From Kaivalya Darshanam by Sri Swami Yukteswar - "Parabrahma causes Nature to emerge. From Aum (Pranava Energy/Force) comes Time, Space, and Atom/particle" "Atoms/Anu en masse are Maya (illusory) and individually are avidya (darkness)" 'The light shineth on the darkness and the darkness comprehendeth not' - John 1:5 In the 9th century the Upanishads clearly articulate Time Space Matter and Energy as the 4 principles of the cosmic manifestation and artifacts of Sat Chit Ananda.
In most of the cases you've simply demonstrated that these men are smart enough to be able to say "I don't know" or be transparent about their presuppositions. You could find such cases with the highest level of intellectuals in any crowd (scientists, historians, atheists, theists, economists, psychologists etc). We all assume certain axioms, we all have presuppositions. To claim that this is a short-coming is silly, in my view. In fact, to admit them is intellectually honest - a virtue
@TheWhoMe123 "these men are smart enough to be able to say "I don't know""
(1) Saying "I don't know" is a virtue I agree, but not when one "doesn't know" about how important though unevidenced aspects of their worldview COULD even work in light of things we actually know about the world, but still accept the worldview as TRUE regardless of this inability to give a coherent account.
@JPararajasingham 1) There are important aspects of all of our world views, a world with god or a world without god, for which we have no definite answer. The proper response on both sides I think is "I don't know". 2) Most of these men have actually written extensively on the questions being posed here and proposed a variety possible answers that are intellectually satisfying (although you don't get that in the short clips you've picked out)
@TheWhoMe123 "Most of these men have actually written extensively on the questions being posed here and proposed a variety possible answers that are intellectually satisfying"
This is an empty claim without an example (i.e. to counter my clip examples).
"from within an atheistic view of the universe it's very likely that "I don't know" will always be the most honest answer."
I agree 100%. My entire point is that I think theists are failing to say I don't know as much as atheists.
@JPararajasingham The three points you brought up: omnibenelovence, 'immaterial' entities, and miracles are some of the major topics explored in nearly every one of their writings.
@TheWhoMe123 That's not quite backing up your claim. Are you going to give an example of a intellectually satisfying answer given by one of these speakers to the question they are addressing? This is your claim, I'm genuinely interested in one example.
NB. Realise too that you have shifted from your initial argument that failing to give satisfying answers is fine, to a new argument that satisfying answers have been actually been given and that my clips just don't contain them.
@JPararajasingham Am I going to rehearse a series of complex ideas put forth by particle physicists and ivy league philosophical minds within the word constraints of YouTube comments? Heck no lol. I have a life. I've provided enough information here so that anyone truly interested in examining the issue will have no trouble finding a place to start. I'd suggest something for a more popular audience like Polkinghorne -The Faith of A Physicist to get the ball rolling
@TheWhoMe123 "Am I going to rehearse a series of complex ideas put forth by particle physicists and ivy league philosophical minds within the word constraints of YouTube comments?"
Empty claims which you cannot defend. Thought as much.
@JPararajasingham Holy crap. I'm not even going to bother reading these. Most of it is ad homs and other nonsense. And yes, each of them do have rather elaborate hypotheses regarding all the things you've listed. You've claimed to be "exploring" intellectual Christians but all of your nonsense suggests to me that all you've done is pick through videos and quote mine which is incredibly intellectually dishonest. I can say quite confidently that you've never read a word they've written.
@JPararajasingham lol I calm bro. That's the point. I don't have time to spend all day going back and forth with someone like you who just tries to put people down without any actual substance. I've made the point I set out to make quite successfully, I think. I also noticed, right off the jump, that when I checked out your sources that you cut things out strategically. Not exactly conducive to a honest enquiry.
@JPararajasingham Yes, that was my point. I am a busy person and I shouldn't even have responded to your first response to my comment. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to make youtube videos where you quote mine people, add emphasis to certain statements of humility by adding silly captions, and then argue in circles about them lol. Point: Go actually try reading the works of some of these fellas before you criticize them based on quote mining lol. Good luck on your journey sir.
@TheWhoMe123 "You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to make youtube videos"
I think with the number of views and web attention I've got it's time well spent. Plus of course here you are, a phenomenally busy individual, who felt compelled to begin commenting so much. I am humbled that you continue to take the time out of your busy schedule to do this. I am glad I made the video, if only for the fact that you felt it important enough to get so worked up commenting on it.
@JPararajasingham Many of the quotes you used are the initial stages of various thought experiments - one example is your question regarding William Demski's theodicy. There's a cut in there when he is saying that these are some ideas that theologians wrestle around with etc.
@TheWhoMe123 "There's a cut in there when he is saying that these are some ideas that theologians wrestle around with"
Dembski quite clearly says the HE has "STRUGGLED with this" problem of pre-fall evil. He also used the wording "COULDN'T it happen" when describing his idea. The clip does not present his idea as anything but his first and strongest CONSIDERATION of an answer. And by your reaction, even you recognise that it's a ridiculous consideration.
@TheWhoMe123 "Many of the quotes you used are the initial stages of various thought experiments"
The clips summarise the answers they chose to present. I am well aware that theists and atheists alike grapple with these questions. But atheists reject theism because of poor answers to these worldview-sustaining questions, whereas theists still believe despite the poor answers.
If you think these theists DO have better answers that they're simply failing to articulate, present one.
@JPararajasingham These interviews are mostly informal settings and you get very informal, humble, short, answers. You claim to look into these guys but you actually haven't read a single one of their works from the sound of it. Not to mention you're arrogance and condescending tone, I think if one of us should be embarrassed sir, it would be you. Certainly, if I spoke to people as you do I would be quite embarrassed.
@JPararajasingham See, there's a difference between a conversation and a debate. I didn't come here to debate with some arrogant youtube kid lol. I think I provided enough information so that anyone with a mind of their own could look into things. I'm not going to sit here and have an extensive back and forth through comments. I just don't have the time and frankly you come across as someone who is less interested in learning from others and more interested in hurling out insults.
@JPararajasingham If you want to PM me I'll send you loads of information and try to explain in great detail why you're remarks here are rather childish and uninformed.
@JPararajasingham This entire video appears to be a compilation of self-conscious speculations and "I don't know's" so I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that atheists are more comfortable saying "I don't know". Ultimately, this appears to be a criticism of intellectual humility. With regards to your comment about an 'empty claim', I wasn't attempting an argument. As someone who purports to have explored the writings of these men I would assume you're aware of their writings.
@TheWhoMe123 "This entire video appears to be a compilation of self-conscious speculations and "I don't know's" so I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that atheists are more comfortable saying "I don't know"."
They say they know god exists, they know miracles have occurred, they know Jesus rose, they know other realms exist, they know what will happen after they die, they know the ultimate purpose of life. They are not comfortable saying they don't know to all the above.
@TheWhoMe123 (2) For example, the speakers are asked about various evidenced aspects of the universe which conflict with various made-up aspects of theism:
1. Evidenced suffering vs. made-up omnibenevolence
2. Evidenced naturalism vs. made up nonbiological beings
3. Evidenced unchanging natural laws vs. made-up miraculous suspension of laws
If these made-up core ideas of the worldview conflict this much, shouldn't that tell theists something?
@JPararajasingham I've never found in my interactions with intelligent, self-aware, atheists that any of them had a problem saying "I don't know" when it comes to a variety of important questions. I wouldn't expect any less from these men who profess belief in something which, by it's very nature, must transcend complete explanation. In fact, I would argue that even from within an atheistic view of the universe it's very likely that "I don't know" will always be the most honest answer.
@JPararajasingham I haven't shifted anything lol. I think both claims are true. 1) we all have areas of our world views that leave us saying "I don't know right now", if we're honest. This is not a bad thing. 2) The video is misleading in that each of these individuals has put forward elaborate hypotheses, or speculations, regarding the questions asked in this video. If you'd read them, which you claim to have done, you'd be well aware of that.
@TheWhoMe123 "each of these individuals has put forward elaborate hypotheses"
Coyne has elaborate hypotheses when he says it is simply his faith that the resurrection occurred? Polkinhorne has elaborate hypotheses when he says there is a great deal of contention among theologians regarding god's temporality? Collins has elaborate hypotheses when he says he cannot even begin to speculate how miracles could occur? Carson has elaborate hypotheses when he compares organisms to cars?
@TheWhoMe123 "If you'd read them, which you claim to have done, you'd be well aware of that."
I think it would be obvious to everyone reading your comments that you have made silly claims, that MOST of the speakers HAVE answered the SPECIFIC questions being asked, but it just happens to be that they are giving completely ridiculous non-answers here AND the answers are far too complex and elaborate for you to even begin to describe here!
@TheWhoMe123 D'Souza has elavorate hypotheses when he says civilisation got started 5000 years ago? RJ Berry has elaborate hypotheses when he says a divine spark created humans? Dembski has elaborate hypotheses when he says god changed the past to explain pre-human suffering? Wright/Zacharias have elaborate hypotheses about the immorality of homosexuality?
I think you've simply not watched the video. Your knee jerk reaction to rubbish the entire thing has just made you look silly.
@TheWhoMe123 "I haven't shifted anything lol. I think both claims are true."
That IS a shift in argument. Two different defences for the SAME point. Saying no answer is acceptable is different to saying good answers have been given elsewhere, but the speakers don't seem to be able to reiterate here what they've said elsewhere. And for some reason NONE of them say that their hypotheses are too elaborate to explain succinctly, which is your convenient defence on their behalf.
They never actually answer the arguments. They just assume an abandonment of reason because they're too stupid to actually understand theistic arguments themselves. They have ignorantly & blindly convinced themselves via one Dawkins book that THEY are paragons of reason. So their making actual arguments is no longer necessary to uphold this belief. ONLY their assertion of it.
@Sage80 not to mention not remotely portraying them honestly or in context. That would necessitate a response greater than, "I believe that the plain assertion of the world's existence is tantamount to reason!" not wary of the contradiction of relying on that which exists as also that responsible for which exists. That is what one refers to as illogic.
What I love is the complete inability for the poster to answer a single argument being made in a remotely intelligible way that could at all compare to the level of sophistication in the tehistic argument. This is tantamount to, "Smart Christians scare me cause their dumbness sounds better!" The most intellectually dishonest people alive.
@Sage80 The ontological argument posits existence as an attribute and attempts to define God into existence. This fails because existence is not an attribute. This argument can be made to prove that the famous 'perfect' mythical city Shangri-La to exist. This is why i said it was such a bad argument, its just a poor attempt to define it into existence.
Check out IronChariotsWiki for an overview of why it isn't valid.
@Sage80 I have managed to compile this video because I have read and listened to as many "smart Christian" arguments as humanly possible. I don't see how that implies fear.
The purpose of this video is to show what my careful efforts to listen to Christian claims have led me to conclude; namely that even the smartest examples of Christian theist out there simply cannot rationally justify core aspects of their worldview when confronted directly.
How do they KNOW God's nature and how he thinks? Dinesh is a joke. History "got started", Dinesh, when writing was invented....your brain is getting in the way! And the Archbishop of Canterbury, I am sure, is an atheist. His babble bespeaks his real belief.
@6gunwalker "funny how atheists are desperate to tarnish theists as silly with editing lol awsome job"
That's nothing to compared to how desperate theists are to claim lack of context/editing is the reason for them sounding silly, while not giving us this all-important context that's been left out in the editing.
@JPararajasingham and i also want to nominate you for an outstanding award in the Cannes film festival for your fair neutral journilistic work on the 2 views... i think youve done an extraordinary job.. (thumbs up) lol
Journalists are supposed to be fair and present both sides, you are right. One glaring probem though - I am not a journalist, I am an individual who wishes to promote one side. Are you representing both sides fairly in your comments? Of course not. So why do you expect me to do so?
@JPararajasingham There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God! The stubborn ridiculous atheist believes the finely tuned universe created itself from NOTHING! And homochirality and DNA organized itself!!
@6gunwalker There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God! The stubborn ridiculous atheist believes the finely tuned universe created itself from NOTHING! And homochirality and DNA organized itself!!
Its interesting how none of these so called christians even consult God's word (the bible) on questions involving God and what he thinks regarding these questions. They are speaking purally from there own opinions
these guys are giving some really bad answers to some very simple questions. These questions can be answered, but these so called academics are making it seem like they just believe because they believe. Lame.
hmmmm.... interesting. but, I do not quite see the point of this video though. Is the point to prove that God does not exist, or that God exists and christians are wrong about him, or that christians don't know everything about God (like how he formed the universe, and his relationship with time and evil?)
@JP ahh... i see. But personally, I do not think that all that God is can be explained 'rationally'. I say this becoz, if God indeed created everything that is, then he is not bound by anything he's created, right? Then, how does smone bound by and limited to physical thngs explain somethn' that is not?! There are some parts of God he's let us know about, eg, his undying love for us, but how God transcends time is a mystery I don't think anyone can solve rationally or otherwise
@ricardomaman "I do not think that all that God is can be explained 'rationally'."
There are two massive problems with your statement:
1. I am not prepared to accept anything unless it makes rational and logical sense, or is supported by some sort of evidence. God should know that as a human creature, this is the only responsible position for me to take, since any other approach would lead me to accept any irrational claim about the what lies beyond the universe.
@JPararajasingham "...would lead me to accept any irrational claim about the what lies beyond the universe." What exactly would you consider as evidence of God's existence? If the presence of the entire universe isn't enough proof, then what is to you? I will write my next point on your channel/wall because there isn't enough space here for it :-)
@ricardomaman "I do not think that all that God is can be explained 'rationally'."
2. Your statement itself is something you hope is a "rational" explanation. You are not just bashing random letters on your keyboard, you have a sequence of thoughts which you believe make rational sense, and you have an expectation that I could be compelled or convinced by that rational sense (i.e. for me to say, "that makes sense"). ALL discussion is bound by rationality and logic at ALL times.
@JPararajasingham yes I agree that all discussion is bound by logic at all times. This however doesn't mean that saying that not everything can be explained rationally is an irrational statement. Afterall, if everything about God could be explained rationally then it means God is bound by this physical universe (where our rationality comes from), and therefore, he isn't God.
@ricardomaman "if everything about God could be explained rationally then it means God is bound by this physical universe"
Human rationality comes from within the universe, but it is based on something greater - laws of logic. And it is nonsensical to imagine the laws of logic not applying to the whole of reality, including god. You could say god is logic (as many theologians do) which prevents him from being "bound" if this dissatifies you.
@ricardomaman (cont.) But to say that logic/reason doesn't apply to god is to render him illogical, which makes no sense. And it is impossible thereafter to discuss anything about what god is, where he came from, what his desires are, etc., since you have decided that we cannot discuss them rationally or logically. The whole concept becomes meaningless and indecipherable. Yet clearly theists do think they can decipher god through logical discussion. You can't have it both ways.
@JPararajasingham i didn't say logic/reason doesn't apply to God, i said not all that he is can be explained logically, i.e. there is some of Him that can, and that's what some theists try to discuss (his desires would be an example of something about him that can be explained logically). And, no, i do not agree that logic is greater than what comes from within the universe because we make sense of our world by what we see and feel.
@JPararajasingham ... well, anyway, i'm tired of this debate. Feel free to have the last word in. I hope one day you are able to see how much God loves you. Good luck, and God bless.
@ricardomaman "i didn't say logic/reason doesn't apply to God, i said not all that he is can be explained logically, i.e. there is some of Him that can"
And where are you drawing this line of explication? You draw it just at the point where flaws in the God hypothesis are pointed out, so you can dismiss any criticisms even if they are rational, logical or evidential. I am amazed that you can't see that such an approach actually renders the whole God hypothesis utterly ineffectual.
@ricardomaman "There are some parts of God he's let us know about, eg, his undying love for us"
This claim of love is also a mystery - God permits extreme suffering of the creatures he supposedly loves. In fact, the problem of suffering is considered by most Christian scholars and apologists to be a mystery, and in some cases say this too cannot be explained fully by human rationality alone.
God is beyond rationality because the concept that he exists is irrational.
@JPararajasingham "...would lead me to accept any irrational claim about the what lies beyond the universe". I understand what you are saying, but that's why I said 'not all that God is', i didn't say everything that God is cannot be explained rationally. From other debates I have watched i've seen that the existence of God can be proved rationally. Honestly, it seems even more miraculous to me to think this complex universe came about by chance.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
a biased video, presenting the occasions when the Christian academics fumbled.. particularly Alistair McGrath's debate with Dawkins. This is not a fair representation of how the debates went.
@iwasglorious "a biased video, presenting the occasions when the Christian academics fumbled"
...on important questions about how their extraordinary beliefs could possibly make sense in light of things we do know to be true through science. Yes, fumble they do.
"This is not a fair representation of how the debates went."
Links to the full debates/inteviews are in the description for anyone to check. Nothing to hide here. No good arguments exist for theism.
Some of them do not make sense. But some of them do. What I understand from this is a lot of them have their "own" version of god instead of the standard christian or islam, They make space for the possibility of a supernatural being. I suspect a lot of these scholars are slightly agnostics leaning on the side of theology.
But having said that, the other vids show more scholars that are atheist and the arguments they provide make more sense. If I had to choose, I would side with the atheists.
but i really wish you'd upload this one again without the occasional subtitles as the sound quality is good enough and all it does is reduce the credibility of this video by making it look like you're trying to push an atheistic agenda.....
@dhawansoumya Thanks for the comment. May I ask what is wrong with pushing an atheistic agenda? Agendas can be dogdy, but can also be reasonable. I believe I have a respectable and rational agenda, namely to show that nonbelief is more rational than belief. This particular video aims to show that there is no such thing as sophisticated theism, it is all irrational.
There's nothing really wrong with it..........its just that i would hesitate to show this one to some of my religious friends because when i did, the first reaction i got was that only some parts are subtitled making it seem like its not completely unbiased i.e. not telling the whole story........i think the power of atheism is that all you need to do is to get people to think, and they would themselves realize that belief is irrational
@dhawansoumya "all you need to do is to get people to think"
While there are believers who have never thought deeply, there are others (like the speakers in this video), who have been thinking all their lives yet still believe. Irrespective of the subtitling, you'll notice that the fact that I've taken edited clips of interviews is causing theists to complain (not about bias, but that clips are "out of context"). I mainly direct my already thinking theist friends to this video.
@dhawansoumya (cont) "subtitled making it seem like its not completely unbiased i.e. not telling the whole story"
But this video is not trying to tell the whole story in a way; it is edited to show that even learned theists can't make sense of important conclusions of their belief. But the "whole story" comes (at least) from watching the interviews in full, so I would direct your religious friends to watch them if they think the editing is unfair (NB. links are in description).
Another favorite is listening to Richard Dawkin's silence when asked to produce a single example of a mutation that added useful information to the mutant. The whole "hopeful monster" model of evolution, which is used to explain the absence of transition forms is nothing but a hopeless monstrosity.
Wow. I'm embarrassed for the atheists who think this video is evidence of anything beyond their own confirmation bias. The central argument presented in this montage of out-of-context clips is no different than desperate attempts by right wing operatives claiming global warming is false because of disagreement yet are ignorant in climate science themselves. This dishonest attempt at making a point simply underscores that the New Atheism is just as bad (if not worse) than Fundamentalist religion.
[cont.] and while I don't vouch for apologists of the likes of D'Souza or Ravi Zacharias, I think anyone who appreciates intellectual discourse should at least respect some of the keener minds presented in this video. It should give one pause that having a belief is not mutually exclusive with intelligence and/or rationality. That so many atheists continue to treat this issue like a schoolyard debate demonstrates that they do not have a monopoly on being rational (in fact the opposite is true).
I am embarrassed for the theists here claiming "out of context", but NEVER actually state this important removed context which would apparently make the irrational sound rational.
"My own sense of how people come to be believers in a personal God is that you can get a certain distance with these kinds of intellectual arguments, but at some point you have to basically decide, I'm not going to get all the way there." - Francis Collins
Really? If you think that is funny, you should listen to atheists trying to explain where their primordeal electron came from... or why people hold to the theory of evolution which forces the manufacture of phrases such as "fossil nonconformity." Maybe you think Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell and Kepler were idiots, they were Christians. What I love is how the questions are framed using fallacious concepts so as to box out any possible rationality.
JPararajasingham said: "Everything we learn via the brain sciences tell us that we ARE robots, albeit extraordinary and fascinating ones. The primary antecedents of our "choices" are things we have NOT chosen..."
Then you didn't really choose to make that statement nor is it rational--you did not think it through: You were programmed to type it. And you could never know if it is true: could be bad programming. (But actually your statement is not rational or true, because it is self-defeating.)
It is "true" insofar as the most objective measures we have (scientific method) tell me it's true. This makes more (non-intuitive) sense than the idea that free-floating choice which is somehow set apart from deterministic causality. It is possible that I am wrong too, I don't disagree, but this is the closest to truth us humans can manage at the moment.
@BradCooperCCF "you didn't really choose to make that statement"
That depends on how you define choice. I can only understand choice if it is deterministic. For choice to be non-deterministic would make it not "mine". It would be some free-floating spark arising from outside causality, and interrupting my brain's neuronal firing. Non-deterministic choice makes no sense whatsoever. For choice to truly be mine, it MUST be deterministic.
i think... as long as you give your creation autonomy there will be bad or evil in that system. that is why hell and heaven must exist. there must be punishment and reward for those who deserve either one. to take away autonomy is to control the creation and that is too totalitarian for a loving god. god did not create us to be robots. anyone who doesn't believe in some kind of god or creator had never studied the creation closely. everything is balenced and perfect. at least in nature.
@Rustystud "as long as you give your creation autonomy there will be bad or evil in that system."
This is a common misconception, and a very serious mistake. Everything we learn via the brain sciences tell us that we ARE robots, albeit extraordinary and fascinating ones. The primary antecedents of our "choices" are things we have NOT chosen - genetic makeup, upbringing, childhood experience/trauma, innate IQ, innate preferences, abilities and genius. To believe otherwise is wishful.
Summery of video: Theists don't know everything about how God might do something, nor do they have 100% certainty regarding his existence, therefore, Christianity is irrational. What BS double standards. Scientists will admit this regarding practically any theory in science. Do you reject evolution as well? Seriously, you guys are not very skeptical regarding your own beliefs; only those you disagree with.
@owchywawa "Summery of video: Theists don't know everything about how God might do something, nor do they have 100% certainty regarding his existence"
Your summary is inaccurate. Accurate summary: Basic/fundamental questions about what this "God" is, and how he relates to the known/established aspects of reality, are unknown or poorly answered by even the most learned Christian theists.
@JPararajasingham That's what I meant. You're claim is apparently that "reason is abandoned in Christianity."
What is your evidence for this? That "Basic/fundamental questions about [God] are unknown or poorly answered?" The fact that we don't know some things about God doesn't mean that we have abandoned reason. The purpose of much of the speculation you showed was to show that objections to God, like the problem of evil, aren't necessarily good objections.
@owchywawa "The fact that we don't know some things about God doesn't mean that we have abandoned reason."
It is the fundamental and basic nature of the questions to which there are poor/unknown answers which make sustaining the belief irrational. I take your point that not all small details must be known about a concept for it to be rational (it could be argued as impossible to reach such a state of knowledge). Many problems naturally stem from theism, yet belief (irrationally) remains.
@JPararajasingham What are these problems? I could infer that the problem is that we don't know a significant amount about God, but that isn't really a problem. The only case in which this becomes a problem is when we don't know of a good answer to a problem with theism. Then the problem isn't really contained in the lack of knowledge, but with the problem without an answer. continued
So, if I am right thus far, implicit in this video is the idea that there are these problems, and Christians are answering, but their answers are not satisfactory to you. I can hardly see how this means they are abandoning reason. You may disagree with their reasoning, but do you really think anyone who disagrees with you abandons reason? I disagree with many people, but I don't call them irrational just because I disagree with them. That's silly.
@owchywawa "I disagree with many people, but I don't call them irrational just because I disagree with them."
I find their reasoning to be inadequate, hence I call it irrational. I invite others to view the reasoning used and to make their own judgements on whether it is adequate to their ears. Anyone can merely disagree as you say, but I would say part of what we can disagree on is whether adequate reasoning is being employed.
@JPararajasingham A big part of the objections to the problem of evil, which you showed from Plantinga, is to show that the problem of evil assumes we know more about God than we really do. Objections to God require knowledge, and a reasoned way to object to objections to God is to say that we don't really have knowledge of one of the premises. Far from being evidence that they have abandoned reason, it's evidence of reason.
I don't place my faith or lack of faith on soundbites or funny quotes. That's what's wrong with the most of strong philosophical or religious convictions I see around me. That's why I don't get along with the atheist community.
@JPararajasingham It's not that much that people base their beliefs in them, it's just that they find any kind of ridiculing of "the other" something that greatly empowers their conviction. I see that all the time in my own Christian community and I'm an outspoken critic of such rhetorical tactics. I see the same kind of ignorance in a lot of contemporary atheistic literature (not all of it), especially among "the four horsemen of atheism".
Revealing and very interesting video! Even in light of confronted faith, religious people admit that religion IS in no way based on common sense or on real evidence, and thus conflicts with science and reality in many evident ways. A lesson to learn by all christians specially in America, I think.
I love it! "I'm committing logical fallacy after logical fallacy, but because I'm saying it slowly, passionately, and with an english accent, I'm considered a scholar!"
I felt this big sorrow seeing these members of the human species wasting their life, their otherwise brilliant brains - and their purpose and energy on this obviously imagnary God they believe in. (And in living the lie - ruining other peoples life in the prossess also.)
"So they willingly cut their lives short, for no personal gain at all, AND it's a sacrifice that we all admit has no lasting value. That's not heroic, that's a tragedy."
That's your opinon. For me, the fact that a personal gain does not occur as a result of someone's actions but rather a gain for others/society makes someone MORE of a hero. Indeed, the more selfless an act and the more of an impact it has on others (frees a whole society, changes the world, etc.) the more heroic it is.
@JPararajasingham "For me, the fact that a personal gain does not occur as a result of someone's actions but rather a gain for others/society makes someone MORE of a hero." yes because YOU benefited from HIS actions. The term hero is applied to someone other than yourself who you gain from their sacrifice. In other words it's a manipulative word to get a person who should ONLY be concerned with his own well being to sacrifice himself for your benefit. Yeah that's not "stupid" thats "heroic"
@JPararajasingham "That's your opinon." duuhhh. Yes that's my opinion. And its YOUR opinion that is NOT pointless. Hence why we are talking about meaning. Yours is that subjective meaning is "good enough" mine is that I don't think it is. You retort: "That's just your opinion." I say: "Yea, so what, that's all you believe is important anyway." NONE of this means that I'm irrational nor that WLC is irrational.
@mike10121996 "NONE of this means that I'm irrational nor that WLC is irrational."
He is not stating mere opinion. He is suggesting a truth about reality, a fact of the matter. His claimed fact of the matter is that without lasting meaning, deeds and actions are trivial and insignificant. He claims one cannot ascribed "real meaning" to deeds. In the context of the debate, in the context of him listening to a rebuttal, I do not think he is stating mere opinion.
@JPararajasingham " In the context of the debate, in the context of him listening to a rebuttal, I do not think he is stating mere opinion." Yea, once again so what? He believes there is transcendent objective Truth. Just because, once again, he disagrees with you it doesn't mean it's "irrational" or "illogical"
@mike10121996 "Just because, once again, he disagrees with you it doesn't mean it's "irrational" or "illogical""
And once again for me, suggesting that it is a fact of the matter that real meaning requires lasting meaning IS illogical. If you don't think he is claiming it is a fact of the matter then I agree it is mere difference of opinion. But in context (of a debate) he is claiming it is a fact of the matter, hence he gives arguments to support it, as do you with your numerous examples.
@mike10121996 Let me quote WLC earlier in the debate regarding the heat death of the universe. He says, "In light of that end, it's hard for me to understand how our moral choices have ANY sort of significance". He goes on to say, "OUR moral lives become VACUOUS because they don't have that kind of cosmic significance."
Watch the video clip "Cosmic Moral Significance and Accountability". WLC is clearly arguing that this would be a fact of the matter.
@JPararajasingham "WLC is clearly arguing that this would be a fact of the matter." which is his position to have. Remember your assertion is that THAT position is illogical NOT that WLC hasn't sufficiently proven it to be true. Those are two different things. Its one thing to say, he didn't demonstrate it to be true sufficiently, but your assertion is that it's down right irrational and illogical. So that's YOUR burden of proof.
@JPararajasingham "He says, "In light of that end, it's hard for me to understand how our moral choices have ANY sort of significance". He's saying, as I have said, that he believes this to be the case. Your saying not just that that is wrong. Your saying that assertion is illogical and irrational. That's not WLC burden. He doesn't have to PROVE it's not illogical. It's YOUR burden of proof to say that it IS illogical. Repeating what he says doesn't mean it's illogical.
@mike10121996 WLC fails to explain when asked WHY lasting meaning is a necessity to have any meaning at all. If I say that if you've never owned a dog then you cannot be a doctor, it is not up to you to explain why those things are completely unrelated. It remains up to me to explain how they are. WLC fails to do so, and I can confirm that he's never been able to in any of his debates. Hence it remains an irrational and baseless assertion.
@JPararajasingham "If I say that if you've never owned a dog then you cannot be a doctor," WRONG analogy. Remember you JUST wrote lasting sig and sig. So it's not two different NOUNS it's the qualifier. "Lasting" so your analoyg is specious. Blatently specious. It's not like a dog and a doctor. Its the connection between sig. and LASTING significance.
@JPararajasingham "WLC fails to do so, and I can confirm that he's never been able to in any of his debates." Your certainly NOT saying he's never addressed it?! You must be saying that his arguments don't convince you. ONCE AGAIN, because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's irrational or illogical. OR because he fails to convince you THEREFORE he must be irrational? That's hardly the case.
@mike10121996 "Your saying not just that that is wrong. Your saying that assertion is illogical and irrational."
It is a pretty basic non sequitur, hence it is illogical. The direct relation between "lasting significance" and "significance" has not been demonstrated.
@JPararajasingham "The direct relation between "lasting significance" and "significance" has not been demonstrated." Did you even LOOK at what you wrote? The word "lasting" is a qualifier of the word significance. It talks about a specific TYPE of significance. So your complaining that WLC didn't absolutely demonstrate the connection between significance, (which we talked about as a vague word) and "lasting" significance? That's like saying a car and a "fast" car have nothing in common!
@mike10121996 "That's like saying a car and a "fast" car have nothing in common!"
Misrepresentation of the analogy. The point is the two have no direct relation, that's what a non sequitur is. We don't need to be talking about the same type of thing, and if we do that doesn't preclude the possibility of being a non sequitur. So a car and fast car have something in common, sure, but that doesn't mean it is logical to say if no fast cars exist, none of the cars you see are real cars.
@JPararajasingham "Misrepresentation of the analogy. The point is the two have no direct relation, that's what a non sequitur is." Fine but you have to demonstrate that. For you objective meaning is not important at all. It is irrelevant. But that's not true for everyone. This is question of axiology. What's important. Because you don't see objective meaning as relevant, it does not follow that any one who DOES see it as relevant is irrational, or illogical. Different values.
@JPararajasingham "Misrepresentation of the analogy." It is NOT a misrepresentation. "significance" is the noun, "lasting" is the the adj you used to qualify it. Significance and lasting significance ARE connected because it's the same type of thing but simply qualified, or specified, in one instance and not in the other. Monkeys and lasting monkeys. Cars and lasting cars. Rockets and lasting rockets. Houses and lasting houses. The nouns are the same, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY connected.
@JPararajasingham "Misrepresentation of the analogy. " They may not be the exact same thing but thats the whole point of qualification. Your simply trying to specify what TYPE of meaning / significance we are talking about. Objective meaning and subjective meaning are both dealing with meaning. In some way they ARE connected. What that way is, is why we have discussions. But WLC is not irrational for having a different understanding than you.
@JPararajasingham "So a car and fast car have something in common, sure, but that doesn't mean it is logical to say if no fast cars exist, none of the cars you see are real cars." Once again, simplifying a complex problem. It's not an ontological question, does meaning EXIST if no OBJECTIVE meaning exists. Instead It's an axiological question: What VALUE does subjective meaning have if all there is IS subjective meaning. Sure meaning may EXIST, but what value is it?
@JPararajasingham "if no fast cars exist, none of the cars you see are real cars." Your simply stuck in the ontological question and refuse to look at it in any other way. You keep saying: "See there is meaning other than objective meaning. See it does exist. There IS other meaning, WLC is wrong." And you miss the ENTIRE point, its a question of value. What's the VALUE of our subj feelings and opinions if all there IS is subjective meaning? What's the point of it all? There is none.
@mike10121996 "What's the VALUE of our subj feelings and opinions if all there IS is subjective meaning?"
He is not saying anything about subjective vs. objective. He is saying that the death of the universe stops there being lasting meaning, and this renders all our actions meaningless, insignificant and vacuous. He does not say that non-lasting objective meaning would be real if it existed. He says that meaning must be LASTING to be actual/real meaning at all.
@JPararajasingham "The direct relation between "lasting significance" and "significance" has not been demonstrated." THE DIRECT RELATION. Exactly what does that mean? That he didn't EXACTLY spell out the relationship in the 1 min long segment you cherry picked? Wow. So in his 1 min or ever the 1 hour of the video because he DIDN'T spell out the "DIRECT REL." there MUST NOT BE ONE? That's, once again called, arguing from silence. He didn't, so he CANNOT...? Non Sequitur
@mike10121996 "So in his 1 min or ever the 1 hour of the video because he DIDN'T spell out the "DIRECT REL." there MUST NOT BE ONE?"
What you hear is WLC explaining how they are linked (how one requires the other) when asked. He fails, and even you seem to think so. It therefore remains a non sequitur until he explains how these two unrelated things are linked. Let's use your preferred analogy: it's like saying if no fast cars exist, there can't be any real cars at all. Non sequitur.
@JPararajasingham "What you hear is WLC explaining how they are linked (how one requires the other) when asked." You just keep switching and changing your intentions and words. First you say that it doesn't follow then well it doesn't mean NO meaning exists. Remember he said it is trivial. Specifically in the video. You keep bouncing around between accusations. I refute on and then you bounce to another I refute that and you bounce back to the first, your refusing to engage.
@JPararajasingham " it's like saying if no fast cars exist, there can't be any real cars at all. Non sequitur." No, Once again strawmanning. He saying if it not a car that is "fast" (ie it hits a particular speed) its not really much use as a car. Is a car that goes 1.5 miles per hour "better" than a car that goes "Fast" (ie 25/30 mph). You may disagree, but that doesn't mean it's illogical. I'll demonstrate.
@mike10121996 "Is a car that goes 1.5 miles per hour "better" than a car that goes "Fast" (ie 25/30 mph)."
To relate that back to WLC, he is not arguing that lasting meaning is "better" than non-lasting meaning. He is arguing that non-lasting meaning is not meaning at all. So the correct car analogy is the car that is non-fast is not a real car at all.
@JPararajasingham WLC point is that unless there is a specific meaning (meaning that transcends personal preference ie objective) our individual meanings are indistinguishable from background noise. Now you may disagree with that conclusion, but just like the car analogy, disagreement doesn't mean it's illogical nor irrational.
@JPararajasingham "What you hear is WLC explaining how they are linked (how one requires the other) when asked." Not requires the other, but leads towards the other. That's not the same. He's not saying subjective meaning MUST have objective meaning to be purposeful. He's saying, if all there IS is subjective meaning, its hard to see much point in anything. It's a conclusion, which by the way most philosophers agree with. The difference is they think subjective meaning is enough.
@mike10121996 "You retort: "That's just your opinion." I say: "Yea, so what, that's all you believe is important anyway.""
I am rejecting the claim that deeds lose "real" meaning without lasting meaning. If you consider our positions to be mere opinion, why are you putting forward arguments to support it? That is, you are not trying to prove lasting meaning exists, but that deeds are ACTUALLY devoid of real meaning. If real meaning is down to opinion, what are you arguing for?
@mike10121996 Your characterisation of WLC's argument is analagous to the following: WLC comes to the debate and says, "All music only has real meaning if you are a believer". That's clearly just opinion, and would have no place in a debate which involves putting forward objective and factual arguments. I consider it a fact of the matter that meaning is not necessarily lost if lasting meaning doesn't exist. I don't consider WLC to be silly enough to use a mere subjective opinion as an argument.
I love how most of these scenes are very vague regarding the context. none are refering to the arguments for God or anything to that nature. most if not all are refering to theology. so I don't get the point of this video. to me it seems like propaganda. an idea cannot be irrational if it is based upon a presuppostion that has not be disproven. namely christian theology is based upon scripture. christianity has not been diproven. thus it is not irrational to adhere to the bible.
What is really sad is that these citations do not prove that christians as "irrational". that's the huge fallacy here, they believe something atheist don't THEREFOR they are irrational. That is simply a fallacy.
@mike10121996@TheisticThinker Again with the "proof"? Proof is a very definitive thing which I do not claim. The video shows EVIDENCE that the God concept/hypothesis is incoherent, because attempts to explain the core aspects of this belief (the nature of this God, how he exists/interacts) seem to be irrational, even by those whose opinions are highly regarded and cited by many theists. This is all the video shows, it doesn't claim to be a definitive proof of anything at all.
@JPararajasingham "The video shows EVIDENCE that the God concept/hypothesis is incoherent, because attempts to explain the core aspects of this belief... seem to be irrational" Excellent job of qualifying your remarks. I agree, I can see how it would SEEM to be irrational. I even agree that it could serve as "evidence". However, a) just because something "seems" irrational it does not follow that it IS irrational. b) just because something "seems" rational it does not follow that it is.
From Kaivalya Darshanam by Sri Swami Yukteswar - "Parabrahma causes Nature to emerge. From Aum (Pranava Energy/Force) comes Time, Space, and Atom/particle" "Atoms/Anu en masse are Maya (illusory) and individually are avidya (darkness)" 'The light shineth on the darkness and the darkness comprehendeth not' - John 1:5 In the 9th century the Upanishads clearly articulate Time Space Matter and Energy as the 4 principles of the cosmic manifestation and artifacts of Sat Chit Ananda.
cosmiclovebeam 3 days ago
In most of the cases you've simply demonstrated that these men are smart enough to be able to say "I don't know" or be transparent about their presuppositions. You could find such cases with the highest level of intellectuals in any crowd (scientists, historians, atheists, theists, economists, psychologists etc). We all assume certain axioms, we all have presuppositions. To claim that this is a short-coming is silly, in my view. In fact, to admit them is intellectually honest - a virtue
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "these men are smart enough to be able to say "I don't know""
(1) Saying "I don't know" is a virtue I agree, but not when one "doesn't know" about how important though unevidenced aspects of their worldview COULD even work in light of things we actually know about the world, but still accept the worldview as TRUE regardless of this inability to give a coherent account.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham 1) There are important aspects of all of our world views, a world with god or a world without god, for which we have no definite answer. The proper response on both sides I think is "I don't know". 2) Most of these men have actually written extensively on the questions being posed here and proposed a variety possible answers that are intellectually satisfying (although you don't get that in the short clips you've picked out)
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "Most of these men have actually written extensively on the questions being posed here and proposed a variety possible answers that are intellectually satisfying"
This is an empty claim without an example (i.e. to counter my clip examples).
"from within an atheistic view of the universe it's very likely that "I don't know" will always be the most honest answer."
I agree 100%. My entire point is that I think theists are failing to say I don't know as much as atheists.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham The three points you brought up: omnibenelovence, 'immaterial' entities, and miracles are some of the major topics explored in nearly every one of their writings.
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 That's not quite backing up your claim. Are you going to give an example of a intellectually satisfying answer given by one of these speakers to the question they are addressing? This is your claim, I'm genuinely interested in one example.
NB. Realise too that you have shifted from your initial argument that failing to give satisfying answers is fine, to a new argument that satisfying answers have been actually been given and that my clips just don't contain them.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham Am I going to rehearse a series of complex ideas put forth by particle physicists and ivy league philosophical minds within the word constraints of YouTube comments? Heck no lol. I have a life. I've provided enough information here so that anyone truly interested in examining the issue will have no trouble finding a place to start. I'd suggest something for a more popular audience like Polkinghorne -The Faith of A Physicist to get the ball rolling
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "Am I going to rehearse a series of complex ideas put forth by particle physicists and ivy league philosophical minds within the word constraints of YouTube comments?"
Empty claims which you cannot defend. Thought as much.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham Holy crap. I'm not even going to bother reading these. Most of it is ad homs and other nonsense. And yes, each of them do have rather elaborate hypotheses regarding all the things you've listed. You've claimed to be "exploring" intellectual Christians but all of your nonsense suggests to me that all you've done is pick through videos and quote mine which is incredibly intellectually dishonest. I can say quite confidently that you've never read a word they've written.
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 I think you need to calm down. You've made a specific claim, all I've asked you to do is provide some substance to that claim.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham lol I calm bro. That's the point. I don't have time to spend all day going back and forth with someone like you who just tries to put people down without any actual substance. I've made the point I set out to make quite successfully, I think. I also noticed, right off the jump, that when I checked out your sources that you cut things out strategically. Not exactly conducive to a honest enquiry.
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "I don't have time to spend all day going back and forth"
You keep saying you're a busy person with a busy life, yet here you are making quite a number of comments.
"just tries to put people down without any actual substance."
The substance to my claim is the video. I put down empty criticisms.
"you cut things out strategically"
Ah, another new argument that you've moved on to. Let's try again: can you give one example of something I've "cut out strategically"?
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham Yes, that was my point. I am a busy person and I shouldn't even have responded to your first response to my comment. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to make youtube videos where you quote mine people, add emphasis to certain statements of humility by adding silly captions, and then argue in circles about them lol. Point: Go actually try reading the works of some of these fellas before you criticize them based on quote mining lol. Good luck on your journey sir.
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to make youtube videos"
I think with the number of views and web attention I've got it's time well spent. Plus of course here you are, a phenomenally busy individual, who felt compelled to begin commenting so much. I am humbled that you continue to take the time out of your busy schedule to do this. I am glad I made the video, if only for the fact that you felt it important enough to get so worked up commenting on it.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago 2
@JPararajasingham Many of the quotes you used are the initial stages of various thought experiments - one example is your question regarding William Demski's theodicy. There's a cut in there when he is saying that these are some ideas that theologians wrestle around with etc.
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "There's a cut in there when he is saying that these are some ideas that theologians wrestle around with"
Dembski quite clearly says the HE has "STRUGGLED with this" problem of pre-fall evil. He also used the wording "COULDN'T it happen" when describing his idea. The clip does not present his idea as anything but his first and strongest CONSIDERATION of an answer. And by your reaction, even you recognise that it's a ridiculous consideration.
Your example fails.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "Many of the quotes you used are the initial stages of various thought experiments"
The clips summarise the answers they chose to present. I am well aware that theists and atheists alike grapple with these questions. But atheists reject theism because of poor answers to these worldview-sustaining questions, whereas theists still believe despite the poor answers.
If you think these theists DO have better answers that they're simply failing to articulate, present one.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "Holy crap. I'm not even going to bother reading these."
From your inane responses this is abundantly clear.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham These interviews are mostly informal settings and you get very informal, humble, short, answers. You claim to look into these guys but you actually haven't read a single one of their works from the sound of it. Not to mention you're arrogance and condescending tone, I think if one of us should be embarrassed sir, it would be you. Certainly, if I spoke to people as you do I would be quite embarrassed.
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham See, there's a difference between a conversation and a debate. I didn't come here to debate with some arrogant youtube kid lol. I think I provided enough information so that anyone with a mind of their own could look into things. I'm not going to sit here and have an extensive back and forth through comments. I just don't have the time and frankly you come across as someone who is less interested in learning from others and more interested in hurling out insults.
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham If you want to PM me I'll send you loads of information and try to explain in great detail why you're remarks here are rather childish and uninformed.
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham This entire video appears to be a compilation of self-conscious speculations and "I don't know's" so I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that atheists are more comfortable saying "I don't know". Ultimately, this appears to be a criticism of intellectual humility. With regards to your comment about an 'empty claim', I wasn't attempting an argument. As someone who purports to have explored the writings of these men I would assume you're aware of their writings.
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "This entire video appears to be a compilation of self-conscious speculations and "I don't know's" so I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that atheists are more comfortable saying "I don't know"."
They say they know god exists, they know miracles have occurred, they know Jesus rose, they know other realms exist, they know what will happen after they die, they know the ultimate purpose of life. They are not comfortable saying they don't know to all the above.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 (2) For example, the speakers are asked about various evidenced aspects of the universe which conflict with various made-up aspects of theism:
1. Evidenced suffering vs. made-up omnibenevolence
2. Evidenced naturalism vs. made up nonbiological beings
3. Evidenced unchanging natural laws vs. made-up miraculous suspension of laws
If these made-up core ideas of the worldview conflict this much, shouldn't that tell theists something?
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham I've never found in my interactions with intelligent, self-aware, atheists that any of them had a problem saying "I don't know" when it comes to a variety of important questions. I wouldn't expect any less from these men who profess belief in something which, by it's very nature, must transcend complete explanation. In fact, I would argue that even from within an atheistic view of the universe it's very likely that "I don't know" will always be the most honest answer.
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham I haven't shifted anything lol. I think both claims are true. 1) we all have areas of our world views that leave us saying "I don't know right now", if we're honest. This is not a bad thing. 2) The video is misleading in that each of these individuals has put forward elaborate hypotheses, or speculations, regarding the questions asked in this video. If you'd read them, which you claim to have done, you'd be well aware of that.
TheWhoMe123 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "each of these individuals has put forward elaborate hypotheses"
Coyne has elaborate hypotheses when he says it is simply his faith that the resurrection occurred? Polkinhorne has elaborate hypotheses when he says there is a great deal of contention among theologians regarding god's temporality? Collins has elaborate hypotheses when he says he cannot even begin to speculate how miracles could occur? Carson has elaborate hypotheses when he compares organisms to cars?
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "If you'd read them, which you claim to have done, you'd be well aware of that."
I think it would be obvious to everyone reading your comments that you have made silly claims, that MOST of the speakers HAVE answered the SPECIFIC questions being asked, but it just happens to be that they are giving completely ridiculous non-answers here AND the answers are far too complex and elaborate for you to even begin to describe here!
Frankly, you've just embarrassed yourself.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 D'Souza has elavorate hypotheses when he says civilisation got started 5000 years ago? RJ Berry has elaborate hypotheses when he says a divine spark created humans? Dembski has elaborate hypotheses when he says god changed the past to explain pre-human suffering? Wright/Zacharias have elaborate hypotheses about the immorality of homosexuality?
I think you've simply not watched the video. Your knee jerk reaction to rubbish the entire thing has just made you look silly.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
@TheWhoMe123 "I haven't shifted anything lol. I think both claims are true."
That IS a shift in argument. Two different defences for the SAME point. Saying no answer is acceptable is different to saying good answers have been given elsewhere, but the speakers don't seem to be able to reiterate here what they've said elsewhere. And for some reason NONE of them say that their hypotheses are too elaborate to explain succinctly, which is your convenient defence on their behalf.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
All this brainpower used to justify nonsense and superstition.
It is tragic.
richo61 2 weeks ago
They never actually answer the arguments. They just assume an abandonment of reason because they're too stupid to actually understand theistic arguments themselves. They have ignorantly & blindly convinced themselves via one Dawkins book that THEY are paragons of reason. So their making actual arguments is no longer necessary to uphold this belief. ONLY their assertion of it.
Sage80 2 weeks ago
@Sage80 not to mention not remotely portraying them honestly or in context. That would necessitate a response greater than, "I believe that the plain assertion of the world's existence is tantamount to reason!" not wary of the contradiction of relying on that which exists as also that responsible for which exists. That is what one refers to as illogic.
Sage80 2 weeks ago
What I love is the complete inability for the poster to answer a single argument being made in a remotely intelligible way that could at all compare to the level of sophistication in the tehistic argument. This is tantamount to, "Smart Christians scare me cause their dumbness sounds better!" The most intellectually dishonest people alive.
Sage80 2 weeks ago
@Sage80 The ontological argument posits existence as an attribute and attempts to define God into existence. This fails because existence is not an attribute. This argument can be made to prove that the famous 'perfect' mythical city Shangri-La to exist. This is why i said it was such a bad argument, its just a poor attempt to define it into existence.
Check out IronChariotsWiki for an overview of why it isn't valid.
daemonowner 2 weeks ago
@Sage80 I have managed to compile this video because I have read and listened to as many "smart Christian" arguments as humanly possible. I don't see how that implies fear.
The purpose of this video is to show what my careful efforts to listen to Christian claims have led me to conclude; namely that even the smartest examples of Christian theist out there simply cannot rationally justify core aspects of their worldview when confronted directly.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago
How do they KNOW God's nature and how he thinks? Dinesh is a joke. History "got started", Dinesh, when writing was invented....your brain is getting in the way! And the Archbishop of Canterbury, I am sure, is an atheist. His babble bespeaks his real belief.
kadene2 1 month ago
cringe-worthy. where do they get these people?
ipodsucksballs 1 month ago
funny how atheists are desperate to tarnish theists as silly with editing lol awsome job
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker "funny how atheists are desperate to tarnish theists as silly with editing lol awsome job"
That's nothing to compared to how desperate theists are to claim lack of context/editing is the reason for them sounding silly, while not giving us this all-important context that's been left out in the editing.
That's positively hilarious.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago
@JPararajasingham you want a logical argument for a good case that God exists??? try the ONTOLOGICAL ARGUEMENT for a starting point lol
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker Dude, the ontological argument is abysmally poor.
daemonowner 3 weeks ago
@daemonowner I doubt you even understand it. And by understand, I don't mean wiki cut & pasting.
Sage80 2 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham and i also want to nominate you for an outstanding award in the Cannes film festival for your fair neutral journilistic work on the 2 views... i think youve done an extraordinary job.. (thumbs up) lol
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker "your fair neutral journilistic work"
Journalists are supposed to be fair and present both sides, you are right. One glaring probem though - I am not a journalist, I am an individual who wishes to promote one side. Are you representing both sides fairly in your comments? Of course not. So why do you expect me to do so?
JPararajasingham 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God! The stubborn ridiculous atheist believes the finely tuned universe created itself from NOTHING! And homochirality and DNA organized itself!!
5tonyvvvv 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@6gunwalker There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God! The stubborn ridiculous atheist believes the finely tuned universe created itself from NOTHING! And homochirality and DNA organized itself!!
5tonyvvvv 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its interesting how none of these so called christians even consult God's word (the bible) on questions involving God and what he thinks regarding these questions. They are speaking purally from there own opinions
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 month ago
Comment removed
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 month ago
"knowing that you don't know what you're talking about" is what these twenty geniuses are talking about.
shumbusgumbuli 1 month ago
these guys are giving some really bad answers to some very simple questions. These questions can be answered, but these so called academics are making it seem like they just believe because they believe. Lame.
Lcowand1 1 month ago
hmmmm.... interesting. but, I do not quite see the point of this video though. Is the point to prove that God does not exist, or that God exists and christians are wrong about him, or that christians don't know everything about God (like how he formed the universe, and his relationship with time and evil?)
ricardomaman 2 months ago
@ricardomaman "I do not quite see the point of this video"
The point is stated in the introduction.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago
@JP ahh... i see. But personally, I do not think that all that God is can be explained 'rationally'. I say this becoz, if God indeed created everything that is, then he is not bound by anything he's created, right? Then, how does smone bound by and limited to physical thngs explain somethn' that is not?! There are some parts of God he's let us know about, eg, his undying love for us, but how God transcends time is a mystery I don't think anyone can solve rationally or otherwise
ricardomaman 2 months ago
@ricardomaman "I do not think that all that God is can be explained 'rationally'."
There are two massive problems with your statement:
1. I am not prepared to accept anything unless it makes rational and logical sense, or is supported by some sort of evidence. God should know that as a human creature, this is the only responsible position for me to take, since any other approach would lead me to accept any irrational claim about the what lies beyond the universe.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham "...would lead me to accept any irrational claim about the what lies beyond the universe." What exactly would you consider as evidence of God's existence? If the presence of the entire universe isn't enough proof, then what is to you? I will write my next point on your channel/wall because there isn't enough space here for it :-)
ricardomaman 2 months ago
@ricardomaman "I do not think that all that God is can be explained 'rationally'."
2. Your statement itself is something you hope is a "rational" explanation. You are not just bashing random letters on your keyboard, you have a sequence of thoughts which you believe make rational sense, and you have an expectation that I could be compelled or convinced by that rational sense (i.e. for me to say, "that makes sense"). ALL discussion is bound by rationality and logic at ALL times.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago
@JPararajasingham yes I agree that all discussion is bound by logic at all times. This however doesn't mean that saying that not everything can be explained rationally is an irrational statement. Afterall, if everything about God could be explained rationally then it means God is bound by this physical universe (where our rationality comes from), and therefore, he isn't God.
ricardomaman 2 months ago
@ricardomaman "if everything about God could be explained rationally then it means God is bound by this physical universe"
Human rationality comes from within the universe, but it is based on something greater - laws of logic. And it is nonsensical to imagine the laws of logic not applying to the whole of reality, including god. You could say god is logic (as many theologians do) which prevents him from being "bound" if this dissatifies you.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago
@ricardomaman (cont.) But to say that logic/reason doesn't apply to god is to render him illogical, which makes no sense. And it is impossible thereafter to discuss anything about what god is, where he came from, what his desires are, etc., since you have decided that we cannot discuss them rationally or logically. The whole concept becomes meaningless and indecipherable. Yet clearly theists do think they can decipher god through logical discussion. You can't have it both ways.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago
@JPararajasingham i didn't say logic/reason doesn't apply to God, i said not all that he is can be explained logically, i.e. there is some of Him that can, and that's what some theists try to discuss (his desires would be an example of something about him that can be explained logically). And, no, i do not agree that logic is greater than what comes from within the universe because we make sense of our world by what we see and feel.
ricardomaman 2 months ago
@JPararajasingham ... well, anyway, i'm tired of this debate. Feel free to have the last word in. I hope one day you are able to see how much God loves you. Good luck, and God bless.
ricardomaman 2 months ago
@ricardomaman "i didn't say logic/reason doesn't apply to God, i said not all that he is can be explained logically, i.e. there is some of Him that can"
And where are you drawing this line of explication? You draw it just at the point where flaws in the God hypothesis are pointed out, so you can dismiss any criticisms even if they are rational, logical or evidential. I am amazed that you can't see that such an approach actually renders the whole God hypothesis utterly ineffectual.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago
@ricardomaman "There are some parts of God he's let us know about, eg, his undying love for us"
This claim of love is also a mystery - God permits extreme suffering of the creatures he supposedly loves. In fact, the problem of suffering is considered by most Christian scholars and apologists to be a mystery, and in some cases say this too cannot be explained fully by human rationality alone.
God is beyond rationality because the concept that he exists is irrational.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham "...would lead me to accept any irrational claim about the what lies beyond the universe". I understand what you are saying, but that's why I said 'not all that God is', i didn't say everything that God is cannot be explained rationally. From other debates I have watched i've seen that the existence of God can be proved rationally. Honestly, it seems even more miraculous to me to think this complex universe came about by chance.
ricardomaman 2 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 2 months ago
I lost it at the point: ".. the brain was getting in the way", talk about defeating your own arguments.
sebbuku 2 months ago
a biased video, presenting the occasions when the Christian academics fumbled.. particularly Alistair McGrath's debate with Dawkins. This is not a fair representation of how the debates went.
iwasglorious 2 months ago
@iwasglorious "a biased video, presenting the occasions when the Christian academics fumbled"
...on important questions about how their extraordinary beliefs could possibly make sense in light of things we do know to be true through science. Yes, fumble they do.
"This is not a fair representation of how the debates went."
Links to the full debates/inteviews are in the description for anyone to check. Nothing to hide here. No good arguments exist for theism.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago
Some of them do not make sense. But some of them do. What I understand from this is a lot of them have their "own" version of god instead of the standard christian or islam, They make space for the possibility of a supernatural being. I suspect a lot of these scholars are slightly agnostics leaning on the side of theology.
But having said that, the other vids show more scholars that are atheist and the arguments they provide make more sense. If I had to choose, I would side with the atheists.
thelws 2 months ago
yeah.. i still see no logic in these arguments. I tried so hard to beleive in a God but it jsut doenst make sence.. not one bit of sence.
Hectom8 3 months ago
yeah.. i still see no logic in these arguments.
Hectom8 3 months ago
@JPararajasingham
dude these 3 vids are awesome...kudos..........
but i really wish you'd upload this one again without the occasional subtitles as the sound quality is good enough and all it does is reduce the credibility of this video by making it look like you're trying to push an atheistic agenda.....
dhawansoumya 3 months ago
@dhawansoumya Thanks for the comment. May I ask what is wrong with pushing an atheistic agenda? Agendas can be dogdy, but can also be reasonable. I believe I have a respectable and rational agenda, namely to show that nonbelief is more rational than belief. This particular video aims to show that there is no such thing as sophisticated theism, it is all irrational.
JPararajasingham 3 months ago
@JPararajasingham
There's nothing really wrong with it..........its just that i would hesitate to show this one to some of my religious friends because when i did, the first reaction i got was that only some parts are subtitled making it seem like its not completely unbiased i.e. not telling the whole story........i think the power of atheism is that all you need to do is to get people to think, and they would themselves realize that belief is irrational
dhawansoumya 3 months ago
@dhawansoumya "all you need to do is to get people to think"
While there are believers who have never thought deeply, there are others (like the speakers in this video), who have been thinking all their lives yet still believe. Irrespective of the subtitling, you'll notice that the fact that I've taken edited clips of interviews is causing theists to complain (not about bias, but that clips are "out of context"). I mainly direct my already thinking theist friends to this video.
JPararajasingham 3 months ago
@dhawansoumya (cont) "subtitled making it seem like its not completely unbiased i.e. not telling the whole story"
But this video is not trying to tell the whole story in a way; it is edited to show that even learned theists can't make sense of important conclusions of their belief. But the "whole story" comes (at least) from watching the interviews in full, so I would direct your religious friends to watch them if they think the editing is unfair (NB. links are in description).
JPararajasingham 3 months ago
wow, some of these are taken so out of context
IamKingdomCitizen 3 months ago
Comment removed
heartbreakkid777 3 months ago
Another favorite is listening to Richard Dawkin's silence when asked to produce a single example of a mutation that added useful information to the mutant. The whole "hopeful monster" model of evolution, which is used to explain the absence of transition forms is nothing but a hopeless monstrosity.
sn1p3rk1tty111 3 months ago
Wow. I'm embarrassed for the atheists who think this video is evidence of anything beyond their own confirmation bias. The central argument presented in this montage of out-of-context clips is no different than desperate attempts by right wing operatives claiming global warming is false because of disagreement yet are ignorant in climate science themselves. This dishonest attempt at making a point simply underscores that the New Atheism is just as bad (if not worse) than Fundamentalist religion.
gnomechomskylives 3 months ago
[cont.] and while I don't vouch for apologists of the likes of D'Souza or Ravi Zacharias, I think anyone who appreciates intellectual discourse should at least respect some of the keener minds presented in this video. It should give one pause that having a belief is not mutually exclusive with intelligence and/or rationality. That so many atheists continue to treat this issue like a schoolyard debate demonstrates that they do not have a monopoly on being rational (in fact the opposite is true).
gnomechomskylives 3 months ago
@gnomechomskylives "out-of-context clips"
I am embarrassed for the theists here claiming "out of context", but NEVER actually state this important removed context which would apparently make the irrational sound rational.
"My own sense of how people come to be believers in a personal God is that you can get a certain distance with these kinds of intellectual arguments, but at some point you have to basically decide, I'm not going to get all the way there." - Francis Collins
JPararajasingham 3 months ago
@JPararajasingham
Really? If you think that is funny, you should listen to atheists trying to explain where their primordeal electron came from... or why people hold to the theory of evolution which forces the manufacture of phrases such as "fossil nonconformity." Maybe you think Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell and Kepler were idiots, they were Christians. What I love is how the questions are framed using fallacious concepts so as to box out any possible rationality.
sn1p3rk1tty111 3 months ago
@sn1p3rk1tty111 "Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell and Kepler"
All still limited by the era in which they were born (pre-Darwin, etc.).
"atheists trying to explain where their primordeal electron came from"
Quantum fluctuations.
"Dawkin's silence when asked to produce a single example of a mutation that added useful information to the mutant"
A bizarre comment to make on a video with 18/20 Christians who believe in evolution alongside their faith.
JPararajasingham 3 months ago 5
very interesting
sgtOOX 4 months ago
How can people be so irrational... It's something like neurosis I guess...
eliotcougar 4 months ago
JPararajasingham said: "Everything we learn via the brain sciences tell us that we ARE robots, albeit extraordinary and fascinating ones. The primary antecedents of our "choices" are things we have NOT chosen..."
Then you didn't really choose to make that statement nor is it rational--you did not think it through: You were programmed to type it. And you could never know if it is true: could be bad programming. (But actually your statement is not rational or true, because it is self-defeating.)
BradCooperCCF 4 months ago
@BradCooperCCF "And you could never know if it is true"
It is "true" insofar as the most objective measures we have (scientific method) tell me it's true. This makes more (non-intuitive) sense than the idea that free-floating choice which is somehow set apart from deterministic causality. It is possible that I am wrong too, I don't disagree, but this is the closest to truth us humans can manage at the moment.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
@BradCooperCCF "you didn't really choose to make that statement"
That depends on how you define choice. I can only understand choice if it is deterministic. For choice to be non-deterministic would make it not "mine". It would be some free-floating spark arising from outside causality, and interrupting my brain's neuronal firing. Non-deterministic choice makes no sense whatsoever. For choice to truly be mine, it MUST be deterministic.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago 2
Comment removed
BradCooperCCF 4 months ago
i think... as long as you give your creation autonomy there will be bad or evil in that system. that is why hell and heaven must exist. there must be punishment and reward for those who deserve either one. to take away autonomy is to control the creation and that is too totalitarian for a loving god. god did not create us to be robots. anyone who doesn't believe in some kind of god or creator had never studied the creation closely. everything is balenced and perfect. at least in nature.
Rustystud 4 months ago
@Rustystud "as long as you give your creation autonomy there will be bad or evil in that system."
This is a common misconception, and a very serious mistake. Everything we learn via the brain sciences tell us that we ARE robots, albeit extraordinary and fascinating ones. The primary antecedents of our "choices" are things we have NOT chosen - genetic makeup, upbringing, childhood experience/trauma, innate IQ, innate preferences, abilities and genius. To believe otherwise is wishful.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
Comment removed
Rustystud 4 months ago
Ah! Shelly Kagan, didn't waste my time after all.
Chwuzy 4 months ago
My brain hurts...
Bromopar 4 months ago
you can speculate
but you just can't reason with these people.
masonkim7 4 months ago
Christianity is about "emotion" not "rational" thought!
OrganNLou 5 months ago
Comment removed
gskowal 5 months ago
NAME OF SONG AT BEGINNING????
roxtar55 5 months ago
@roxtar55 Mozart: Requiem Mass in D minor - Lacrimosa
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham Thanks!
roxtar55 5 months ago
Summery of video: Theists don't know everything about how God might do something, nor do they have 100% certainty regarding his existence, therefore, Christianity is irrational. What BS double standards. Scientists will admit this regarding practically any theory in science. Do you reject evolution as well? Seriously, you guys are not very skeptical regarding your own beliefs; only those you disagree with.
owchywawa 5 months ago 2
@owchywawa "Summery of video: Theists don't know everything about how God might do something, nor do they have 100% certainty regarding his existence"
Your summary is inaccurate. Accurate summary: Basic/fundamental questions about what this "God" is, and how he relates to the known/established aspects of reality, are unknown or poorly answered by even the most learned Christian theists.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham That's what I meant. You're claim is apparently that "reason is abandoned in Christianity."
What is your evidence for this? That "Basic/fundamental questions about [God] are unknown or poorly answered?" The fact that we don't know some things about God doesn't mean that we have abandoned reason. The purpose of much of the speculation you showed was to show that objections to God, like the problem of evil, aren't necessarily good objections.
owchywawa 5 months ago 2
@owchywawa "The fact that we don't know some things about God doesn't mean that we have abandoned reason."
It is the fundamental and basic nature of the questions to which there are poor/unknown answers which make sustaining the belief irrational. I take your point that not all small details must be known about a concept for it to be rational (it could be argued as impossible to reach such a state of knowledge). Many problems naturally stem from theism, yet belief (irrationally) remains.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham What are these problems? I could infer that the problem is that we don't know a significant amount about God, but that isn't really a problem. The only case in which this becomes a problem is when we don't know of a good answer to a problem with theism. Then the problem isn't really contained in the lack of knowledge, but with the problem without an answer. continued
owchywawa 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham Continuation
So, if I am right thus far, implicit in this video is the idea that there are these problems, and Christians are answering, but their answers are not satisfactory to you. I can hardly see how this means they are abandoning reason. You may disagree with their reasoning, but do you really think anyone who disagrees with you abandons reason? I disagree with many people, but I don't call them irrational just because I disagree with them. That's silly.
owchywawa 5 months ago
@owchywawa "I disagree with many people, but I don't call them irrational just because I disagree with them."
I find their reasoning to be inadequate, hence I call it irrational. I invite others to view the reasoning used and to make their own judgements on whether it is adequate to their ears. Anyone can merely disagree as you say, but I would say part of what we can disagree on is whether adequate reasoning is being employed.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@owchywawa "I disagree with many people, but I don't call them irrational just because I disagree with them."
(cont.)
So you have it the wrong way round. I don't disagree and then call them irrational, I find their arguments irrational, and therefore disagree.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham A big part of the objections to the problem of evil, which you showed from Plantinga, is to show that the problem of evil assumes we know more about God than we really do. Objections to God require knowledge, and a reasoned way to object to objections to God is to say that we don't really have knowledge of one of the premises. Far from being evidence that they have abandoned reason, it's evidence of reason.
owchywawa 5 months ago
I don't place my faith or lack of faith on soundbites or funny quotes. That's what's wrong with the most of strong philosophical or religious convictions I see around me. That's why I don't get along with the atheist community.
5555miles 5 months ago
@5555miles You think most people base their worldview on funny quotes? How bizarre. That's not my experience at all.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham It's not that much that people base their beliefs in them, it's just that they find any kind of ridiculing of "the other" something that greatly empowers their conviction. I see that all the time in my own Christian community and I'm an outspoken critic of such rhetorical tactics. I see the same kind of ignorance in a lot of contemporary atheistic literature (not all of it), especially among "the four horsemen of atheism".
5555miles 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCK GOD HE DOESN'T EXIST AND HE'S A FAGGOT! VISIT MY CHANNEL FOR REAL MUSIC NOWW
SatanFang 5 months ago
A great collection of idiocy.
TheThomasHagel 5 months ago
Revealing and very interesting video! Even in light of confronted faith, religious people admit that religion IS in no way based on common sense or on real evidence, and thus conflicts with science and reality in many evident ways. A lesson to learn by all christians specially in America, I think.
Ital21 5 months ago 11
I love it! "I'm committing logical fallacy after logical fallacy, but because I'm saying it slowly, passionately, and with an english accent, I'm considered a scholar!"
jmblock2 5 months ago
The sound is terrible on this video. That's a shame considering the good content.
pianodon 5 months ago
I felt this big sorrow seeing these members of the human species wasting their life, their otherwise brilliant brains - and their purpose and energy on this obviously imagnary God they believe in. (And in living the lie - ruining other peoples life in the prossess also.)
mjusiqtube 5 months ago
"So they willingly cut their lives short, for no personal gain at all, AND it's a sacrifice that we all admit has no lasting value. That's not heroic, that's a tragedy."
That's your opinon. For me, the fact that a personal gain does not occur as a result of someone's actions but rather a gain for others/society makes someone MORE of a hero. Indeed, the more selfless an act and the more of an impact it has on others (frees a whole society, changes the world, etc.) the more heroic it is.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "For me, the fact that a personal gain does not occur as a result of someone's actions but rather a gain for others/society makes someone MORE of a hero." yes because YOU benefited from HIS actions. The term hero is applied to someone other than yourself who you gain from their sacrifice. In other words it's a manipulative word to get a person who should ONLY be concerned with his own well being to sacrifice himself for your benefit. Yeah that's not "stupid" thats "heroic"
mike10121996 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "That's your opinon." duuhhh. Yes that's my opinion. And its YOUR opinion that is NOT pointless. Hence why we are talking about meaning. Yours is that subjective meaning is "good enough" mine is that I don't think it is. You retort: "That's just your opinion." I say: "Yea, so what, that's all you believe is important anyway." NONE of this means that I'm irrational nor that WLC is irrational.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@mike10121996 "NONE of this means that I'm irrational nor that WLC is irrational."
He is not stating mere opinion. He is suggesting a truth about reality, a fact of the matter. His claimed fact of the matter is that without lasting meaning, deeds and actions are trivial and insignificant. He claims one cannot ascribed "real meaning" to deeds. In the context of the debate, in the context of him listening to a rebuttal, I do not think he is stating mere opinion.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham " In the context of the debate, in the context of him listening to a rebuttal, I do not think he is stating mere opinion." Yea, once again so what? He believes there is transcendent objective Truth. Just because, once again, he disagrees with you it doesn't mean it's "irrational" or "illogical"
mike10121996 5 months ago
@mike10121996 "Just because, once again, he disagrees with you it doesn't mean it's "irrational" or "illogical""
And once again for me, suggesting that it is a fact of the matter that real meaning requires lasting meaning IS illogical. If you don't think he is claiming it is a fact of the matter then I agree it is mere difference of opinion. But in context (of a debate) he is claiming it is a fact of the matter, hence he gives arguments to support it, as do you with your numerous examples.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@mike10121996 Let me quote WLC earlier in the debate regarding the heat death of the universe. He says, "In light of that end, it's hard for me to understand how our moral choices have ANY sort of significance". He goes on to say, "OUR moral lives become VACUOUS because they don't have that kind of cosmic significance."
Watch the video clip "Cosmic Moral Significance and Accountability". WLC is clearly arguing that this would be a fact of the matter.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "WLC is clearly arguing that this would be a fact of the matter." which is his position to have. Remember your assertion is that THAT position is illogical NOT that WLC hasn't sufficiently proven it to be true. Those are two different things. Its one thing to say, he didn't demonstrate it to be true sufficiently, but your assertion is that it's down right irrational and illogical. So that's YOUR burden of proof.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "He says, "In light of that end, it's hard for me to understand how our moral choices have ANY sort of significance". He's saying, as I have said, that he believes this to be the case. Your saying not just that that is wrong. Your saying that assertion is illogical and irrational. That's not WLC burden. He doesn't have to PROVE it's not illogical. It's YOUR burden of proof to say that it IS illogical. Repeating what he says doesn't mean it's illogical.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@mike10121996 WLC fails to explain when asked WHY lasting meaning is a necessity to have any meaning at all. If I say that if you've never owned a dog then you cannot be a doctor, it is not up to you to explain why those things are completely unrelated. It remains up to me to explain how they are. WLC fails to do so, and I can confirm that he's never been able to in any of his debates. Hence it remains an irrational and baseless assertion.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "If I say that if you've never owned a dog then you cannot be a doctor," WRONG analogy. Remember you JUST wrote lasting sig and sig. So it's not two different NOUNS it's the qualifier. "Lasting" so your analoyg is specious. Blatently specious. It's not like a dog and a doctor. Its the connection between sig. and LASTING significance.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "WLC fails to do so, and I can confirm that he's never been able to in any of his debates." Your certainly NOT saying he's never addressed it?! You must be saying that his arguments don't convince you. ONCE AGAIN, because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's irrational or illogical. OR because he fails to convince you THEREFORE he must be irrational? That's hardly the case.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@mike10121996 "Your saying not just that that is wrong. Your saying that assertion is illogical and irrational."
It is a pretty basic non sequitur, hence it is illogical. The direct relation between "lasting significance" and "significance" has not been demonstrated.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "The direct relation between "lasting significance" and "significance" has not been demonstrated." Did you even LOOK at what you wrote? The word "lasting" is a qualifier of the word significance. It talks about a specific TYPE of significance. So your complaining that WLC didn't absolutely demonstrate the connection between significance, (which we talked about as a vague word) and "lasting" significance? That's like saying a car and a "fast" car have nothing in common!
mike10121996 5 months ago
@mike10121996 "That's like saying a car and a "fast" car have nothing in common!"
Misrepresentation of the analogy. The point is the two have no direct relation, that's what a non sequitur is. We don't need to be talking about the same type of thing, and if we do that doesn't preclude the possibility of being a non sequitur. So a car and fast car have something in common, sure, but that doesn't mean it is logical to say if no fast cars exist, none of the cars you see are real cars.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "Misrepresentation of the analogy. The point is the two have no direct relation, that's what a non sequitur is." Fine but you have to demonstrate that. For you objective meaning is not important at all. It is irrelevant. But that's not true for everyone. This is question of axiology. What's important. Because you don't see objective meaning as relevant, it does not follow that any one who DOES see it as relevant is irrational, or illogical. Different values.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "Misrepresentation of the analogy." It is NOT a misrepresentation. "significance" is the noun, "lasting" is the the adj you used to qualify it. Significance and lasting significance ARE connected because it's the same type of thing but simply qualified, or specified, in one instance and not in the other. Monkeys and lasting monkeys. Cars and lasting cars. Rockets and lasting rockets. Houses and lasting houses. The nouns are the same, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY connected.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "Misrepresentation of the analogy. " They may not be the exact same thing but thats the whole point of qualification. Your simply trying to specify what TYPE of meaning / significance we are talking about. Objective meaning and subjective meaning are both dealing with meaning. In some way they ARE connected. What that way is, is why we have discussions. But WLC is not irrational for having a different understanding than you.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "So a car and fast car have something in common, sure, but that doesn't mean it is logical to say if no fast cars exist, none of the cars you see are real cars." Once again, simplifying a complex problem. It's not an ontological question, does meaning EXIST if no OBJECTIVE meaning exists. Instead It's an axiological question: What VALUE does subjective meaning have if all there is IS subjective meaning. Sure meaning may EXIST, but what value is it?
mike10121996 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "if no fast cars exist, none of the cars you see are real cars." Your simply stuck in the ontological question and refuse to look at it in any other way. You keep saying: "See there is meaning other than objective meaning. See it does exist. There IS other meaning, WLC is wrong." And you miss the ENTIRE point, its a question of value. What's the VALUE of our subj feelings and opinions if all there IS is subjective meaning? What's the point of it all? There is none.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@mike10121996 "What's the VALUE of our subj feelings and opinions if all there IS is subjective meaning?"
He is not saying anything about subjective vs. objective. He is saying that the death of the universe stops there being lasting meaning, and this renders all our actions meaningless, insignificant and vacuous. He does not say that non-lasting objective meaning would be real if it existed. He says that meaning must be LASTING to be actual/real meaning at all.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "The direct relation between "lasting significance" and "significance" has not been demonstrated." THE DIRECT RELATION. Exactly what does that mean? That he didn't EXACTLY spell out the relationship in the 1 min long segment you cherry picked? Wow. So in his 1 min or ever the 1 hour of the video because he DIDN'T spell out the "DIRECT REL." there MUST NOT BE ONE? That's, once again called, arguing from silence. He didn't, so he CANNOT...? Non Sequitur
mike10121996 5 months ago
@mike10121996 "So in his 1 min or ever the 1 hour of the video because he DIDN'T spell out the "DIRECT REL." there MUST NOT BE ONE?"
What you hear is WLC explaining how they are linked (how one requires the other) when asked. He fails, and even you seem to think so. It therefore remains a non sequitur until he explains how these two unrelated things are linked. Let's use your preferred analogy: it's like saying if no fast cars exist, there can't be any real cars at all. Non sequitur.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "What you hear is WLC explaining how they are linked (how one requires the other) when asked." You just keep switching and changing your intentions and words. First you say that it doesn't follow then well it doesn't mean NO meaning exists. Remember he said it is trivial. Specifically in the video. You keep bouncing around between accusations. I refute on and then you bounce to another I refute that and you bounce back to the first, your refusing to engage.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham " it's like saying if no fast cars exist, there can't be any real cars at all. Non sequitur." No, Once again strawmanning. He saying if it not a car that is "fast" (ie it hits a particular speed) its not really much use as a car. Is a car that goes 1.5 miles per hour "better" than a car that goes "Fast" (ie 25/30 mph). You may disagree, but that doesn't mean it's illogical. I'll demonstrate.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@mike10121996 "Is a car that goes 1.5 miles per hour "better" than a car that goes "Fast" (ie 25/30 mph)."
To relate that back to WLC, he is not arguing that lasting meaning is "better" than non-lasting meaning. He is arguing that non-lasting meaning is not meaning at all. So the correct car analogy is the car that is non-fast is not a real car at all.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham WLC point is that unless there is a specific meaning (meaning that transcends personal preference ie objective) our individual meanings are indistinguishable from background noise. Now you may disagree with that conclusion, but just like the car analogy, disagreement doesn't mean it's illogical nor irrational.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham "What you hear is WLC explaining how they are linked (how one requires the other) when asked." Not requires the other, but leads towards the other. That's not the same. He's not saying subjective meaning MUST have objective meaning to be purposeful. He's saying, if all there IS is subjective meaning, its hard to see much point in anything. It's a conclusion, which by the way most philosophers agree with. The difference is they think subjective meaning is enough.
mike10121996 5 months ago
@mike10121996 "You retort: "That's just your opinion." I say: "Yea, so what, that's all you believe is important anyway.""
I am rejecting the claim that deeds lose "real" meaning without lasting meaning. If you consider our positions to be mere opinion, why are you putting forward arguments to support it? That is, you are not trying to prove lasting meaning exists, but that deeds are ACTUALLY devoid of real meaning. If real meaning is down to opinion, what are you arguing for?
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
@mike10121996 Your characterisation of WLC's argument is analagous to the following: WLC comes to the debate and says, "All music only has real meaning if you are a believer". That's clearly just opinion, and would have no place in a debate which involves putting forward objective and factual arguments. I consider it a fact of the matter that meaning is not necessarily lost if lasting meaning doesn't exist. I don't consider WLC to be silly enough to use a mere subjective opinion as an argument.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
This video makes me sad.
kataevans 5 months ago
I love how most of these scenes are very vague regarding the context. none are refering to the arguments for God or anything to that nature. most if not all are refering to theology. so I don't get the point of this video. to me it seems like propaganda. an idea cannot be irrational if it is based upon a presuppostion that has not be disproven. namely christian theology is based upon scripture. christianity has not been diproven. thus it is not irrational to adhere to the bible.
lilrat489 6 months ago
Did any famous person have the following quotes?
"With or without religion, smart people speak smart idea and dumb people speak dumb idea. For smart people speak dumb idea, that takes religion."
Just kidding-:)
goldmonkey77 6 months ago
What is really sad is that these citations do not prove that christians as "irrational". that's the huge fallacy here, they believe something atheist don't THEREFOR they are irrational. That is simply a fallacy.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 Agreed, this video fails.
TheisticThinker 6 months ago
@mike10121996 @TheisticThinker Again with the "proof"? Proof is a very definitive thing which I do not claim. The video shows EVIDENCE that the God concept/hypothesis is incoherent, because attempts to explain the core aspects of this belief (the nature of this God, how he exists/interacts) seem to be irrational, even by those whose opinions are highly regarded and cited by many theists. This is all the video shows, it doesn't claim to be a definitive proof of anything at all.
JPararajasingham 6 months ago
@JPararajasingham "The video shows EVIDENCE that the God concept/hypothesis is incoherent, because attempts to explain the core aspects of this belief... seem to be irrational" Excellent job of qualifying your remarks. I agree, I can see how it would SEEM to be irrational. I even agree that it could serve as "evidence". However, a) just because something "seems" irrational it does not follow that it IS irrational. b) just because something "seems" rational it does not follow that it is.
mike10121996 6 months ago