must also be observable. Otherwise we will nto have a neutral frame of reference by which all can obsv(observe) without biases (Rm of spiritual or non spiritual biases)
The basis behind the god comment though does relate simply to the fact that every action must have a cause. and every action that has a cause must have a causative source. Thus, ascribing god special privilege is a special plea which >
@namesameasu Fails to address the issue hence why the notion of "God caused it" is abandoned. Asking that question is a tough one and quite sensical if a clear cogent argument for or against something is to be undertaken.
"Not really in this video.." In a way utilizing the word God itself is attaching connotations best left elsewhere. If you said Odin or "Higher state" then that might not have happened.
"The un of oppo..." In the essence of creating a separate frame though, you end up creating>
@namesameasu A frame of reference by which it must be judged therefore causing it to fall into the fixed frames of reference. Just an interesting way of looking at causation on a multi-dimensional (1,2,3,4th dimensions etc) frame of reference.
"Merry X-mas" I'm no christian I admit, happily so. You could say I'm jewish since my mom was (I fall under agnostic though) So, I celebrate christmas as what I see it as:
An opportunity to remind people that they are fundamentally good with gifts.
@namesameasu Anyways, getting into space and time (In terms of dimensions) tends to get a bit sticky. So I do appreciate the discussion though I admit I only ever studied astro-physics as far as I needed to understand orbital dynamics. As such, things past Relativity are simply outside of my personal scope of expertise.
Ask me about modern telecomms and I can talk your ear off, ask me about geology and I can talk your ear off. Ask me about Orbital dynamics talking of ear.
@namesameasu Then all I have to say is: PSSSSHHHHHAAAAAAAAAWWWW! If you wanna talk about theoretical physics, ask a theoretical physicist! (Making a comic strip reference here lol)
@namesameasu "There is no observable beyond. That doesn't mean it isn't knowable. Reason has a wider domain than purely sensory observation."...you are really weak.Unable to answer the objection of one critic.Waiting a time not responding so he might forget then going on with the next guy and trying the exact same lame arguements as before.You should be ashamed of yourself.
This guy has wasted his time. He contradicts himself before he even starts. Based on our current understanding of reality, the moment you posit a God before incipience, you thereby erect a contradiction. Not only that, he has laced God with all these attributes, which are unjustified and unjustifiable. How does he know this? And to make matters worse, he invokes the Everything-has-to-have-a-cause policy, then assert that God has to be the first uncaused mover. See the fallacy here?
@HConstantine "Space time and energy existed at a single point."
Where did this point in space time exist? Even an infinitesimal point would have dimensions. We're not talking about a geometric point here, but a point in reality.
"you've proved god doesn't exist"
God subsists.
"Consciousnesses arose from matter over time"
How specifically?
"There is no warrant"
Its complexity.
"of the big bang"
No, my point is that it must have subsisted prior to the big bang.
The big bang did not create everything. Space time and energy existed at a single point. there was no creation or cause involved (its now considered possible that the point source was the result of a quantum fluctuation).
One of your first unexamined premises is that there is nothing outside of space-time: congratulations, you've proved god doesn't exist (or woldn't if your premise wasn't false).
You posit your god as the "three omnis" (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent).
Explain suffering. A tidal wave approaches the coast of -insert Asian island nation here- but is not prevented from hitting. Either your god is aware, can act but doesn't want to (not omnibenevolent), is aware, wants to act but can't (not omnipotent) or can act, would want to act, but is not aware (not omniscient).
Ideologies arose from Darwin's ideas at least they were fueled by Darwins Origins of Species meanwhile here in America we had the Declaration of Independence giving men and women here their rights endowed by their creator,we had to fight for independence and another war to keep the union but it was not round them up gas them,shoot them bury them in mass graves murders ,they had ice water in their veins!
@majorl311 "more proof atheism died,/watch?v=AKzr270FeNA&feature=related" actually it tries to attack biology.And in no way it shows that there is a creator.Or do you reduce your god to a god of the gaps?Also that an organism today with all its needs and its special environment had the same needs 3,5 billion years ago.So the arguement is from a false analogy.
I love watching documentaries concerning life on earth and as I watch I see design in all of the creatures,and in the earth and how it works within the universe,the balance and the tuning ,for instance bees,they pollinate the fruits and vegetables and flowers without bees we would starve ,they are essential to life as we know it,and a huge oak tree or any tree grows from a tiny acorn or seed and then produces more seeds for reproducing ,it looks suspiciously like there is a great designer ?
You assume there must be a first cause and further assume that cause must be metaphysical, but even if granted the former (a premise for the rest of your argument) for the sake of addressing the latter, there would still be the issue of explaining a metaphysical entity affecting, let alone creating anything physical. The title fails (again, apparently).
@namesameasu Extracting part of a statement and responding to it out of context is not useful. Why do you suppose something metaphysical doesn't need a cause? When you say metaphysical, are you utilizing the "higher/beyond" function of the prefix? If not, the "behind/after" or "about" functions of the prefix would require the existence of the physical to have metaphysical, and you'd be begging the question at best. If a part two is needed, the title fails further. No need to quote me in response
@urcorrect "Why do you suppose something metaphysical doesn't need a cause?"
Because it would be eternal: beyond space-time. Since it has no physical properties, then no cause is required of it.
"the "higher/beyond" function"
Simply the "beyond" function.
"If a part two is needed, the title fails "
If you'd watched the video or read the transcript, you would know that I"m going through each attribute separately, and this video only covers one. Read the video descrption.
@namesameasu Now that I have a better idea of what you're suggesting, I have to wonder what could be evidence for something beyond physical. Watching the video and reading the description does not change the fact that the title is inaccurate. You really don't need to quote me in response. Let me know when you finish part two so I can see if you destroy an inability to believe in gods.
@urcorrect Quoting in response is just a way of referencing what's being responded to. I usually appreciate it from commentors, rather than my needing to go back to find a comment.
Part Two should be done early next week. Thanks for your interest.
god had an epiphany<last time ichecked, tohave an epiphany, you need to be either a human or perhaps another animal, but why are you imposing such a function to'god'? quit anthropomorphizing it--could it be that you are a person so you personify it?
if the creator transcends our physical existence, and thus the entire universe, then isnt that shooting yourself in the foot? for you have removed him from the realm in which physical/empirical evidence could be provided, and in doing so, you made god inaccessible? i mean i can argue in a similar way for the existence of santa claus (outside empirical existence outside detectability outside our current space/time) and no one would believe me even if the argument sounds right
@TheMegaAtheist "you have removed him from the realm in which physical/empirical evidence could be provided"
This too is in the video, though it will be expanded in yet-to-be-released part two. God is accessible to us through the unity of opposition: Transcendence = imminence. External extremes = internal extremes. In this manner, God may operate within his creation.
"kinda distracting"
Apologies for the sound. I use a mini-laptop, and it may not sound as well on a larger computer.
Question: How does a transcendent being (ie a being residing outside of time altogether) bring the universe into existence, when to do that you need a change/cause, but by definition change and cause exist only within a time framework as they are functions of time? So, id argue that if the creator is outside time, he cannot cause anything to change
@TheMegaAtheist "How does a transcendent being (ie a being residing outside of time altogether) bring the universe into existence"
This is already answered in the video. God had an epiphany, the content of which was "change." This brought about cause-effect, time, relativity, will, measure, etc. -- all that change entails. How can there be a prior cause of change itself? Epiphanies, by definition, are of the moment -- without any prior build-up.
@namesameasu "Epiphanies, by definition, are of the moment " by definition it is a change and therefore a thing in time.How can you have something predecassing itself?Your logic sucks.
You have described the circumstances under which a god MIGHT exist, but this is a very different from actually providing evidence. Your video doesn't prove a damn thing. You don't get to make stuff up. Where is your evidence for god. Your video is all gobbledy-gook.
@namesameasu If we expect physical evidence? Well... yes! Which is exactly why you didn't prove a thing. You really don't see it? You are trying to prove something that cannot be proven, and afterwards you are making excuses that you are limited. Well guess what, those limitations are those that block the human race from proving god. You can only make "logical" assumptions, which by the way can not be used in this context, as the truth in physics is often far from logical.
@ABrogaard89 "If we expect physical evidence? Well... yes! Which is exactly why you didn't prove a thing"
You're admitting to a fallacy. You're begging the question. If you're going to assume physicalism from the get-go, then there's no point in continuing a debate. But feel free to prove how everything is physical. You now have the burden of proof.
@namesameasu No, no and another no! By suggesting that I have the burden of proof you now take a classic stand, which is that a debate is lost if we canot prove a negative (like proving that something doesn't exist). It doesn't work that way. YOU have to prove that not everything is physical! The burden of proof is on YOU! There is no reason to assume anything else than "physicalism from the get-go" since we don't have evidence that suggests otherwise.
Nope. You're making a positive assertion. I'm an aphysicalist. I don't believe "everything is physical." I believe, rather, that some things are physical, other things not. For instance, my thought of being an aphysicalist isn't physical. Unless, of course, you can name the specific synapses that would make me believe in this manner. You've made a positive assertion, and fallaciously continue to do so. You have that burden.
@namesameasu Thoughts are happening in the brain. And though we still have many questions remaining to be answered about the brain, then claiming that it is not physical is really just a big leap to take. Like you said - I myself cannot name the specific synapses that made you believe so, but it has to be there in order for your brain to reach this conclusion. We can remove people's ability to think in certain ways by shutting down certain parts of the brain, which must make them physical.
@namesameasu I really shouldn't be talking too much about the brain, I don't consider myself an expert in any way. But it seems to me that you are constantly jumping to conclusions. Even if we were to accept that there are things that are not physical, it wouldn't not prove god. Quite simply because if it is not physical then we have no way of testing it. We can not produce results from something that we have no idea of, and we can therefore not say anything about it. We can only speculate.
We can test it logically, as I do here: using modality and consistency. If you notice, I don't use the term "God" throughout the entire proof, except in the introduction and title. I only refer to the known entity of the "mind." The point is: if you accept "mind" as the higher state of consciousness it seems to be, then you might as well accept "God," as well. God is just a higher order of what we already know and experience.
@namesameasu You're jumping and jumping more to conclusions. It is really growing tiresome. Just because you can test it logically does not make the logic valid. I don't know how to express myself more clear. It has been demonstrated over and over again that logical thinking often has nothing to do with reality. You. need. results!
Secondly - No! Just because I believe that I am conscious it is AGAIN a giant leap to just accept god because he is (supposedly) a consciousness being
@namesameasu You are clearly misunderstanding me. What I was saying was that without evidence you can logically conclude all you like. You can conclude the most astonishing things, but the logic has no ground in reality. You can't just pick stuff that has yet to be proven and use them in your logic, that's just going to make it all pointless.
Thinking became a result of evolution, so yes, unthinkingly it became a thinking thing. Study up on it mate
@ABrogaard89 (Part II) "if it is not physical then we have no way of testing it"
Physically test it? No. Beginning to see the circularity here? We can indirectly prove it's not physical, though.
"from something that we have no idea of"
But we do have an idea of it: by extrapolating upon what we already know, based on our own experience. If there's only one consistent conclusion, then that's probably the conclusion.
@namesameasu What is it that you don't understand about indirectly proving something? Surely you must be able to understand why science would not accept this method of proving things?
You can not use your own experience and pick conclusions like that. Do you realize how many false conclusions mankind has reached throughout history because of people thinking like that: If the one thing can't be right, then surely the other one is the answer.. Sorry mate but this method is doomed to begin with.
@ABrogaard89 "You can not use your own experience and pick conclusions like that"
Well if neuroscience admits it has an inability to fully account for a phenomena that we all first-hand experience throughout our lives, that's an indirect proof that the brain consists of more than physical properties.
@namesameasu NNNOOOOOOO... it... is... not. Really is your brain locked in your own argument, unable to gather new information you hear?? I'm repeating myself over and over. No, they have not fully accounted for it, but that freakin doesn't mean that the opposite has been indirectly proven. Do you realize how many absurd things we have indirectly proven if we accepted that???
@ABrogaard89 (Pt II) "my thought of being an aphysicalist isn't physical"
BTW: This is proven indirectly by neuroscience's inability to provide an account for it. Also: it doesn't readily appear to anyone as physical. For instance, can you see, smell, hear, taste, or touch the thought you're having now?
@namesameasu Again: Just because they haven't provided evidence for it DOES NOT mean that it is the way you think. That's just jumping to conclusions. We haven't provided proof that a planet far away is made of cheese, so it is thereby proven? You seem to be having a hard time saying "we don't know (yet)".
@ABrogaard89 (Part III) "We haven't provided proof that a planet far away is made of cheese"
Cheese comes from cows. Would there be another planet made of beef?
"You seem to be having a hard time saying "we don't know (yet)".
Well I don't know bout that.... But if you say "i don't know" after reaching a logical conclusion, then you might as well admit you don't really know anything. So why even add the "yet"? Oh, that's right: show and tell (physicalism).
@namesameasu Now you're just taking my comment out of context. Yes of course you have to use logic when proving things, provided that you already have evidence for it. When talking about things that we have no idea of, you cannot use logic the way that you are concluding that there must be a god and he is not physical.
Cheese comes from cows? really? that's all you have? Okay how about this: Provide proof that it's not made of kablakablaba. If you can't it's indirectly proven that it's there..
@namesameasu You are ignoring my point completely. I was stating that because with indirect proof you are able to conclude something like that. The flaud is all the same, even if you replace it with consciousness.
No, our reason is not evidence. It really isn't. You need something more to call it evidence. Results maybe?
To your final comment - read up on it! Simple natural selection chose those who were most intelligent, thus evolving out minds over time. From pure instinct into today's brains
@namesameasu And since you insist on using that example. Yes, there are in fact times when thoughts can affect you physically. They can affect you emotionally and physically. Think about if someone you love died, think about something that makes you angry, think about something that embarrases you - how does your body react? Some will hardly react, some begin to shake, some have big bloodstreams to their head, some will just get sad and others can actually get sick. It CAN affect us physically.
@ABrogaard89 "They can affect you emotionally and physically"
... or they can affect my typing in this comment. So? The external affects us internally: unity of opposition. Emotions, btw, are mainly physical. They probably affect thoughts just as much as thoughts affect emotions. If you're claiming all cause-effect is physical, then you're again assuming physicalism. Doesn't the vague idea of justice cause us to act certain way? Don't purposes cause us to act? How are they physical?
@namesameasu No reason to assume anything else than physicalism since we dont. have. proof. of. anything. else! Why do you think you have the idea of justice? Why do you think others have different ideas of justice? It is a result of the physical inputs you receive during your life, it's your brain creating it due to physics. Evolution has given our brains that ability. Enough reason to believe it's physical, and without other evidence so far we really have no reason to believe otherwise.
Sure -- that's all we have physical proof of. That's the problem with your argument: it's circular.
"different ideas of justice?"
Everyone has the same idea of justice. They just apply it differently. It's morality that varies. Justice is a simple, non-physical idea. You may disagree that a stoning is just, for instance, as do I, but you would still have the same idea of it: otherwise you couldn't even communicate your dissent,
@namesameasu If it's such a circular argument why do you think that the world's best scientists are disputing your argument and agreeing with mine? Just because there is a possibility that something is not physical does not mean that it actually the case.
To separate justice and morality you need a long discussion, and it's some pretty heavy claims you're putting out there. However, in short, justice is a concept of morality, which is to say that you cannot be just without morals in play.
@ABrogaard89 "To separate justice and morality you need a long discussion"
My point is: WIthout an innate sense of justice, we couldn't even communicate about morality. Justice is its basis, morality isn't the basis of justice. Morality is its application. You can "be" just without morals in play (one would just be "just" without deliberation), but you cannot be moral without being just. One must already know "justice" in order to determine whether an account of it is correct.
@namesameasu Yes it is. Morals is one of the basis of justice. Justice is the description of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law (or principles) and religion - all of them are different from culture to culture, and person to person. In other words, justice is made up of these, which all differs according to ones life experience. Yes we can communicate without morality without everyone having the same idea of justice, we would simply disagree on what is right and wrong.
@namesameasu The basis of morality is your life experience. Morals come into play in the evolutionary ladder, which insured out survival. People have different moral standards which points to that it is created due to interaction with the environment.
Justice is merely the word we use to sum up the different attitudes our brain have developed. I don't agree with much of American, Chinese or Japanese sense of justice, which would be different if I was born in a different environment.
@ABrogaard89 "The basis of morality is your life experience"
... and what would be the gauge of this life experience if not an idea of justice?
"Justice is merely the word we use to sum up the different attitudes our brain have developed"
So a five year old child would have less of a sense of justice than a ten year old? So, if they fight, the ten year old would always be right. Correct?
@namesameasu Simply because you are older does not mean you are right. "less sense of justice"? It's hard to measure like that, but the ten year old most likely have a more complex idea of the world around him, so he takes more aspects into consideration - in that regard, yes, the five year has "less" sense of justice - that however does not mean he is wrong (that would also depend on who is judging whether he is right or wrong). So no, he is not always right.
@namesameasu I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you mean when you say that everyone has the same sense of justice? How can you say that? Surely Hitler and you have different senses of justice? Please explain in more detail, otherwise we might be talking past each other.
@ABrogaard89 "Justice is merely the word we use to sum up the different attitudes our brain have developed. I don't agree with much of American, Chinese or Japanese sense of justice, which would be different if I was born in a different environment."
Sorry for the late reply. Please watch the latest video "Proof Of God, Part 2: How God Is All-Good" for answers to this. Thanks.
@namesameasu And another thing, as I argued before: To even have the concept of morality, you brain needs to create them due to physics. The ideas you get are created physically in your brain, and it is constructed in the patterns of the concepts etc. you have encountered in your life.
Of course there are instincts we are born with that ensures that everyone has basic survival coded in them, but those are constructed via genes, they are therefore not non-physical.
@ABrogaard89 You are relying on your own idea that what's going on in the brain in not physical, simply because it appears that way to you. You are simply concluding too early. If we concluded a fact simply because it appeared a certain way and also that we don't have evidence to suggest anything at all, we can't just label it the way we think it appears. That's we way children conclude things...
@namesameasu That was actually a pretty exiting clip, really makes you think about the universe. Theories like this are, however, still in the process of being verified. There is a rather big chance that they are correct I will openly admit. However what I meant by "your argument" and "my argument" that they are agreeing with is whether or not god exists, and If John Hagelin is correct there is still a long way to go to prove god, especially the god of any religion.
@namesameasu No no no. If the Proof of god was actually present, there would be no discussion. Surely the great minds of the world would be able to see how it would all add up to a god that created the universe. It would be labeled as fact! However, that is not the case. There is so many unanswered questions and most likely a great deal of new things to be discovered. It seems like we just found something faster than the speed of light, resulting in so many theories being pointless.
@namesameasu If the proof of god was present there would be no free will in regards to faith? Well yes, because this would raise more questions that we have no idea of how to prove
@namesameasu Before evidence is given for the different theories they are still victim so similar discoveries, which would basically destroy them. This is why I cannot point out enough that evidence is crucial before we label it as fact. I know that theories are more than accurate and are based upon other facts that we already know, but altogether it would be wrong to say with 100% that it is true - just like The Big Bang is still only the best explanation so far, not necessarily the true one.
@namesameasu No not faith. We have proven that physical things exists and we are justified to put trust in that being correct.. We have not fully demonstrated that non physical things exists - therefore i'm not taking a leap of faith, I'm simply being sceptic towards what we have yet to prove.
If it's "the ways things go" then it cannot be called proof.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying you are definitely wrong, but this can not be regarded as proof until we provide definitive evidence.
as shown in the comment section of your last vid(where you falsely claimed you won over TAE) your assumptions,assertions and claims and the from that following conclusions don't hold water.Why do you produce a video with those false assumptions?
@majorl311 plain and simple common sense often is wrong.Design needs a designer.Well natural selection does this job quite well without being concious about that.You don't really need to involve something overcomplicated as a magical skydaddy when there is such a simple working explanation.Not that hard really...
@gastarbeiter1 you have a bad case of atheism syndrome,for one thing if natural selection is so intelligent that it can work things out all on its own,then it possesses an intelligence in other words you made yourself in a smaller sense and that makes no sense and is absurd!
@majorl311 "natural selection is so intelligent that it can work things out all on its own" who said that it was intelligent?Why do you personalize something that is only a process?Does gravity think about that it should pull the way it pulls?Does electricity think about transporting electrons in metall?This thought is absurd.As well it is for natural selection.There is no intelligence needed at all.Don't try to force your presuppositions on that.
How did the brain, from inorganic matter, unthinkingly became a thinking thing that thinks itself? How did it develop the ability to accurately interpret reality, as opposed to pragmatically? Do you realize that if all we have is a pragmatic perception of reality, we may not know much of anything at all? I notice you're of German origin, please read up on some Hegel. You'd be fortunate to read his work in his original language.
@namesameasu "accurately" well taht is your way you describe the mind.Its far from that.Our conciousness is far away from being accurate.
Biologically we see a development of the brain from simple neurocells that slowly form something like a brain or braines.And as we see and test (for example mirror testing) that many animals with a ver yhigh ratio of brain to bodymass are self aware/can think about action are able to plan for the future etc.So an evolution of conciousness and mind cont
@namesameasu seems to be reasonable to account for more complex thoughts.At one stage the capacity of mind can exceed its biological basis and starts to think of more abstract things and finally about itself.Its reasonable and consistant...something your hypothesis lacks in all points.
@namesameasu so basically even your comment doesn't fit to the quote of me you used.funny...
So who says that a natural process needs intelligence?
That's your presumption the whole time.So basically your god of the gaps is flavoured with a bit of circular reasoning and that served with flawed premesis on shaky basis sauce.
The "change" is the content of the thought. There need not be a change prior to change.
"a ver yhigh ratio of brain to bodymass"
This may just as well apply to channeling in conscoiusness, as well. A larger radio would have a larger receiver and sound capabiliities. What does that prove? Are you saying bodymass determines consciousness? So, according to you, would a person who gains weight achieve more consciousness, or less?.
@namesameasu "There need not be a change prior to change." so the state before epiphany and after as the words make it look like are not a change in state of mind and therefore bound to time?Laughable.
"as well apply to channeling in conscoiusness" as long as you can't proof this is the case its an empty and unnecessary assumption.You have to show beforehand that minds without brains can and do exist.And from that its some kind of circular logic from you. cont
"as long as you can't proof this is the case its an empty and unnecessary assumption"
The point it: it's just as provable as your claim. Thoughts are readily non-physical to us. Can you see, smell, hear, taste, or feel your current thoughts, for instance?
@namesameasu "That's all you offer as a rebuttal?" no do you actually read whole comments or do you ignore most parts of them?
"as provable as your claim" its not.If it were you should have the proof of it.So it is still an unnecessary assumption(to bad its vital to your arguement).
What we can show is that mind is influenced by brain and drugs/magnetfiedls whatsoever.That is sufficient to say that the mind comes from the brain.But when you postulate that the brain is only channeling cont
@namesameasu then you seem to misunderstand the term substantial.The objection comes before the conclusion that your logic is laughable.And you being unable to refute any objections just perfectly shows your shaky logic and your inabillity to defend your position.You really seem to be alone with that.
Didn't I refute your brain/body mass ration as sole criteria to account for consciousness? What else was I unable to refute?
"green pixies"
Why would winged creatures be needed to account for gravity? Are wings dependent on gravity, or would gravity be dependent on wings? The former, obviously. So winged creatures didn't cause gravity, as the effect would be dependent on the cause, not vice versa. Thus, the idea is refuted.
@namesameasu oh no and wings are meaningless to the arguement.Don't try to sidestep on that issue.The point is that you assume something unneccessaryly complex that has no evidence in favour (you never provided valid evidence).So its a pointless assumption wothout basis that is needed for your arguement to make it somehow sound.That's the whole point.Why can't they develop wings to overcome the gravity of other pixies and so the can also explain dark energy.Thus you don't refute anything
@gastarbeiter1 "Why can't they develop wings to overcome the gravity of other pixies and so the can also explain dark energy.Thus you don't refute anything"
According to your account, the purpose of their pixieness (wings) is to overcome the existence of other pixies, and to overcome a threatening aspect of the universe to themselves. Hence, they're not God-like.
"never has been a mind without a brain"
I refer you to the physicist John Hagelin here on YouTube: /watch?v=OrcWntw9juM
@namesameasu "Hence, they're not God-like." that was not what I was taliing about.Try to keep up with me.It was about overcomplex and unnecessary assumptions not whether or not they are gods.You missed the whole point here.I even said this was a physical analogy of the concept I was trying to explain to you.No wonder you still think your arguement is sound if you misunderstand and ignore that much of the objections made.
Sure, like coffee-mugs and bigfoot. Besides all of your assumptions, like these other ones, had a physical basis, so they can be refuted physically.
An "eye for an eye" would be a moral law, if any. For one to state that "something is just," one would already have to know what "justice" means in order to determine whether it is properly applied.
@namesameasu "It's a public forum." I have no problem with that you commented but with the content of your comment.
"Sure, like coffee-mugs and bigfoot...had a physical basis".That.Is Irrelevant.to the.point.I don't argue about the process of inferring unneccessarily complex and baseless assumptions wether they are physical or not.Even if tehy are refutable or not was irrellevant to that point.try to keep up. cont
@namesameasu "eye for an eye" no its not a moral law its an idea of justice.Justice is neither absolute nor is it independant of morals.You also have to have an idea about morality to know what is just and what is not just.Just to turn your arguement around.
Would this be how you define justice? So if one person came into a dispute with only one eye, and the other person has two, then would the one-eyed person have a just advantage over the other, or would that be unjust? If that' s not how you define justice, what indicator do you use to determine what it is?
"You haven't proven taht a mind yithout a brain exists"
@namesameasu You know the concept of an eye for an eye?You should its proposed in the bible.And well it shows that what justice is is nothing absolute but dependant on what we see as just which is connected to what we think is moral to do.Both are from that still interdependant.
"nor have you proven otherwise." that's still your burden of proof.You come up with unneccassarily complex assumptions.You have to back them up.And because its vital to your arguement you should in order to make it sound
@namesameasu "I refer you to the physicist John Hagelin" Some objections on the first 4 minutes of that video and I think there are more to come: string theory:unproven and until now there are no experments possible or known to falsify or verify this hypthesis, he himself also admits that he hasn't been able to unify neuroscience with quantum physics, and furthermore a field is not intelligence he might call it that way but he has no proof to show so also he hasn't shown this field.cont
But you seem perfectly fine with making dreams visible. This has long been asserted as possible, yet unacheivable. It's basically determined by which areas of the brains light up -- same as with fMRIs. EWven if proven, such impact may just as well be channeled, than created. Also, the inverted spectrum problem would still apply. Look it up.
@namesameasu "perfectly fine with making dreams visible" well that's what I have just read.That's what you denied being possible and what you used as "indirect proof".So that' arguement is now down for you?
"as well be channeled" which still is unneccessaryly complex and has no proof and therefore shouldn't be the defult position you start your arguement from as I just tried to explain to you.And what exactly has this new arguement that you just vomited to do with that?
Oh wow. This is just downright ridiculous. I feel sorry for you people.
DaemoniumCC 1 month ago
what a bunch of nonsence...
RamsesTheFourth 2 months ago
These "defenders of the faith" that are forced to investigate science (because they are living in the 21st Century now), have a much bigger problem than ever before. They, like the maker of this video, hope to find and prove a creator through investigation of space-time, quantum mechanics, physics, etc., BUT, none of what they discover proves that the creator they find is the SAME person as their Jesus character. In fact, it shows that Jesus is more likely NOT that same creator of the Universe!
politicoochie09 2 months ago in playlist More videos from namesameasu
I checked this video out and part 2 because you made the claim that atheists are afraid to watch them...
Suffice it to say I'm not afraid to listen to claim after claim after claim with nothing to back them up. "God is this, god is that." Asserting something is in no way proof of what you are asserting.
Anyway, got better things to do....
BastEternal 2 months ago 2
@BastEternal Your own mind, and how you experience it, is evidence for the claims.
namesameasu 2 months ago
@namesameasu Nope, my mind is evidence of what my brain is capable of (thinking), not of a god, and how I experience my mind (aka thinking) is certainly not evidence of a god either, that's just silly.
If THAT'S all you've got, I REALLY have better things to do....
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal How do your thoughts appear, sound, taste, feel, or smell? Just wondering -- though I can't describe such "wondering" physically.
"not evidence of a god either"
I believe it's consistent in itself, and with our present knowledge of consciousness, that the phenomenon of thought comes from a greater consciousness, and that the brain is merely our channel, and vantage point, of thought, not its producer. Why do you believe it isn't, when your common sense tells you otherwise?
namesameasu 2 months ago
@namesameasu What kind of question is that? According to the dictionary, that is not what thoughts are. Thoughts are simply a product of your brain, ideas, pictures, a result of electrical, neurological impulses. If you are going to posit anything more than that, you will have to provide evidence.
And please don't assume to know what my "common sense" tells me. I don't play that game, making up stuff about what another person thinks and then arguing strawmen.
Bye.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@namesameasu My common sence tells me that I need to have evidence before even thinking something is real, What I think is not evidence of what I claim, I can tell you I am an unicorn but just the ones who really think of it see me as a unicorn and the ones who doesnt face eternal torment in a place where unicorns eat you but you dont die, Religions are born because of ignorance and fear of the dark, Not knowing what is there or disliking what is to come after death.
TheWesmaister 2 months ago
@namesameasu No. We have perfectly reasonable explanations for our senses, that do not require a god. The obvious answer lies in biology. Nerves and brain chemistry tell us where feelings come from.
Feelings are evidence of feelings, not evidence of god. Apply this same analogy to trees. Trees exist, therefore god? Obviously not. Acorns exist, therefore trees.
jesuriah 2 months ago
What a steaming pile of crap...
Balsology 2 months ago
"Energy cannot exist without space-time
The Big Bang "created" space-time
There is no space-time beyond the universe -- thus, no energy"
How do you know that?
And after that your arguments points become a series of disjointed non-sequitors and overall unintelligible. Well, to be honest, the first three points were quite disjointed as well. Kind of hard to respond to utter gibberish.
dookiecheez 2 months ago 2
Weird.....
Music1234ABC 2 months ago
I noticed a lot of christian videos avoid arguments by blocking comments or approval by uploader.
Music1234ABC 2 months ago
"- Since there cannot be more than one mind beyond space-time (as that would be measurable and quantifiable), then this mind must be absolute: without comparison."
1 is a quantity. (haven't you ever ordered something online lol i.e. "QTY:1")
Learn some math...a brain is a terrible thing to waste.
tapasoflife 2 months ago
@tapasoflife "1 is a quantity. (haven't you ever ordered something online lol i.e. "QTY:1")"
"One" isn't a quantity until linked with other numbers. This is proven by it's capacity to be absolute -- since "one," on its own, need not be relative.
namesameasu 2 months ago
@tapasoflife He's got to learn more than math! His level of understanding is risible - he seems to be average though on his side of the atlantic. He does not suceed in proving anything it borders on pathetic.
1212JackJohnson 2 months ago in playlist More videos from namesameasu
@1212JackJohnson "he seems to be average though on his side of the atlantic"
Which side are you on -- the North Pole?
namesameasu 2 months ago
@tapasoflife If I ordered something online, then it would "1" as opposed to two, three, etc. "One," conceptually, would just be the thing-in-itself, beyond measure, which would be the case with any absolute.
namesameasu 2 months ago
So the start of this is the speak bull and expect people to think you have a clue. Start with a bit of quantum physics then try to link the science of study of the very small to much larger better understood subjects. In other words bull. I hope you make sense in the next video. Supposition is laid on supposition without in depth explanation making assumption's on the listeners knowledge and understanding without showing your own. You speak to fast without proper gaps. (very bad lecturing)
way2jaded1 2 months ago
"Such a cause would also be eternal (i.e., distinguishable from "infinite" by its having no relation to "time"
How can a something that is both eternal and causal exist at the same time? Since it's eternal existence would force that being into a state of infinite causal regress. Which is logically impossible. Even an all powerful god can't get around this MAJOR logical problem.
ProblematicIdea 3 months ago in playlist More videos from namesameasu
"Overall, such a "cause" would subsist in the same manner that functions do of things (i.e., as a foundation for existence). Its causality would be in the purpose of things, just as we do things for a purpose."
How did you come to this knowledge? How do you know that in which can not be observed or measured? If this thing is transcendent, then how did you come to this knowledge?
ProblematicIdea 3 months ago in playlist More videos from namesameasu
@ProblematicIdea (Pt II) "How do you know that in which can not be observed or measured?"
Because even though our first-hand consciousness cannot be observed or measured, it's the experience for which we can "know" anything.
"How can a something that is both eternal and causal exist at the same time?"
Because God would be the unity of opposition: Transcendence = Immanence (discussed in part 3, I believe). Even though God is transcendent, God exists in all things, as well.
namesameasu 3 months ago
"There is no energy beyond the universe."
You have data that can be tested, verified and proven to be accurate to prove this comment true? If not. How do you know there is NO energy beyond our space time?
"If the effect is space-time itself, then the cause of it must be transcendent of space-time"
This makes no sense. From what I'm gathering from your wording, is that space-time created itself. If space-time did create itself, then you just eliminated your transcendence cause argument.....
ProblematicIdea 3 months ago in playlist More videos from namesameasu
@ProblematicIdea "How do you know there is NO energy?"
Because energy is dependent on space-time by definition, and there would be no reason to assume it without it.
"space-time created itself"
This is the atheist's belief: that a point in space-time (a singularity) created space-time. I'm as confused about it as you are. My point is, rather, that something not required of space-time created space-time. Since creation itself requires space-time, it must be non-spatial thought itself.
namesameasu 3 months ago
@namesameasu
I think I've debated you in the past. I remember enjoying our debate profusely. Though I was under another screen name.
"Because energy is dependent on space-time by definition, and there would be no reason to assume it without it."
Maybe, but how do you know their isn't another space-time beyond our universe? Their even exists evidence that counters your point. That energy, space and time do exist in other universes, and we're all connected in some way.
ProblematicIdea 3 months ago
And a final question before I wander off to finish decorating the tree: If there is no outside frame (Which if we follow your postulates, there couldn't be) then what frame of reference do we ascribe god? That frame of reference contradicts earlier posits and actually detracts from your argument. When you step back and consider a question logically, this is actually a fallacy in that you answer an unknown with another unknown.
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
This doesn't mean we turn to god to fill in the gaps though. That would be more akin to saying "A caused B B caused C a miracle happened and we have X" The most logical position is to say "I don't know what caused the big bang...yet"
Besides, your entire premise leads to another uncomfortable question:
"Who caused god?"
Otherwise: Video was decent. You tried to make a very sound argument but relied on assumption too much. Further, you then argued for only one specified religion. Why not odin?
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@danschaoticmind (Pt II): "Otherwise: Video was decent."
Thanks. I worked on it for years -- even as a deist.
"you then argued for only one specified religion"
Not really in this video. The proof offered in the video may apply to any spiritual belief.
"what frame of reference do we ascribe god?"
The unity of opposition of all possible worlds.
"I wander off to finish decorating the tree"
Happy holidays, or dare I say: Merry Christmas.
namesameasu 3 months ago
@namesameasu Hehe, just saw your last call into AE.And you exactly failed to answer the same questions I asked you.Are you still so convinced that your claim is so "logical"?
gastarbeiter1 2 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 I didn't fail. They're just better debaters, and know how to divert attention. I answered their questions. Their whole show is based on four words: "We want physical evidence." I respond twice, in fact: that there is no "physical" evidence that others can observe. But we do have evidence for ourselves: our own minds. We all have the same experience with the non-physicality of our minds in regards to meaning and purpose. If everyone has the same experience, it's not a delusion.
namesameasu 2 months ago
@namesameasu ""We want physical evidence.""..then watch that episode again.
"that there is no "physical" evidence that others can observe."...well and they asked you what reason do you have then to believe so.Thats what you couldn't answer properly.As well as not being able to show that minds can and do exist without brains.
"in regards to meaning and purpose."..that doesn't constitute that minds can and do exist without brains.Thus you failed.
gastarbeiter1 2 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 If a crucial aspect of mind is experienced by all, yet cannot be physically designated or passed on completely to others for them to observe, then it's reaasonable to conclude it's non-physical. If something is non-physical, yet known, then it's reasonable to conclude that physical matter is dependent on _it,_ rather than that it is dependent on physical matter. This is because if it wasn't crucial to physicality, then we wouldn't even be aware of it.
namesameasu 2 months ago
@namesameasu "to conclude it's non-physical."..I do agree that there are concepts which are a product of the mind but that in no way shows that the mind is not of the brain.And those who are spread the most successful are called memes.How does that validate your claim that minds can and do exist without brains and are not product of the brain?
"that physical matter is dependent on _it"...no?Why?
gastarbeiter1 2 months ago
@namesameasu without physical evidence everything else would just be useless words. If you have no evidence and you have a claim....then you will ALWAYS fail to convince rational people of what you say.
(You will be able to convince gullible people though)
tapasoflife 2 months ago
@tapasoflife "without physical evidence everything else would just be useless words"
How do you know everything that is in reality is physical? Can you physically prove such a claim. Because if you can't prove this, then you're beggihg the question for insisting on physical evidence alone for knowledge claims.
namesameasu 2 months ago
"They're just better debaters, and know how to divert attention."
Please provide links to the shows where they do this to you. Since it's a common and despicable tactic of William Lane Craig, it certainly isn't something atheists should be doing.
"We all have the same experience with the non-physicality of our minds in regards to meaning and purpose."
What common experience is that, and why isn't this evidence for physical existence?
GalapagosPete 2 months ago
So, how is useless in context until such info becomes available.
> Overall,etc
see above
>Such cause
See above.
>Such a state etc
^ >Everything else requires the first premise to be knowable.
Since it is (At this time) not known due to lack of evidence, only hypothesis and other peoples ideas put forth. The problem is that until evidence arises that the universe oscillates, or even gives births to smaller universes or other theories, the question may well never be answered
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
>Energy cannot exist without space-time
Frame of reference at singularity is the singularity itself. Thus time is both infinite and finite. It is only through an outside perspective that the question becomes relevant.
>The Big Bang "created" space-time
See above
>There is no space-time beyond the universe
There is no known beyond the universe either(Theoretical however...)
> If the effect is space-time itself
no information leaked through to give hints as to how the singularity came up
CNT'd
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@danschaoticmind Thanks for accepting the challenge.
"Frame of reference at singularity is the singularity itself"
So the singularity created this infinite/finite space-time?
"There is no known beyond the universe either"
There is no observable beyond. That doesn't mean it isn't knowable. Reason has a wider domain than purely sensory observation.
""Who caused god?"
God would be absolute mind. Your question is akin to asking what's more just than justice itself? -- nonsensical.
namesameasu 3 months ago
@namesameasu Reagrding singularity (I'll abbreviate where possible to not spam the comments) The singularity neither causes nor is caused by. The effects of mass at densities simply has a property which implies (By relativity and observed) that space time as a reference would bend. In the case of a singularity, a person within wouldn't be aware of it. However, since the universe was entirely consistent of the singularity, there wouldn't be any other frames.
No observable beyond.. Right you are >
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@namesameasu the thing to keep in mind there though, is that if it is knowable, then it must also be observable. Otherwise we will nto have a neutral frame of reference by which all can obsv(observe) without biases (Rm of spiritual or non spiritual biases)
The basis behind the god comment though does relate simply to the fact that every action must have a cause. and every action that has a cause must have a causative source. Thus, ascribing god special privilege is a special plea which >
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@namesameasu Fails to address the issue hence why the notion of "God caused it" is abandoned. Asking that question is a tough one and quite sensical if a clear cogent argument for or against something is to be undertaken.
"Not really in this video.." In a way utilizing the word God itself is attaching connotations best left elsewhere. If you said Odin or "Higher state" then that might not have happened.
"The un of oppo..." In the essence of creating a separate frame though, you end up creating>
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@namesameasu A frame of reference by which it must be judged therefore causing it to fall into the fixed frames of reference. Just an interesting way of looking at causation on a multi-dimensional (1,2,3,4th dimensions etc) frame of reference.
"Merry X-mas" I'm no christian I admit, happily so. You could say I'm jewish since my mom was (I fall under agnostic though) So, I celebrate christmas as what I see it as:
An opportunity to remind people that they are fundamentally good with gifts.
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@namesameasu Anyways, getting into space and time (In terms of dimensions) tends to get a bit sticky. So I do appreciate the discussion though I admit I only ever studied astro-physics as far as I needed to understand orbital dynamics. As such, things past Relativity are simply outside of my personal scope of expertise.
Ask me about modern telecomms and I can talk your ear off, ask me about geology and I can talk your ear off. Ask me about Orbital dynamics talking of ear.
Quantum mechanics? >
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@namesameasu Then all I have to say is: PSSSSHHHHHAAAAAAAAAWWWW! If you wanna talk about theoretical physics, ask a theoretical physicist! (Making a comic strip reference here lol)
Anyways, out again till the next reply.
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@namesameasu "There is no observable beyond. That doesn't mean it isn't knowable. Reason has a wider domain than purely sensory observation."...you are really weak.Unable to answer the objection of one critic.Waiting a time not responding so he might forget then going on with the next guy and trying the exact same lame arguements as before.You should be ashamed of yourself.
gastarbeiter1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy has wasted his time. He contradicts himself before he even starts. Based on our current understanding of reality, the moment you posit a God before incipience, you thereby erect a contradiction. Not only that, he has laced God with all these attributes, which are unjustified and unjustifiable. How does he know this? And to make matters worse, he invokes the Everything-has-to-have-a-cause policy, then assert that God has to be the first uncaused mover. See the fallacy here?
14marcotony 3 months ago
Comment removed
14marcotony 3 months ago
Consciousnesses arose from matter over time. There is no warrant to postulate it at the undifferentiated simplicity of the big bang.
HConstantine 3 months ago
@HConstantine "Space time and energy existed at a single point."
Where did this point in space time exist? Even an infinitesimal point would have dimensions. We're not talking about a geometric point here, but a point in reality.
"you've proved god doesn't exist"
God subsists.
"Consciousnesses arose from matter over time"
How specifically?
"There is no warrant"
Its complexity.
"of the big bang"
No, my point is that it must have subsisted prior to the big bang.
namesameasu 3 months ago
You're making the same mist as with Matt.
The big bang did not create everything. Space time and energy existed at a single point. there was no creation or cause involved (its now considered possible that the point source was the result of a quantum fluctuation).
One of your first unexamined premises is that there is nothing outside of space-time: congratulations, you've proved god doesn't exist (or woldn't if your premise wasn't false).
HConstantine 3 months ago
your arguing the existence of c's world from code geass not god.
overlordcacius 3 months ago
Part 2 of the video is here: /watch?v=X-RslH6dWEo
namesameasu 3 months ago
You posit your god as the "three omnis" (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent).
Explain suffering. A tidal wave approaches the coast of -insert Asian island nation here- but is not prevented from hitting. Either your god is aware, can act but doesn't want to (not omnibenevolent), is aware, wants to act but can't (not omnipotent) or can act, would want to act, but is not aware (not omniscient).
Care to comment?...
derkylos 3 months ago
@derkylos "Care to comment?..."
My new video in this series "All-Good" will answer all of this. I'm going to try to get it done tonight.
Stay tuned.
namesameasu 3 months ago
@derkylos My new video is completed: "Proof Of God, Part Two: How God Is All-Good"
Please check it out for answers to your question.
namesameasu 3 months ago
This is akin to the insane ramblings of a mentally fractured acid abuser.
OhRlyRly 3 months ago
Gotta go. I'll answer some other time these questions that reject any answer I provide.
namesameasu 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ideologies arose from Darwin's ideas at least they were fueled by Darwins Origins of Species meanwhile here in America we had the Declaration of Independence giving men and women here their rights endowed by their creator,we had to fight for independence and another war to keep the union but it was not round them up gas them,shoot them bury them in mass graves murders ,they had ice water in their veins!
majorl311 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A bunch of garbage assertions based on opinion.
Worthless.
odinata 4 months ago
more proof atheism died,/watch?v=AKzr270FeNA&feature=related
majorl311 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@majorl311 "more proof atheism died,/watch?v=AKzr270FeNA&feature=related" actually it tries to attack biology.And in no way it shows that there is a creator.Or do you reduce your god to a god of the gaps?Also that an organism today with all its needs and its special environment had the same needs 3,5 billion years ago.So the arguement is from a false analogy.
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love watching documentaries concerning life on earth and as I watch I see design in all of the creatures,and in the earth and how it works within the universe,the balance and the tuning ,for instance bees,they pollinate the fruits and vegetables and flowers without bees we would starve ,they are essential to life as we know it,and a huge oak tree or any tree grows from a tiny acorn or seed and then produces more seeds for reproducing ,it looks suspiciously like there is a great designer ?
majorl311 4 months ago
/watch?v=Ap3wZmXyh4A&feature=channel_video_title check this out
majorl311 4 months ago
You assume there must be a first cause and further assume that cause must be metaphysical, but even if granted the former (a premise for the rest of your argument) for the sake of addressing the latter, there would still be the issue of explaining a metaphysical entity affecting, let alone creating anything physical. The title fails (again, apparently).
urcorrect 4 months ago
@urcorrect "further assume that cause must be metaphysical"
Well, otherwise it would need a cause.
"there would still be the issue of explaining a metaphysical entity affecting, let alone creating anything physical"
Unity of opposition. External = internal. Transcendence - imminence. This would be explained more in Part Two -- almost complete.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu Extracting part of a statement and responding to it out of context is not useful. Why do you suppose something metaphysical doesn't need a cause? When you say metaphysical, are you utilizing the "higher/beyond" function of the prefix? If not, the "behind/after" or "about" functions of the prefix would require the existence of the physical to have metaphysical, and you'd be begging the question at best. If a part two is needed, the title fails further. No need to quote me in response
urcorrect 4 months ago
@urcorrect "Why do you suppose something metaphysical doesn't need a cause?"
Because it would be eternal: beyond space-time. Since it has no physical properties, then no cause is required of it.
"the "higher/beyond" function"
Simply the "beyond" function.
"If a part two is needed, the title fails "
If you'd watched the video or read the transcript, you would know that I"m going through each attribute separately, and this video only covers one. Read the video descrption.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu Now that I have a better idea of what you're suggesting, I have to wonder what could be evidence for something beyond physical. Watching the video and reading the description does not change the fact that the title is inaccurate. You really don't need to quote me in response. Let me know when you finish part two so I can see if you destroy an inability to believe in gods.
urcorrect 4 months ago
@urcorrect Quoting in response is just a way of referencing what's being responded to. I usually appreciate it from commentors, rather than my needing to go back to find a comment.
Part Two should be done early next week. Thanks for your interest.
namesameasu 4 months ago
god had an epiphany<last time ichecked, tohave an epiphany, you need to be either a human or perhaps another animal, but why are you imposing such a function to'god'? quit anthropomorphizing it--could it be that you are a person so you personify it?
TheMegaAtheist 4 months ago
I have to go to work ,later
majorl311 4 months ago
so those are my two questions, oh yah- i agree with that other guy up there, this video sounds like gobbledygook.
oh yeah also, whatever the sound effect was that you used on your video - well it was kinda distracting too
TheMegaAtheist 4 months ago
Question 2:
if the creator transcends our physical existence, and thus the entire universe, then isnt that shooting yourself in the foot? for you have removed him from the realm in which physical/empirical evidence could be provided, and in doing so, you made god inaccessible? i mean i can argue in a similar way for the existence of santa claus (outside empirical existence outside detectability outside our current space/time) and no one would believe me even if the argument sounds right
TheMegaAtheist 4 months ago
@TheMegaAtheist "you have removed him from the realm in which physical/empirical evidence could be provided"
This too is in the video, though it will be expanded in yet-to-be-released part two. God is accessible to us through the unity of opposition: Transcendence = imminence. External extremes = internal extremes. In this manner, God may operate within his creation.
"kinda distracting"
Apologies for the sound. I use a mini-laptop, and it may not sound as well on a larger computer.
namesameasu 4 months ago
Question: How does a transcendent being (ie a being residing outside of time altogether) bring the universe into existence, when to do that you need a change/cause, but by definition change and cause exist only within a time framework as they are functions of time? So, id argue that if the creator is outside time, he cannot cause anything to change
TheMegaAtheist 4 months ago
@TheMegaAtheist "How does a transcendent being (ie a being residing outside of time altogether) bring the universe into existence"
This is already answered in the video. God had an epiphany, the content of which was "change." This brought about cause-effect, time, relativity, will, measure, etc. -- all that change entails. How can there be a prior cause of change itself? Epiphanies, by definition, are of the moment -- without any prior build-up.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu "Epiphanies, by definition, are of the moment " by definition it is a change and therefore a thing in time.How can you have something predecassing itself?Your logic sucks.
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
You have described the circumstances under which a god MIGHT exist, but this is a very different from actually providing evidence. Your video doesn't prove a damn thing. You don't get to make stuff up. Where is your evidence for god. Your video is all gobbledy-gook.
ingodidoubt 4 months ago
@ingodidoubt "You have described the circumstances under which a god MIGHT exist"
Is it consistent, unlike "transcendent fairies" for instance?
"very different from actually providing evidence"
Do you expect physical evidence? Please realize that limitation begs the quesiton, as "physicality" is the very thing being debated.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu If we expect physical evidence? Well... yes! Which is exactly why you didn't prove a thing. You really don't see it? You are trying to prove something that cannot be proven, and afterwards you are making excuses that you are limited. Well guess what, those limitations are those that block the human race from proving god. You can only make "logical" assumptions, which by the way can not be used in this context, as the truth in physics is often far from logical.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "If we expect physical evidence? Well... yes! Which is exactly why you didn't prove a thing"
You're admitting to a fallacy. You're begging the question. If you're going to assume physicalism from the get-go, then there's no point in continuing a debate. But feel free to prove how everything is physical. You now have the burden of proof.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu No, no and another no! By suggesting that I have the burden of proof you now take a classic stand, which is that a debate is lost if we canot prove a negative (like proving that something doesn't exist). It doesn't work that way. YOU have to prove that not everything is physical! The burden of proof is on YOU! There is no reason to assume anything else than "physicalism from the get-go" since we don't have evidence that suggests otherwise.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "No, no and another no!"
Nope. You're making a positive assertion. I'm an aphysicalist. I don't believe "everything is physical." I believe, rather, that some things are physical, other things not. For instance, my thought of being an aphysicalist isn't physical. Unless, of course, you can name the specific synapses that would make me believe in this manner. You've made a positive assertion, and fallaciously continue to do so. You have that burden.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu Thoughts are happening in the brain. And though we still have many questions remaining to be answered about the brain, then claiming that it is not physical is really just a big leap to take. Like you said - I myself cannot name the specific synapses that made you believe so, but it has to be there in order for your brain to reach this conclusion. We can remove people's ability to think in certain ways by shutting down certain parts of the brain, which must make them physical.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@namesameasu I really shouldn't be talking too much about the brain, I don't consider myself an expert in any way. But it seems to me that you are constantly jumping to conclusions. Even if we were to accept that there are things that are not physical, it wouldn't not prove god. Quite simply because if it is not physical then we have no way of testing it. We can not produce results from something that we have no idea of, and we can therefore not say anything about it. We can only speculate.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "we have no way of testing it"
We can test it logically, as I do here: using modality and consistency. If you notice, I don't use the term "God" throughout the entire proof, except in the introduction and title. I only refer to the known entity of the "mind." The point is: if you accept "mind" as the higher state of consciousness it seems to be, then you might as well accept "God," as well. God is just a higher order of what we already know and experience.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu You're jumping and jumping more to conclusions. It is really growing tiresome. Just because you can test it logically does not make the logic valid. I don't know how to express myself more clear. It has been demonstrated over and over again that logical thinking often has nothing to do with reality. You. need. results!
Secondly - No! Just because I believe that I am conscious it is AGAIN a giant leap to just accept god because he is (supposedly) a consciousness being
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "It is really growing tiresome"
Time for a nap?
"Just because you can test it logically does not make the logic valid"
Sure, it has to pass the test, as well. This one does. Thanks.
"logical thinking often has nothing to do with reality"
Naturally. Variables have to be filled in.
"a giant leap"
Otherwise the brain, out of inorganic matter, unthinkingly became a thinking thing that thinks itself.
Explain that one.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu You are clearly misunderstanding me. What I was saying was that without evidence you can logically conclude all you like. You can conclude the most astonishing things, but the logic has no ground in reality. You can't just pick stuff that has yet to be proven and use them in your logic, that's just going to make it all pointless.
Thinking became a result of evolution, so yes, unthinkingly it became a thinking thing. Study up on it mate
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 if only it was logically deduced what hi concludes...only if....
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 (Part II) "if it is not physical then we have no way of testing it"
Physically test it? No. Beginning to see the circularity here? We can indirectly prove it's not physical, though.
"from something that we have no idea of"
But we do have an idea of it: by extrapolating upon what we already know, based on our own experience. If there's only one consistent conclusion, then that's probably the conclusion.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu What is it that you don't understand about indirectly proving something? Surely you must be able to understand why science would not accept this method of proving things?
You can not use your own experience and pick conclusions like that. Do you realize how many false conclusions mankind has reached throughout history because of people thinking like that: If the one thing can't be right, then surely the other one is the answer.. Sorry mate but this method is doomed to begin with.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "You can not use your own experience and pick conclusions like that"
Well if neuroscience admits it has an inability to fully account for a phenomena that we all first-hand experience throughout our lives, that's an indirect proof that the brain consists of more than physical properties.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu NNNOOOOOOO... it... is... not. Really is your brain locked in your own argument, unable to gather new information you hear?? I'm repeating myself over and over. No, they have not fully accounted for it, but that freakin doesn't mean that the opposite has been indirectly proven. Do you realize how many absurd things we have indirectly proven if we accepted that???
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 (Part III): "Do you realize how many absurd things we have indirectly proven if we accepted that???"
Yup. But they all break down with logical analysis, except one: pure mind..
"our reason is not evidence"
Our reason determines evidence.
"Simple natural selection chose those who were most intelligent"
So, according to you, intelligence determines sexual attraction. What explains the Kardashian phenomenon then?
namesameasu 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 (Pt II) "my thought of being an aphysicalist isn't physical"
BTW: This is proven indirectly by neuroscience's inability to provide an account for it. Also: it doesn't readily appear to anyone as physical. For instance, can you see, smell, hear, taste, or touch the thought you're having now?
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu Again: Just because they haven't provided evidence for it DOES NOT mean that it is the way you think. That's just jumping to conclusions. We haven't provided proof that a planet far away is made of cheese, so it is thereby proven? You seem to be having a hard time saying "we don't know (yet)".
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 Proven indirectly*
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 (Part III) "We haven't provided proof that a planet far away is made of cheese"
Cheese comes from cows. Would there be another planet made of beef?
"You seem to be having a hard time saying "we don't know (yet)".
Well I don't know bout that.... But if you say "i don't know" after reaching a logical conclusion, then you might as well admit you don't really know anything. So why even add the "yet"? Oh, that's right: show and tell (physicalism).
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu Now you're just taking my comment out of context. Yes of course you have to use logic when proving things, provided that you already have evidence for it. When talking about things that we have no idea of, you cannot use logic the way that you are concluding that there must be a god and he is not physical.
Cheese comes from cows? really? that's all you have? Okay how about this: Provide proof that it's not made of kablakablaba. If you can't it's indirectly proven that it's there..
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "that we have no idea of"
But we do have ideas of everything discussed in the video.
"it's not made of kablakablaba"
Well, if kablakablaba is just another term for consciousness, then maybe. But why make up another term for consciousness?
"without evidence"
Our own reason is evidence.
"Thinking became a result of evolution"
What components caused it to emerge?
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu You are ignoring my point completely. I was stating that because with indirect proof you are able to conclude something like that. The flaud is all the same, even if you replace it with consciousness.
No, our reason is not evidence. It really isn't. You need something more to call it evidence. Results maybe?
To your final comment - read up on it! Simple natural selection chose those who were most intelligent, thus evolving out minds over time. From pure instinct into today's brains
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@namesameasu And since you insist on using that example. Yes, there are in fact times when thoughts can affect you physically. They can affect you emotionally and physically. Think about if someone you love died, think about something that makes you angry, think about something that embarrases you - how does your body react? Some will hardly react, some begin to shake, some have big bloodstreams to their head, some will just get sad and others can actually get sick. It CAN affect us physically.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "They can affect you emotionally and physically"
... or they can affect my typing in this comment. So? The external affects us internally: unity of opposition. Emotions, btw, are mainly physical. They probably affect thoughts just as much as thoughts affect emotions. If you're claiming all cause-effect is physical, then you're again assuming physicalism. Doesn't the vague idea of justice cause us to act certain way? Don't purposes cause us to act? How are they physical?
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu No reason to assume anything else than physicalism since we dont. have. proof. of. anything. else! Why do you think you have the idea of justice? Why do you think others have different ideas of justice? It is a result of the physical inputs you receive during your life, it's your brain creating it due to physics. Evolution has given our brains that ability. Enough reason to believe it's physical, and without other evidence so far we really have no reason to believe otherwise.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "we dont. have. proof. of. anything. else!"
Sure -- that's all we have physical proof of. That's the problem with your argument: it's circular.
"different ideas of justice?"
Everyone has the same idea of justice. They just apply it differently. It's morality that varies. Justice is a simple, non-physical idea. You may disagree that a stoning is just, for instance, as do I, but you would still have the same idea of it: otherwise you couldn't even communicate your dissent,
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu If it's such a circular argument why do you think that the world's best scientists are disputing your argument and agreeing with mine? Just because there is a possibility that something is not physical does not mean that it actually the case.
To separate justice and morality you need a long discussion, and it's some pretty heavy claims you're putting out there. However, in short, justice is a concept of morality, which is to say that you cannot be just without morals in play.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "To separate justice and morality you need a long discussion"
My point is: WIthout an innate sense of justice, we couldn't even communicate about morality. Justice is its basis, morality isn't the basis of justice. Morality is its application. You can "be" just without morals in play (one would just be "just" without deliberation), but you cannot be moral without being just. One must already know "justice" in order to determine whether an account of it is correct.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu Yes it is. Morals is one of the basis of justice. Justice is the description of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law (or principles) and religion - all of them are different from culture to culture, and person to person. In other words, justice is made up of these, which all differs according to ones life experience. Yes we can communicate without morality without everyone having the same idea of justice, we would simply disagree on what is right and wrong.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "justice is made up of these"
I say justice is the basis of morality, you claim it is it's outcome. So what would you consider the basis of morality?
"we would simply disagree on what is right and wrong"
On what basis?
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu The basis of morality is your life experience. Morals come into play in the evolutionary ladder, which insured out survival. People have different moral standards which points to that it is created due to interaction with the environment.
Justice is merely the word we use to sum up the different attitudes our brain have developed. I don't agree with much of American, Chinese or Japanese sense of justice, which would be different if I was born in a different environment.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "The basis of morality is your life experience"
... and what would be the gauge of this life experience if not an idea of justice?
"Justice is merely the word we use to sum up the different attitudes our brain have developed"
So a five year old child would have less of a sense of justice than a ten year old? So, if they fight, the ten year old would always be right. Correct?
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu Simply because you are older does not mean you are right. "less sense of justice"? It's hard to measure like that, but the ten year old most likely have a more complex idea of the world around him, so he takes more aspects into consideration - in that regard, yes, the five year has "less" sense of justice - that however does not mean he is wrong (that would also depend on who is judging whether he is right or wrong). So no, he is not always right.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@namesameasu I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you mean when you say that everyone has the same sense of justice? How can you say that? Surely Hitler and you have different senses of justice? Please explain in more detail, otherwise we might be talking past each other.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "Justice is merely the word we use to sum up the different attitudes our brain have developed. I don't agree with much of American, Chinese or Japanese sense of justice, which would be different if I was born in a different environment."
Sorry for the late reply. Please watch the latest video "Proof Of God, Part 2: How God Is All-Good" for answers to this. Thanks.
namesameasu 3 months ago
@namesameasu And another thing, as I argued before: To even have the concept of morality, you brain needs to create them due to physics. The ideas you get are created physically in your brain, and it is constructed in the patterns of the concepts etc. you have encountered in your life.
Of course there are instincts we are born with that ensures that everyone has basic survival coded in them, but those are constructed via genes, they are therefore not non-physical.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 You are relying on your own idea that what's going on in the brain in not physical, simply because it appears that way to you. You are simply concluding too early. If we concluded a fact simply because it appeared a certain way and also that we don't have evidence to suggest anything at all, we can't just label it the way we think it appears. That's we way children conclude things...
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "we don't have evidence"
Of course, you're referring to physical evidence. You haven't yet understood that this is begging the question?
"The ideas you get are created physically in your brain"
... and where's your evidence of this?
"constructed via genes"
Really?
"why do you think that the world's best scientists are disputing your argument and agreeing with mine?"
Like John Hagelin? Please view here on YouTube: /watch?v=OrcWntw9juM
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu That was actually a pretty exiting clip, really makes you think about the universe. Theories like this are, however, still in the process of being verified. There is a rather big chance that they are correct I will openly admit. However what I meant by "your argument" and "my argument" that they are agreeing with is whether or not god exists, and If John Hagelin is correct there is still a long way to go to prove god, especially the god of any religion.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 (Part II): "That was actually a pretty exiting clip"
Glad you liked it.
"If John Hagelin is correct there is still a long way to go to prove god"
Sure, based on that clip alone.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu No no no. If the Proof of god was actually present, there would be no discussion. Surely the great minds of the world would be able to see how it would all add up to a god that created the universe. It would be labeled as fact! However, that is not the case. There is so many unanswered questions and most likely a great deal of new things to be discovered. It seems like we just found something faster than the speed of light, resulting in so many theories being pointless.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 "If the Proof of god was actually present, there would be no discussion"
There would also be no free will in regards to faith.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu If the proof of god was present there would be no free will in regards to faith? Well yes, because this would raise more questions that we have no idea of how to prove
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@namesameasu Before evidence is given for the different theories they are still victim so similar discoveries, which would basically destroy them. This is why I cannot point out enough that evidence is crucial before we label it as fact. I know that theories are more than accurate and are based upon other facts that we already know, but altogether it would be wrong to say with 100% that it is true - just like The Big Bang is still only the best explanation so far, not necessarily the true one.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@ABrogaard89 (Part II) "but altogether it would be wrong to say with 100% that it is true"
Sure, that's what is meant by having faith. You have faith in physicalism, I have faith in metaphysical claims.
"its your burden of proof"
I've met that here in this video. As you say, it may not be 100 percent "fool"proof, but that's the way things go.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu No not faith. We have proven that physical things exists and we are justified to put trust in that being correct.. We have not fully demonstrated that non physical things exists - therefore i'm not taking a leap of faith, I'm simply being sceptic towards what we have yet to prove.
If it's "the ways things go" then it cannot be called proof.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying you are definitely wrong, but this can not be regarded as proof until we provide definitive evidence.
ABrogaard89 4 months ago
@namesameasu "the same idea of justice" so everybody thinks eye for an eye is just?
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xQf_QfitmKE
majorl311 4 months ago
as shown in the comment section of your last vid(where you falsely claimed you won over TAE) your assumptions,assertions and claims and the from that following conclusions don't hold water.Why do you produce a video with those false assumptions?
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 plain and simple common sense says there is a God,design requires a designer ,creation requires a creator ,not that hard really!
majorl311 4 months ago
@majorl311 plain and simple common sense often is wrong.Design needs a designer.Well natural selection does this job quite well without being concious about that.You don't really need to involve something overcomplicated as a magical skydaddy when there is such a simple working explanation.Not that hard really...
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 you have a bad case of atheism syndrome,for one thing if natural selection is so intelligent that it can work things out all on its own,then it possesses an intelligence in other words you made yourself in a smaller sense and that makes no sense and is absurd!
majorl311 4 months ago
@majorl311 "natural selection is so intelligent that it can work things out all on its own" who said that it was intelligent?Why do you personalize something that is only a process?Does gravity think about that it should pull the way it pulls?Does electricity think about transporting electrons in metall?This thought is absurd.As well it is for natural selection.There is no intelligence needed at all.Don't try to force your presuppositions on that.
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 "who said that it was intelligent?"
How did the brain, from inorganic matter, unthinkingly became a thinking thing that thinks itself? How did it develop the ability to accurately interpret reality, as opposed to pragmatically? Do you realize that if all we have is a pragmatic perception of reality, we may not know much of anything at all? I notice you're of German origin, please read up on some Hegel. You'd be fortunate to read his work in his original language.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu "accurately" well taht is your way you describe the mind.Its far from that.Our conciousness is far away from being accurate.
Biologically we see a development of the brain from simple neurocells that slowly form something like a brain or braines.And as we see and test (for example mirror testing) that many animals with a ver yhigh ratio of brain to bodymass are self aware/can think about action are able to plan for the future etc.So an evolution of conciousness and mind cont
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@namesameasu seems to be reasonable to account for more complex thoughts.At one stage the capacity of mind can exceed its biological basis and starts to think of more abstract things and finally about itself.Its reasonable and consistant...something your hypothesis lacks in all points.
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@namesameasu so basically even your comment doesn't fit to the quote of me you used.funny...
So who says that a natural process needs intelligence?
That's your presumption the whole time.So basically your god of the gaps is flavoured with a bit of circular reasoning and that served with flawed premesis on shaky basis sauce.
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 ""by definition it is a change"
The "change" is the content of the thought. There need not be a change prior to change.
"a ver yhigh ratio of brain to bodymass"
This may just as well apply to channeling in conscoiusness, as well. A larger radio would have a larger receiver and sound capabiliities. What does that prove? Are you saying bodymass determines consciousness? So, according to you, would a person who gains weight achieve more consciousness, or less?.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu "There need not be a change prior to change." so the state before epiphany and after as the words make it look like are not a change in state of mind and therefore bound to time?Laughable.
"as well apply to channeling in conscoiusness" as long as you can't proof this is the case its an empty and unnecessary assumption.You have to show beforehand that minds without brains can and do exist.And from that its some kind of circular logic from you. cont
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 "Laughable"
That's all you offer as a rebuttal?
"as long as you can't proof this is the case its an empty and unnecessary assumption"
The point it: it's just as provable as your claim. Thoughts are readily non-physical to us. Can you see, smell, hear, taste, or feel your current thoughts, for instance?
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu "That's all you offer as a rebuttal?" no do you actually read whole comments or do you ignore most parts of them?
"as provable as your claim" its not.If it were you should have the proof of it.So it is still an unnecessary assumption(to bad its vital to your arguement).
What we can show is that mind is influenced by brain and drugs/magnetfiedls whatsoever.That is sufficient to say that the mind comes from the brain.But when you postulate that the brain is only channeling cont
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 "do you actually read whole comments"
I read the comments. But the only thing of substance I got from that paragraph was "laughable." Even that doesn't say much thought.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu then you seem to misunderstand the term substantial.The objection comes before the conclusion that your logic is laughable.And you being unable to refute any objections just perfectly shows your shaky logic and your inabillity to defend your position.You really seem to be alone with that.
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 "unable to refute any objections"
Didn't I refute your brain/body mass ration as sole criteria to account for consciousness? What else was I unable to refute?
"green pixies"
Why would winged creatures be needed to account for gravity? Are wings dependent on gravity, or would gravity be dependent on wings? The former, obviously. So winged creatures didn't cause gravity, as the effect would be dependent on the cause, not vice versa. Thus, the idea is refuted.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu oh no and wings are meaningless to the arguement.Don't try to sidestep on that issue.The point is that you assume something unneccessaryly complex that has no evidence in favour (you never provided valid evidence).So its a pointless assumption wothout basis that is needed for your arguement to make it somehow sound.That's the whole point.Why can't they develop wings to overcome the gravity of other pixies and so the can also explain dark energy.Thus you don't refute anything
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 "Why can't they develop wings to overcome the gravity of other pixies and so the can also explain dark energy.Thus you don't refute anything"
According to your account, the purpose of their pixieness (wings) is to overcome the existence of other pixies, and to overcome a threatening aspect of the universe to themselves. Hence, they're not God-like.
"never has been a mind without a brain"
I refer you to the physicist John Hagelin here on YouTube: /watch?v=OrcWntw9juM
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu "Hence, they're not God-like." that was not what I was taliing about.Try to keep up with me.It was about overcomplex and unnecessary assumptions not whether or not they are gods.You missed the whole point here.I even said this was a physical analogy of the concept I was trying to explain to you.No wonder you still think your arguement is sound if you misunderstand and ignore that much of the objections made.
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 "So what's your concern with that one?"
It's a public forum.
"overcomplex and unnecessary assumptions"
Sure, like coffee-mugs and bigfoot. Besides all of your assumptions, like these other ones, had a physical basis, so they can be refuted physically.
An "eye for an eye" would be a moral law, if any. For one to state that "something is just," one would already have to know what "justice" means in order to determine whether it is properly applied.
namesameasu 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@namesameasu "It's a public forum." I have no problem with that you commented but with the content of your comment.
"Sure, like coffee-mugs and bigfoot...had a physical basis".That.Is Irrelevant.to the.point.I don't argue about the process of inferring unneccessarily complex and baseless assumptions wether they are physical or not.Even if tehy are refutable or not was irrellevant to that point.try to keep up. cont
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@namesameasu "eye for an eye" no its not a moral law its an idea of justice.Justice is neither absolute nor is it independant of morals.You also have to have an idea about morality to know what is just and what is not just.Just to turn your arguement around.
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 "its an idea of justice:
Would this be how you define justice? So if one person came into a dispute with only one eye, and the other person has two, then would the one-eyed person have a just advantage over the other, or would that be unjust? If that' s not how you define justice, what indicator do you use to determine what it is?
"You haven't proven taht a mind yithout a brain exists"
... nor have you proven otherwise.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu You know the concept of an eye for an eye?You should its proposed in the bible.And well it shows that what justice is is nothing absolute but dependant on what we see as just which is connected to what we think is moral to do.Both are from that still interdependant.
"nor have you proven otherwise." that's still your burden of proof.You come up with unneccassarily complex assumptions.You have to back them up.And because its vital to your arguement you should in order to make it sound
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@namesameasu "I refer you to the physicist John Hagelin" Some objections on the first 4 minutes of that video and I think there are more to come: string theory:unproven and until now there are no experments possible or known to falsify or verify this hypthesis, he himself also admits that he hasn't been able to unify neuroscience with quantum physics, and furthermore a field is not intelligence he might call it that way but he has no proof to show so also he hasn't shown this field.cont
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 (Pt II) "string theory:unproven"
But you seem perfectly fine with making dreams visible. This has long been asserted as possible, yet unacheivable. It's basically determined by which areas of the brains light up -- same as with fMRIs. EWven if proven, such impact may just as well be channeled, than created. Also, the inverted spectrum problem would still apply. Look it up.
"a field is not intelligence... He has no proof"
You expect a lot in 4 minutes.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu "perfectly fine with making dreams visible" well that's what I have just read.That's what you denied being possible and what you used as "indirect proof".So that' arguement is now down for you?
"as well be channeled" which still is unneccessaryly complex and has no proof and therefore shouldn't be the defult position you start your arguement from as I just tried to explain to you.And what exactly has this new arguement that you just vomited to do with that?
gastarbeiter1 4 months ago