About "trust me" Do you see the problem, with all the people / professions you mention,.Their existance can be checked and for the most part their claims verifed and evaluated.
How deep you dig depends on how much you want to find what you are looking for.
The Lord is very interested in just how much you value the truth and how much you value a relationship with Him.
Those who dig deep find, those who do not are simply not interested enough.
The Lord is seeking those who are earnestly seeking Him. The kingdom of the Lord is a kingdom of one mind and one heart. A kingdom in unity. A god and HIS people. (cont.)
The Lord is seeking the lost. The lost, above all things seek to be - HOME!
Those who most earnestly seek the Lord are those who desire to be somewhere else - to be home.
Hebrews 11:16 "But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. "
Are you happy where you are or do you feel lost? Do you LIKE what you see about you or do you desire a better place better life? How deep will you dig?
I should point out that you completely ignored the point that you've made very specific logical fallacies, specifically assertion, straw man, and shifting burden of proof fallacies. I've given you plenty of opportunities to explain how such textbook flaws in your arguments can be explained. Your decision to continue to ignore the flaws in your argument and instead arguing over the nature of argumentation (without adding anything, I might add) does not help your cause.
Didn't ignore the vague, generalised, innuendos you are making, merely pointed out that that is ALL that they are.
There is not much can be done with somebody else's personal opinions except note they have them. I note you have them but they are YOUR opinions, not logical and rational arguments that can be analysed.
All you are doing is declaring that you do not like what I am saying. Well I got that message very early in the discussion.
If all you are going to do is clog up my comment pages with what amounts to little more than vague generalised spam and innuendo. Infering you have some logical argument without actually making any logical argument perhaps I need to put a stopper in to give serious seekers a chance to hold a more meaningful discussion.
I give everybody the privilege of discussing my videos with me. But those who simply choose to abuse the privilege, lose it if they continue doing it.
Vague, generalized innuendos? Dude, I don't know what your definitions of "vague," generalized" or "innuendos" are, but what I described were very specific logical fallacies that you could easily look up from any one of thousands of available sources online. I guarantee if you put "assertion," "shifting burden of proof," or "straw man" into a regular search engine, you will get at least a few thousand hits complete with definitions and examples.
Then again, I've told you that you've clearly used all of these logical fallacies, and advised you to look them up on a number of occasions, and even offered assistance in understanding why these are logical fallacies and why they lead to incomplete arguments, and you've done nothing but blow all that off in favor of claiming that all logical fallacies that you consider to be "common sense" were invented by atheists in order to argue "the truth." That in itself is another assertion.
Your last 8 comments have contained virtually nothing in the way of logical or rational arguments or factual information. You are now merely making vague accusations of "flaws" and "fallacies" without actually identifying any.
I allow comments for the purpose of logical and rational discussion. You have had ample opportunity to do that and have chosen not to. To avoid being blocked I suggest you move on now and allow others an equal opportunity.
Uh, I did identify Job 26:7, that's what this conversation was about, I explained what was wrong with it, you accused me of being unnecessarily atheist for not accepting the phrase as it is. Should I do what you do and add words and context that weren't originally there in order to make more sense out of it?
Yes this one sentence was about the only actual specific point made but it was not what the conversation was about. I responded to it because it was a specific point that could actually be addressed. Everything else in your multiple postings was simply generalised rhetorical opinion.
I didn't add words to the original verse, I explained why the original verse accurately described what was later discovered to be a scientific fact. That it does is the reality. (cont.)
Your choices are (like everybody else) to accept the reality that exists or try and justify denial of the reality that exists.
The reality is that Job 26:7 says what it says and it accurately describes the reality of how Earth is suspended in space - it hangs upon nothing.
Instead of scratching around trying to find a way to deny the facts, what you should be asking is - WHO told Job the earth hangs on nothing?? WHO told Isaiah the earth was a circle when viewed from the heavens?
That it doesn't is the problem. It was completely incorrect in just about every possible way that it could be correct or incorrect. The Earth doesn't "hang," it doesn't "float," and it definitely doesn't hang or float over "nothingness," the complete opposite would be true, it is positioned so that billions of galaxies are positioned below our equator.
"WHO told Job the earth hangs on nothing?? WHO told Isaiah was a circle when viewed from the heavens?"
Great questions. What would claim to know how the Earth was positioned in the universe and then completely fail to grasp even basic concepts of gravity and space? The omniscient creator of the universe, or some sand people a few thousand years ago pretending that they received a divine cheat sheet?
"and then completely fail to grasp even basic concepts of gravity and space?"
What is the actual foundation on which you make this claim? Lack of mention means nothing as the Lord revealed only what He decided was necessary to reveal. You will actually have to make reference to the verse and chapter you claim reveals this lack of understanding if you want your claim to be taken seriously.
But what you are missing is that the only person who could tell them these truths about the earth is somebody who KNOWS what the earth looks like - from SPACE.
Your flippant remarks about "sand people" displays the common error that "old" means "primitive". A more advanced civilisation than mankind will be older than mankind.
The Bible is what you would EXPECT from contact with more advanced beings than mankind. (cont.)
The "Elohiym" (the OT Hebrew word translated as both "God" and "gods") are not from this world. They are both older than it and more advanced than it.
Or do you think mankind is the only form of life that could possibly ever exist in the universe? Or that mankind is the most superior lifeform in the universe?
Ever considered that mankind might be the "babes" of the universe that need to be taught how to behave and prove themselves suitable before being allowed out into it?
Illogical and irrational as your argument is there is always the possibility this is what you seriously believe. If this is the case then you need to understand that "hang" means to suspend without physically resting on anything. That means the Earth physically rests on nothing. hat it hangs on nothing means that it is not physically suspended from anything.
The term "hangeth the Earth upon nothing" means the earth neither physically rests on anything, nor physically hangs from anything.
And that is the reality science EVENTUALLY discovered but the prophets of the Lord already knew.
That other objects exist in the universe has no bearing whatsoever on it. The Earth neither physically hangs from THEM nor does it physically rest on THEM.
In your rambling gibberish trying to explain why an ancient civilization can be more advanced than a modern one (which made me lulz) you forgot to justify Job 26:7 in any conceivable way. Earth isn't "suspended" in space any more than it "hangs" or "floats" or "rests on anything." Earth is actually moving through space at thousands of miles an hour thanks to gravity.
That civilization not only failed grasp how the Earth was positioned (in the solar system, in the galaxy, in the universe, etc.), it failed to grasp that the Earth is moving through space, or that any of this is the result of the relationship between the gravity of Earth and the gravity of the objects in the rest of the universe.
One could play the endless game of "to be technically correct" and point out that the earth does not really move through space as space does not technically exist as it is simply the ABSENCE of anything material. That technically everything EXISTENT in the universe is simply moving relevent to everything else EXISTENT in the universe. But it is a pointless game to play. In reality the earth STILL hangs from nothing physical as Job says. (cont.)
But nothing in Job 26:7 precludes movement or gravity, or positioning in space and the universe. They are simply not relevent to the point being made by this section of the Bible and so are not mentioned.
The Bible does not deal with many things the Lord did not deem relevant to the point being made. You cannot use lack of mention as evidence of lack of knowledge. Just because somebody does not mention something does not mean they do not know it.
You STILL have not pointed to anything the Bible actually says that justifies your argument.
You cannot use what the Bible does not say to challenge the correctness of what it does say. You must prove that what it DOES say is incorrect and you have not done that at all yet.
I didn't use what the Bible "didn't say," I said that the Bible was wrong based on what it did say. Job 26:7 doesn't "suggest" a planet that "might" be moving through space, it states plainly that Earth "hangeth over nothing." The only way to say that this isn't in conflict with the fact that the Earth is in constant movement is to rationalize that "hangeth" doesn't really suggest a stationary object, which it does.
My argument that the Bible doesn't represent a divine intelligence is justified primarily by the fact that it doesn't make any statements about the world as it is currently understood, technically the burden of proof would be on you to show that it does, although it seems that you're more interested in showing how one of many possible examples of incorrect statements made by the Bible isn't really incorrect than you are showing how the Bible displays divine intelligence.
I've noticed that I'm the only one using relevant Bible verses here, perhaps you'd like to show where the Bible makes accurate statements about the universe that people of the time period couldn't guess or make up. Perhaps the Bible accurately predicts the value of pi, or accurately describes the nature of the solar system and/or star formation. There's plenty of opportunities on your end to provide positive evidence, if you're interested.
Okay, I admit, I'm going to laugh my ass off if you do 1 Kings 7:23, it's one of the most common examples out there, but if you're just aiming for some low-hanging fruit.
Sorry but the only way to end your endless carry on is to block you after you have been warned several times.
That you have no understanding of what the Bible is saying is clear however. I strongly suggest you try understanding it instead of just looking for excuses to not believe it.
But so others are not mislead and you may contemplate your error I will explain 1 Kings 7:23 to you.
I know you don't like to actually list websites that you jack, but would I find it on the first page of google if I typed "Kings 7:23 pi" into the search bar?
Apparently I'm not debating you so much as I'm debating whoever actually does these websites that seem so easy to find when looking up controversial Bible verses, so this really is an appropriate ending, isn't it?
But please, do explain, I bet I can tell you what website you stole from when you post the argument, because they're all different arguments over the same flaw. (this is where you end this, I'd guess, that threat's just too great)
"1 Kings 7:23 "23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. "
If you had bothered to investigate you would have found this section of the Bible is describing the metalwork undertaken by Hiram of Tyre in the construction of the first Temple by King David. (cont.)
The "sea" was the name given to a large metal bath of water in which the priests performed their ritual cleansing.
This passage simply describes how it was made correctly noting I might add that if it has a diameter of 10 cubits it will have a circumfrence of approximately 30 cubits.
Your additional comments have simply confirmed and justified my decision to block you.
As long as you can make yourself believe that pi=3 (2+2 sometimes equals 5, that's a nice literary reference for anyone interested), that's all I really need to know.
No, I believe it should have made an effort to be something resembling concise, and I've read half a dozen arguments better than yours for why it actually is relatively exact (111/106 would have at least been interesting), it's just nice to see that you're willing to call the Bible a book on science one minute (and on astronomy, clearly not your strong suit considering everything I had to tell you about the nature of planetary orbits) and then say that it's not necessarily accurate the next.
I mean, it's only the Word of God, pffff, why should it be accurate? Just because a more accurate measure of pi, reduced to as little as six or seven digits, would have turned the Bible into an irrefutable example of mathematical discovery inspired by divine thought, doesn't mean that it was necessary. 3 is close enough!
Now you are going to do the old strawman argument bit and claim I said the Bible was a book of science when I have said nothing of the sort. Merely that what the Bible DOES say is in accordance with the reality science is only now discovering.
But I have now managed to find the alternative method of blocking you hopefully this endless barrage of meaningless comments from you will stop.
Even by your standards, that was an unusually pathetic cop out. The Bible suggests a stationary planet hanging over nothingness, absolutely none of which is true, and all of which suggests an understanding of the planet from people thousands of years ago. Just saying that it wasn't the point isn't good enough when it makes statements that are thoroughly wrong and easily disproven.
Cable cars *hang* from a cable and travel thousands of metres up mountains, across canyons, etc. Baskets hang from balloons and travel hundreds of kilometres. Missiles hang from jet fighter wings and travel faster than the speed of sound. Men hang from - hang gliders, and travel hundreds of miles sometimes at great speed.
It is very obvious with a few moments of thought to realise "hang" does not necessitate "stationary".
Your argument is spurious at best, fabricated at worst.
"Your argument is spurious at best, fabricated at worst"
Says the one trying to draw a comparison between planets moving due to gravity and physics and cable cars moving due to machinery that 's actually attached to the cable cars, balloons that are attached to the basket, missiles hanging from jets, etc.
Your argument one minute is that it's an accurate portrayal of how the Earth is positioned, and the next minute you're arguing that it's the same as cable cars actually attached to something
So what exactly is Earth hanging from, if any of your analogies are accurate? Heaven? Nothingness? It's amazing they've never found the string that Earth dangles from in the North Pole, you would think they would have noticed it by now.
The examples were merely to show up the naivety of your argument that the word "hangs" implies the object is stationary. Clearly from just a few short examples it does not imply that at all.
But thank you for highlighting the accuracy of Job 26:7. The Earth indeed "hangeth upon nothing" as Job so accurately proclaimed. But it certainly does not imply that the earth is stationary just because it uses the word "hangeth" as those examples so plainly illustrate.
So it hangs, even though it doesn't actually hang from anything, and it hangs over nothing, even though it actually doesn't in any way other than the sense that it's not literally on top of another object.. The fact that it doesn't imply movement seems to be the smallest flaw, looking at it more closely.
One might also point out that "hangeth upon nothing" suggests a specific position, and is at best misleading and at worst not divine knowledge at all, but hey, what does that really matter?
"The fact that it doesn't imply movement seems to be the smallest flaw, looking at it more closely. "
Clearly you are more interested in creating arguments than understanding realities. What it doesn't imply is "stationary". That is merely what you WANT to believe, it is not what it says.
The earth neither hangs upon anything nor rests on any thing. It literally "hangs upon nothing". It is a quite accurate description even if you will not face up to that reality. But believe what you will
Just like I said before (several times). It hangs but it doesn't hang. I mean, just because it says it hangs, doesn't mean that it actually hangs, right? "Hangs" and "hangs" aren't aren't synonymous just because they're identical. That's why it doesn't appear that we dangle from a cable of some sort, because we're not hanging from anything, even though we are. That makes way more sense than gravity.
Clearly you are either just creating endless arguments for the sake of creating endless arguments. either that or you have no understanding of what is being discussed at all. Your comments have become meaningless and nonsensical.
This discussion is going nowhere and needs to be concluded and seeing as you only intention seems to be seeing how long you can keep dancing around the issue, then I am forced to take the necessary steps to end it for you so others can ask serious questions.
BTW, I like how I offered you the opportunity to provide positive evidence before the Bible and you responded by claiming that I was making endless arguments (apparently by providing you with examples of things you could use in your defense of the Bible). Threatening to block me only tells me that I've won.
I mean, if you're still interested in a real debate and providing real evidence, I'm still interested, but I'm not interested in someone that would prefer to play word games and pretend to get offended than debate.
Okay, I just started watching Reality Bender 03A, and less than two minutes in, I think it's going to be pretty safe to assume that the Reality Bender series is complete shit. If you have one that isn't based on a laughable strawman, let me know, otherwise I'm gonna pass.
I should also point out that, while the Reality Bender series is awful (I watched a couple of others just to make sure my assumption wasn't wrong, and unfortunately it was dead on) the "Atheists" dilemma made me chortle.
Hopefully your comment will encourage people to check out the videos and decide for themselves. I always encourage people to seek the truth for themselves and not be put off by those who do not want them to.
I'm sure they will. I noticed that basically every video you make either has comments from 10 months ago from Christians that liked it, or from atheists within the past few weeks or months telling you how thoroughly awful your arguments are, kind of like what I've already done here. I've yet to see anyone convert based on your ramblings, although I've seen a few atheists laugh.
Followers of Christ tend to be more concentrated on serving the Lord and rescuing the perishing rather than seeking the approval of each other. We worship the Lord, not each other. Although we do encourage one another when the going gets tough.
But Jesus warned us nearly 2,000 years ago that there would be increasing numbers of scoffers. We are under no illusion as to what we are up against (cont.)
"1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: ".
So all that you are seeing really is yet another exact fulfilment of Biblical prophesy and yet more evidence of the existence of the Lord who can tell you "the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done" (Isaiah 46:10)
But I am not so much interested in those parading about like peacocks. Rather my hope is in those who observe quietly and seriously ponder these things in their heart as they earnestly seek the truth for themselves.
I did seriously ponder your videos, and I responded seriously, at least at first. You assume that anyone that anyone that disagrees with you simply isn't exploring hard enough, when the reality is that your fallacy-laden arguments couldn't convince any relatively educated person of your position. Even if your mystical being was the "one true god," your arguments for his existence are awful, as I've shown before.
How hard people seek the truth is up to them, I simply urge them to do it. Whether you agree or disagree with my videos is also up to you. I am merely pointing out things that actually exist in the reality you live in. It is your choice whether you seriously ponder why such things exist or simply choose to ignore their existence.
I do not judge people, BUT I do judge the arguments people make. If people make illogical, irrational, false, misleading, or non-real arguments I will point it out to them and anybody else observing. However to keep it purely objective and rational I endeavour to avoid emotional and derogatory words like "awful". I find argument by inference and inuendo to be a poor substitute for actual logical, reasoned and rational discussion.
Those who desire the truth will seek it. Those who do not won't
So do you judge yourself? I pointed out all of the logical fallacies in this video, step-by-step, explaining both the concept of the logical fallacy and how your video made the fallacy (90% of which were mere assertions, of course). You proceeded to argue that they weren't logical fallacies because they made perfect sense to you. That's about the time that I stopped taking you seriously, in case you were wondering.
Well you made your comments and I posted my responses. I think people can judge BOTH our comments and decide for themselves the pros and cons of what has been said and how it has been said?
Judging by your comments all along I think it is clear you were never really going to take me seriously. But that is your choice, I certainly have no control over it. Others can read what is posted and judge and decide for themselves. That's the whole point - to get people seeking the truth for THEMSELVES.
I took you seriously, about a month ago, from the period of time between starting the video and the argument itself. Then taking you seriously became a weaker option when I actually heard your argument. Then I actually talked to you, explained the flaws in your argument, explained why those flaws are considered logical fallacies, and you blew it off as an atheist disagreeing with you and not seeking "THE TRUTH." Like I said before, you're just as much a source of misinformation as any church.
BUT the whole point of the videos is to explain why the Atheist concept of "logic" is flawed and not based in reality.
You are merely arguing they are not flawed by using the SAME flawed logic.
I am trying to break the vicious circle of using the same flawed logic in order to justify the application of the self-same flawed logic. This new version of Atheism pushed by the likes of Dawkins (and yes it is a new version that many academic Atheists consider an embarrassment to Atheism) (cont.)
is sustained by a self- perpetuating set of flawed arguments used to support each other. But they do not stand up to reality based logic and impartial reasoning.
But to see it you first have to break out of the cyclic pattern of arguments. That is what I am trying to encourage people to do by investigating reality for themselves rather than just believing what they have been told or taught.
So let me get this straight: the science you like is alright, that's not bad science, it's only the atheistic science that says things like the Earth is 4 billion years old and humans evolved from another organism that's wrong. That's truly a fascinating concept, I'm amazed no one has every thought of that before.
I am merely pointing out that science itself does not preclude the existence of the Lord and many well renown and highly respected scientist currently are and throughout history many have been devout theists. Often BECAUSE of their scientific research.
Creation is as much a scientific theory as Evolution and many scientists lean toward it. Catastrophism is a more evidence supported scientific theory than Uniformitarian Theory AND it accomodates the possibility of the Flood of Noah (cont.)
However there is a section of the scientific community that will not accept the possibility that the Lord may exist and will not accept any scientific theory that supports that possibility. Evolution theory was promoted as a counter to Creation Theory. Uniformitarian theory was introduced as a counter to Catastrophism, etc. (cont.)
Merely pointing out that science itself does not deny the existence of the Lord, only a section of the scientific community that will not accept the existence of the Lord as a possible fact of the reality it is exploring.
Evolution was offered as a counter to the Creation theory? Tell me you're joking. You do realize that evolution and creation aren't even mutually exclusive, much less opposed to each other, right? You're probably thinking of abiogenesis, if you're thinking at all.
For the record, atheists neither invented the concept of the logical fallacy, nor did atheists alone assemble the list of logical fallacies accepted today. In your desperate attempt to turn atheism into a boogieman and yourself into the white knight battling the demons, you've made the deeply flawed and intellectually dishonest assumption that the logical fallacies that you committed were made up by the atheists. In the process, you made a lot of Christian scholars roll over in their graves.
Not sure what this ramble is supposed to prove, or if it is just an excuse for a bit of character assassination as a substitute for reasoned and logical argument. The fallacies are not mine, they are Atheism's
But as I said before, why keep making such vague innuendos and inferences? Why not just let our respective arguments stand as is and let people decide for THEMSELVES the validity of the points raised.
I assume you do not mind allowing people to think for themselves about the issues.
The assertions, strawmen, and shifting burden of proof fallacies are on the atheists? I'm pretty sure you've got ownership of all of those, as I've shown previously.
I should also point out that, again, I haven't bothered with using any type of physical evidence or making my own video, I was only here pointing out the (numerous) flaws in your video, as it is, your argument isn't strong enough to stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny, anyway.
"I haven't bothered with using any type of physical evidence"
Yes I noted you do not relate your arguments back to the reality we live in. Personally I test everything against reality. Understand reality and truth are synonomous. If you really want to seek the truth you ALWAYS have to come back to reality. That which accords with reality is the truth. That which does not accord is not the truth.
That is why I direct people's attention to reality so they can see the truth for themselves.
Direct people's attention to "reality" by assuming that the Bible is the absolute truth and declaring all laws of logic that you break were atheist inventions to prevent the truth from being spread? You make me laugh so hard sometimes.
That's the same cop out you've already thrown up over half a dozen times now. You're assuming that if someone looks at the evidence hard enough, they'll believe exactly what you believe, which is not only thoroughly ridiculous and incredibly conceited on your part, but the complete opposite seems to be the case when you consider the rising percentage of atheists with rising degrees of education.
What you choose to believe is up to you. I am simply trying to get people to explore and investigate the factual reality about them BEFORE choosing.
I can only point out the factual reality. I have no control over what people choose to believe.
"when you consider the rising percentage of atheists with rising degrees of education. "
You mean the rising degrees of ATHEIST BASED education. Naturally Atheism will increase if you only allow Atheist teachings in schools and supress any other.
And all I'm saying is that you're pushing all atheists, agnostics, and anyone capable of critical thought and/or anyone that has some kind of experience with debate away from your beliefs with incendiary videos gushing with logical fallacies that you neither acknowledge nor appear to understand.
Also, "ATHEIST BASED education?" What, you mean "science." Oh, wait, you've researched science, atheist based education isn't necessarily science, just science you disagree with.
"with incendiary videos gushing with logical fallacies that you neither acknowledge nor appear to understand. "
But that's the point. You only THINK they are. The "logic" of Atheism is a school of thought that *only* Atheists believe, but it is not based in reality. I deal in reality based logic, not artificial constructs and idealistic beliefs. That is, I deal with logic as applied to and consistent with the reality we live in. (cont.)
At the moment it is like trying to hold a discussion while speaking different languages.
The videos are only "incendiary" if you are looking for a reason to flare up. The reality is nobody can give offense to somebody who will not take it. But there are others who willingly take offense when none is given.
I will not take offense at your last comment for instance. Merely explain that "Atheist based education" is an education system that suppresses any teachings involving a deity. (cont.)
Understand that Science does not deny the existence of a deity, ONLY Atheistic based science does. That portion (and it IS only a portion) of the scientific community that does not accept in any way the possibility that a deity may exist and therefore will *only* accept theories that do not require the existence of a deity.
You should be aware that science arose from religion, not from Atheism.
No, I don't just "think" that they are, I explained why each and every logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. I didn't make them up, you can look up the list of logical fallacies online, and I guarantee that more Christians worked on it than atheists.
And I have explained the reality based logic I have employed to expose the flaws in the arguments Atheism puts forward. The issue is not who invented the errors, it is that Atheism employs them and perpetuates them as justification for believing there is no God.
But you have put forward your case and I have put forward mine. Why not just leave it for people to contemplate and ponder for themselves what we each have said?
"Mine are better than yours" comments help nobody.
So, in other words, you're fighting against common logic because you don't like how people use to in arguments against your faith. As it is, I never actually put forward any case, I just noted the flaws in your case. If I decided that science needed some kind of defense against Christian apologetics, I'd probably do my own video.
"So, in other words, you're fighting against common logic"
No, simply pointing out the logical flaws in many Atheist arguments and leaving it for people to think for themselves about the points raised.
A truly logical person with a bit of commonsense and a grasp on reality will be able to work it out for themselves.
Anybody is free to look at the points I make and the points you make and decide for themselves who is making more sense and better addressing the reality they see about them
How have you pointed out any logical flaws when you violate so many logical flaws asserting messy arguments? Either you're going by the laws of logic or you aren't, picking and choosing which ones you like and which ones don't fit is like picking and choosing Bible verses and ignoring beauties like Job 26:7 when declaring that the Bible is scientifically accurate.
Finally, an actual fact we can discuss. Thank you for pointing out evidence to SUPPORT my point. I can only conclude either you have not read the verse or you have not understood it at all. Let me put it up so everybody interested can actually see it and immediately dispel your erroneous inference it is not scientifically accurate:-
Job 26:7 "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. " (cont.)
The first thing we note is it accurately describes the northern regions of the earth as empty and desolate (the Hebrew has both meanings). Think Arctic Circle, Tanundra, etc.
The other thing is it accurately describes the Earth as floating in space suspended on ... nothing!.
Isaiah 40:22 Describes the Earth as circular. So CONTRARY to the Atheist propaganda the Bible describes the Earth as a circular object floating in space.
Pretty advanced scientific information they had I'd say.
Uh, it doesn't say that Earth is "floating," (and that would also be inaccurate, nothing in space "floats,") but describes it as "hanging." And, to add to that, Earth isn't on top of "nothing," there's billions of stars and galaxies across the universe, and they're all around Earth, including underneath it.
I should also point out that even minor errors should be considered red flags when this information is supposed to be coming from the omniscient creator of the universe. If your god made everything, and he doesn't even know the nature of gravity, or the fact that Earth isn't "hanging" over pure nothingness, it sounds like he's getting his science from humans living hundreds of years before modern science and physics.
The "Earth being over nothing" nonsense is perhaps the most damning thing of all. Humans have known that stars are everywhere and all around the planet longer than they've known that our planet isn't flat. Now we know that billions of galaxies can be seen in every direction. Saying that the Earth is positioned over "nothing" is pure lunacy, unless, of course, you decide that the Bible didn't actually mean that Earth hangs over "nothing" and really means "nothing up to a point" or something
And, just to expand on this a little more, you can say that God really meant "hanging over nothing up to a point" or "hanging over anything important," it's not hard to put words into religious texts, especially when the words came from people that knew next to nothing about the natural world. But don't pretend that the Bible is filled with evidence of the omniscient creator when that creator doesn't know more about his creation than the average person of that time period.
And expanding on this concept even more, what about Bible verses stating that disease is caused by demons? Sure, Jesus might have said "microbes" or "bacteria," explained that tiny organisms cause disease, and convince all skeptics that he was the human manifestation of the creator of the universe when discoveries centuries later proved him to be correct, but instead, he told people that demons cause illness, which would lead to people drilling holes in their heads to cure headaches years later.
If you have issues with the word "float" then you are free to find another word that describes how an object remains in space without touching or being touched by any other object. But the reality is Earth neither hangs from anything nor rests on anything which is what the phrase "hangeth the earth upon nothing" actually means.
But note how, rather than accepting that simple reality you have fabricated a convoluted excuse to avoid it. It's your choice but few others will be convinced by it.
Have you ever heard of "gravity?" It never seemed like the writers of the Bible had such a great idea of what that was all about, which seems a little odd. As for the phrase itself, it's clearly wrong, even if you're taking it as a metaphor, which it does not appear to be in its context. And how can I believe some infinite intelligence was behind the Bible when it has flaws a ten year old could easily spot?
Actually, if you're going per capita, the ratio of Christians to non-Christians has risen greatly since Jesus was actually alive. Saying that more non-Christians would exist is like saying more babies would be born in the future. That's a completely useless sentiment.
Hot damn, I just saw your "Inconvenient Truth about Atheism" clip, no wonder you had to disable comments, that steamer was even worse than this one, although it does help explain why you are still using that train wreck of a logical argument.
Had you actually made any rational or logical argument or point we might have had something to discuss.
The truth is I have yet to see Atheism actually win any debate except in its own opinion. Atheism does not actually debate at all. It simply ignores or rejects out of hand anything that disproves or conflicts with its beliefs. At best with a condescending attitude, at worst with outright mockery and ridicule or satire.
Atheism is in reality a very closed minded belief system.
You've already made the assumption that there was something to discuss. Your "Inconvenient Truth about Atheism" clip asserts that claiming the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist is a positive statement that requires as much physical evidence as the claim that it does exist. That's not an "argument," that's a textbook case of a logical fallacy, and, as I mentioned before, probably the main reason why people mock you for incompetence.
The reality is that the sum of every argument you've made up to this point essentially builds on a false statement, that being that atheists are making a positive claim by not believing in your god, and all that you've added to that profoundly ignorant statement are platitudes ("atheists are close-minded for not believing in my god"), assertions ("if god came down and made his presence known, people would rebel") and non sequiturs (basically everything you've said about what atheists believe)
As far as your assertion that atheists don't win debates except in their own opinion, it's probably speaking well of an atheist to say that they at least went over your head. If you still believe in the kind of argument you've been using up to this point, and you can actually understand an atheist's point of view, chances are the atheist is either dumbing it down or doesn't know what' he's talking about any more than you do.
You are making the error most Atheist's make that it is a "positive" vs "negative" argument. This is a fundamental error in Atheist logic. It is actually a true vs false argument as is every argument about reality.
It is about reality (true) vs not reality (false).
Atheism is actually claiming something to be true, (the non-existence of a deity) not making a "negative" argument.
Atheism is "close minded" in that it simply ignores or denies those things in reality that contradict it.
That's nothing more than a semantics argument. You could just as easily say that all atheists believe that all religions are false, and that people that believe in a religion believe that one of the religions is true. It doesn't do anything to change the fact that physical evidence doesn't prove the existence of any supernatural being. Again, damn, you really need to learn how to make a real argument if you're going to have a real debate.
"Again, damn, you really need to learn how to make a real argument if you're going to have a real debate."
If all you want to do is debate and try and prove to everybody just how superior you are to them go join a debating team. I have no need to boost my ego by debating anything. I'm happy to just discuss and listen. I do not actually care what you think of me. It's not about me - its about Jesus Christ. HE is the one who is important. I can't even save myself let alone anybody else. (cont.)
I do not believe in the "supernatural". I believe in "unknown reality". That is I believe there is far more to reality than mankind knows about. Because man cannot do it does not mean it cannot be done. Because man has not seen it does not mean it does not exist. Look not for evidence of the "supernatural". Look for evidence of the greater reality.
Go outside one night, look up and contemplate the greater reality you live in and how little of it you know.
Ah, the classic "what could make the natural world except the Judeo-Christian God as described by the Bible." Yeah, that's definitely being "open minded."
You do realize that, by claiming that atheists are being "close minded" for not believing in exactly what you believe in, that the only thing you accomplish is becoming a caricature of yourself, right? I'm not sure if anyone's ever mentioned that, it seems like something worth bringing up.
For the record, you were never "discussing" anything, you made an incendiary video and you've fought with everyone that posted any comment relating to your awful logic. I can actually read all the comments here, and most of them are you fighting with atheists that generally stand in awe at your flaws.
Sorry for the delay. Things get hectic here now and then.
The "close mindedness" I speak of is not about not believing me, it is about a disconnection to reality. The arguments Atheism puts forward are not founded in the reality we see about us. Even the version of "logic" espoused is not reality based but something artificially contrived.
It is not something most Atheists do intentionally, it is just what they have been led to believe by others. (cont.)
I am well aware most Atheists will simply disagree and deny it is the case. I fully expect that. My hope is that some (even one would make it worthwhile) might start to honestly and seriously examine and test what they have been told against the reality about them.
Where it leads is up to them. I just want them to start seriously thinking for themselves about who they can trust to tell them the truth about this life they have been born into by testing EVERYTHING they are told against reality
You do realize that, unlike most Christians that are raised Christian, Atheists, particularly in the U.S., are usually raised Christian and become Atheist after considering the questions of life, right? Your position was, is, and apparently always will be that you are right and atheists are wrong, and if atheists just "explore" some (i.e. perceive the natural world as you do) that they will reconsider the Judeo-Christian God. That's not just soft, that's pathetically conceited on your part.
I am sure many Atheists were once, nominally at least, "Christians". I myself was a "christian before I was an Atheist which was before becoming a follower of Christ. What drove me to Atheism was the erroneous teachings and traditions of the church I grew up in (tenuous though the connection was). It was only after I read and understood what the Bible was actually saying that I chose to follow, not a church, but Christ Jesus Himself. (cont.)
That many Atheists have been poorly taught about what following Christ is all about and what the Bible actually says is abundantly clear by the many erroneous comments they make about both.
The problem is instead of seeking the actual truth for themselves they appear to have simply swapped the erroneous teachings of many churches for the erroneous teachings of many Atheists.
What is wrong is the erroneous information they are being fed from all sides. (cont.)
A person MUST decide for themselves who and what they choose to believe and who and what they do not. What I am trying to do is encourage people to seek and investigate the truth - for themselves, rather than just believing the erroneous information many people are feeding them.
Understand, I have as many issues with the erroneous teachings of many churches and denominations as I do with the erroneous teachings of Atheism.
My issue here is with erroneous teachings - from anybody.
Ironic that you have issues with erroneous teachings of "anybody," and yet your own videos are nothing more than pro-Christian, anti-Atheist rhetoric gushing with logical fallacies, particularly assertions that can only be supported by the Bible, assuming that the Bible is the absolute truth. You're no better than those churches.
You're assuming that Atheists are Atheist because they were turned off by a church, a dangerous and ignorant assumption that only applies to a small percentage of the Atheists in America. The fact that you're still assuming that the Bible is the absolute truth is more than enough to show that you have no claim on what is really "true."
So now you're arguing that, while atheists aren't wrong just for disagreeing with your view, they are disconnected from reality because they don't view the world through your eyes. That's powerful stuff right there.
"For the record, you were never "discussing" anything"
The videos are to try and get people thinking about these things instead of just accepting what they have been told by Atheism. I am quite happy for people to investigate these things for themselves. Actually I encourage it.
I TRY and discuss what people ask me about on the assumption they (and others watching) are seriously seeking the truth for themselves. But if all they want to do is fight, argue or scoff others might see that too
Your last comment is an example of how "close minded" works. Whether you can see it or not Atheism has constructed a "world view" that does not actually accord with the reality around it. When confronted with a physical and/or logical reality that contradicts the artificial world view of Atheism it survives by simply denying or ignoring the reality.
It makes discussion with Atheists extremely difficult as they argue a version of reality that does not actually exist. (cont.)
The trouble is the only way you can see that is to seriously question the things Atheism has told you and to take a real long hard look at the actual reality in which you live. To drop all preconceived notions (especially about what is and is not possible) and actually investigate things for yourself with an open mind.
To find your own sources of information, To actually listen without pre-judging or needing to prove anything. The only person you have to prove anything to is - yourself.
So now you're arguing that physical evidence does suggest the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, after spending days trying to convince me that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Pick a stance, man
"Absence of evidence" as evidence a deity does not exist is an argument of Atheism. I am merely pointing out that in the REALITY you live in there is actually a considerable amount of EXISTANT evidence that supports the existence of the Lord and no evidence that supports His non-existence.
That Atheism simply chooses to ignore the reality the evidence actually exists is part of that disconnect from reality I was speaking of.
Instead of pondering the evidence they simply deny it exists.
First off, don't spend days arguing that the absence of evidence does not necessarily mean the evidence of absence and then argue that evidence actually does exist without naming anything. It makes both arguments weaker.
Second, you have a horrible understanding of science if you think that atheists should consider the untestable supernatural as an answer to real questions in science. "God did it" is never an acceptable answer until God can be tested in an experiment that can be re-tested.
"then argue that evidence actually does exist without naming anything."
I have a whole series of "Reality Bender" videos up on the channel specifically dealing with much of the existent evidence. It saves having to repeat it all over and over again to every Atheist who has been taught that no evidence exists.
Please feel free to view as many as you want and investigate it all for yourself. It is all well documented on the internet, in Libraries. etc. (cont.)
"until God can be tested in an experiment that can be re-tested."
I do not believe in the "supernatural". I believe in the "unknown reality", that ENORMOUS portion of reality mankind, and his science, still knows absolutely nothing about and has no idea what exists in it and what is possible in it.
Do you believe science knows everything? If not why will you only believe something exists if science declares it exists?
Your definition of an "unknown reality" is a nicer way of saying "supernatural" without the negative connotations attached to that word, and your only argument for its existence is the fart-in-the-wind "if science doesn't explain everything, clearly we need a God of the gaps," argument.
No, "supernatural" tends to infer an alternate reality or something beyond the everyday reality we experience.
"Unknown reality" speaks of the one universal reality, the very one we all live in. However it understands how little we actually know of that reality and the vast bulk of it we know absolutely nothing about.
Much of science is like studying a single leaf and deducing a theory about the whole forest. What we actually know about the reality we live in is pitifully small.
I don't think I'm even going to dignify your definition of "supernatural" with a response, except to say that whenever you start a definition with "tends to infer," you're probably about to talk out of your ass, especially when you're comparing it to a term that you made up.
Not to be an ass here, but the only two videos of yours that I have seen have been absolutely Godawful. If it's the same anti-Atheist, pro-Christian rhetoric and fallacy-laden arguments that barely serve as entertainment, I'm not going to be happy after watching them.
Just to set things straight, you are receiving extra hostility from atheists because, after establishing yourself as someone incapable of normal debate, you compensate by getting preachy and resorting back to "you'll go to hell if you don't agree with me." In general, you come off as a pretentious asshole, and you'll probably receive a lot less hostility if you get better at real debating and stop attempting to declare what will happen to atheists if they disagree with you.
Atheists do it to EVERYBODY who disagrees with them. This "New Atheism" the likes of Richard Dawkins promotes is not "atheism" so much as "anti-theism". It mocks and ridicules ALL theism itself regardless of who the theist is.
You are aware that even many of the traditional academic Atheists are embarassed by the behaviour and carry ons of Dawkins and many of the other "new Atheism" proponents.
You cannot blame others for how YOU choose to behave. It's called self-control
Wah, Atheists represent less than a tenth of the population in the U.S. and an even smaller percentage of the world's population and we're the bullies beating you people up. Maybe that's a hint that Christians need to learn how to debate instead of complaining about all the smarties being mean to them.
I never mentioned Dawkins or "New Atheism," those are things you're bringing up because you want it to appear as though I'm attacking you just to be mean, when nothing is further from the truth
Just to sum things up, you are at least the worst person at this that I've seen today, although I've met plenty of Christians that don't appear to know a damned thing about how to debate, and you succeeded in nothing more than making me chortle with your failures, particularly the assertion that your religion needed to be proven false. In the future, if you're going to say something to me or any other rational person, I suggest learning some basics about debate first.
"In order to prove that I'm more credible than the atheists shouting the exact opposite of what I'm shouting, I'm going to make a video that just asks the viewer to decide for themselves what to believe. Now here's some Christian rhetoric and implied threats if you don't believe in my God."
I'm not shouting anything, merely trying to EMPHASIS certain important things and words that people keep on missing.
The Lord does not make "threats", He makes "promises" about the consequences of your action. But I am not God that I can threaten or promise anything.
If you do not believe God exists then you do not believe a threat exists. There is *ONLY* one way to follow Christ and that is by your *own* freewill choice. But EVERY choice you make has consequences - THAT'S reality.
But, in all seriousness, your entire video is littered with logical fallacies.
"Something else that puzzles people is why doesn't God simply pop up in the sky and say 'See I exist?'? Well the answer to that is, it is not about FORCING people to believe in Him. That is not what (or should I saw WHO) He's after"
Do you really think anyone is stupid enough to take that answer? Apparently so, considering the rest of the clip. I can see why you've received so much hostility from atheists.
This entire clip is based on the logic that your god can't actually prove his existence to doubters because then they will be forced to believe, which would, for reasons unexplained, would mean that they wouldn't be able to trust your god and would rebel against him. Thus, only the people willing to accept your religion and nothing else are in the clear. That's nice and all, but if you post something that soft on youtube, you should probably expect to get ripped by nonbelievers.
But the Lord CAN prove His existence and has done many times. He proved His existence to the Israelites, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, etc. on many occassions and they STILL would not OBEY Him.
The Lord's purpose has nothing to do with proof of existence (even Satan and his demons KNOW the Lord exists). It has everything to do with MUTUAL love, faith, respect, obedience, loyalty, a god and *HIS* people together. THAT can only be by *freewill* choice. It cannot be demanded / commanded.
The only evidence you have that he "made his presence known" is that the religions of Abraham said he did. Calling that proof is yet another bare assertion, it might satisfy you, but it will get torn apart by anyone that knows anything about basic logic and reasoning.
Let's make no bones about it. The only proof you have for any of your assertions are religious texts, which are also assertions, and assertions distorted by time and translation, at that. If that was enough to convert atheists, then it would have probably worked by now, your video is basically for people with very low standards for what passes as "proof."
The Lord seeks a *relationship*, not robots or pets. The closest thing we have to the depth of relationship He seeks is that of a loving marriage and Jesus used it frequently as an example of the type of relationship the Lord seeks with us.
A forced marriage without mutual love, respect, obedience, faith, etc. is a farce. These are not things you can force people to have. They can only be GIVEN, not taken.
You asserted that your god making his presence known would be be forcing people to believe in him while simultaneously meaning that they wouldn't be able to trust or love him. That's an astoundingly bad foundation for your argument.
"But, in all seriousness, your entire video is littered with logical fallacies."
Argument by inference is easy, you just infer whatever you want people to believe. Now if you actually *demonstrated* and *proved* what you are claiming - that would be different.
"Do you really think anyone is stupid enough to take that answer?"
Another argument by inference. You are a non-believer are you not? The Lord has not forced YOU to believe has HE? But *your* choice has consequences as does mine.
If you want me to actually name logical fallacies, I could do that, too, although most of the fallacies in this are pretty much basic assertion fallacies.
You started off the clip with the assumption that your god exists and implied that some atheists are atheists because they are just rebelling from your god, which is both fallacious and assholish
After this, you state that a relationship with your god must be "two-way" and then asserted that this couldn't happen if he made his presence known
You then asserted that if he made his presence known, he would thus be forcing himself on all humans, which, you again asserted, would mean that many people would not trust him after he made himself known and would, (again, bare assertion) rebel against him.
About "trust me" Do you see the problem, with all the people / professions you mention,.Their existance can be checked and for the most part their claims verifed and evaluated.
Gods not so much.
pamor25 2 years ago
How deep you dig depends on how much you want to find what you are looking for.
The Lord is very interested in just how much you value the truth and how much you value a relationship with Him.
Those who dig deep find, those who do not are simply not interested enough.
The Lord is seeking those who are earnestly seeking Him. The kingdom of the Lord is a kingdom of one mind and one heart. A kingdom in unity. A god and HIS people. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
The Lord is seeking the lost. The lost, above all things seek to be - HOME!
Those who most earnestly seek the Lord are those who desire to be somewhere else - to be home.
Hebrews 11:16 "But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. "
Are you happy where you are or do you feel lost? Do you LIKE what you see about you or do you desire a better place better life? How deep will you dig?
IslandBard 2 years ago
I should point out that you completely ignored the point that you've made very specific logical fallacies, specifically assertion, straw man, and shifting burden of proof fallacies. I've given you plenty of opportunities to explain how such textbook flaws in your arguments can be explained. Your decision to continue to ignore the flaws in your argument and instead arguing over the nature of argumentation (without adding anything, I might add) does not help your cause.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Didn't ignore the vague, generalised, innuendos you are making, merely pointed out that that is ALL that they are.
There is not much can be done with somebody else's personal opinions except note they have them. I note you have them but they are YOUR opinions, not logical and rational arguments that can be analysed.
All you are doing is declaring that you do not like what I am saying. Well I got that message very early in the discussion.
Put up a logical argument or remain silent.
IslandBard 2 years ago
(cont.)
If all you are going to do is clog up my comment pages with what amounts to little more than vague generalised spam and innuendo. Infering you have some logical argument without actually making any logical argument perhaps I need to put a stopper in to give serious seekers a chance to hold a more meaningful discussion.
I give everybody the privilege of discussing my videos with me. But those who simply choose to abuse the privilege, lose it if they continue doing it.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Vague, generalized innuendos? Dude, I don't know what your definitions of "vague," generalized" or "innuendos" are, but what I described were very specific logical fallacies that you could easily look up from any one of thousands of available sources online. I guarantee if you put "assertion," "shifting burden of proof," or "straw man" into a regular search engine, you will get at least a few thousand hits complete with definitions and examples.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Then again, I've told you that you've clearly used all of these logical fallacies, and advised you to look them up on a number of occasions, and even offered assistance in understanding why these are logical fallacies and why they lead to incomplete arguments, and you've done nothing but blow all that off in favor of claiming that all logical fallacies that you consider to be "common sense" were invented by atheists in order to argue "the truth." That in itself is another assertion.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Your last 8 comments have contained virtually nothing in the way of logical or rational arguments or factual information. You are now merely making vague accusations of "flaws" and "fallacies" without actually identifying any.
I allow comments for the purpose of logical and rational discussion. You have had ample opportunity to do that and have chosen not to. To avoid being blocked I suggest you move on now and allow others an equal opportunity.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Uh, I did identify Job 26:7, that's what this conversation was about, I explained what was wrong with it, you accused me of being unnecessarily atheist for not accepting the phrase as it is. Should I do what you do and add words and context that weren't originally there in order to make more sense out of it?
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Yes this one sentence was about the only actual specific point made but it was not what the conversation was about. I responded to it because it was a specific point that could actually be addressed. Everything else in your multiple postings was simply generalised rhetorical opinion.
I didn't add words to the original verse, I explained why the original verse accurately described what was later discovered to be a scientific fact. That it does is the reality. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Your choices are (like everybody else) to accept the reality that exists or try and justify denial of the reality that exists.
The reality is that Job 26:7 says what it says and it accurately describes the reality of how Earth is suspended in space - it hangs upon nothing.
Instead of scratching around trying to find a way to deny the facts, what you should be asking is - WHO told Job the earth hangs on nothing?? WHO told Isaiah the earth was a circle when viewed from the heavens?
IslandBard 2 years ago
That it doesn't is the problem. It was completely incorrect in just about every possible way that it could be correct or incorrect. The Earth doesn't "hang," it doesn't "float," and it definitely doesn't hang or float over "nothingness," the complete opposite would be true, it is positioned so that billions of galaxies are positioned below our equator.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"WHO told Job the earth hangs on nothing?? WHO told Isaiah was a circle when viewed from the heavens?"
Great questions. What would claim to know how the Earth was positioned in the universe and then completely fail to grasp even basic concepts of gravity and space? The omniscient creator of the universe, or some sand people a few thousand years ago pretending that they received a divine cheat sheet?
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"and then completely fail to grasp even basic concepts of gravity and space?"
What is the actual foundation on which you make this claim? Lack of mention means nothing as the Lord revealed only what He decided was necessary to reveal. You will actually have to make reference to the verse and chapter you claim reveals this lack of understanding if you want your claim to be taken seriously.
(cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
But what you are missing is that the only person who could tell them these truths about the earth is somebody who KNOWS what the earth looks like - from SPACE.
Your flippant remarks about "sand people" displays the common error that "old" means "primitive". A more advanced civilisation than mankind will be older than mankind.
The Bible is what you would EXPECT from contact with more advanced beings than mankind. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
The "Elohiym" (the OT Hebrew word translated as both "God" and "gods") are not from this world. They are both older than it and more advanced than it.
Or do you think mankind is the only form of life that could possibly ever exist in the universe? Or that mankind is the most superior lifeform in the universe?
Ever considered that mankind might be the "babes" of the universe that need to be taught how to behave and prove themselves suitable before being allowed out into it?
IslandBard 2 years ago
Illogical and irrational as your argument is there is always the possibility this is what you seriously believe. If this is the case then you need to understand that "hang" means to suspend without physically resting on anything. That means the Earth physically rests on nothing. hat it hangs on nothing means that it is not physically suspended from anything.
The term "hangeth the Earth upon nothing" means the earth neither physically rests on anything, nor physically hangs from anything.
IslandBard 2 years ago
(cont.)
And that is the reality science EVENTUALLY discovered but the prophets of the Lord already knew.
That other objects exist in the universe has no bearing whatsoever on it. The Earth neither physically hangs from THEM nor does it physically rest on THEM.
IslandBard 2 years ago
In your rambling gibberish trying to explain why an ancient civilization can be more advanced than a modern one (which made me lulz) you forgot to justify Job 26:7 in any conceivable way. Earth isn't "suspended" in space any more than it "hangs" or "floats" or "rests on anything." Earth is actually moving through space at thousands of miles an hour thanks to gravity.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
That civilization not only failed grasp how the Earth was positioned (in the solar system, in the galaxy, in the universe, etc.), it failed to grasp that the Earth is moving through space, or that any of this is the result of the relationship between the gravity of Earth and the gravity of the objects in the rest of the universe.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
One could play the endless game of "to be technically correct" and point out that the earth does not really move through space as space does not technically exist as it is simply the ABSENCE of anything material. That technically everything EXISTENT in the universe is simply moving relevent to everything else EXISTENT in the universe. But it is a pointless game to play. In reality the earth STILL hangs from nothing physical as Job says. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
But nothing in Job 26:7 precludes movement or gravity, or positioning in space and the universe. They are simply not relevent to the point being made by this section of the Bible and so are not mentioned.
The Bible does not deal with many things the Lord did not deem relevant to the point being made. You cannot use lack of mention as evidence of lack of knowledge. Just because somebody does not mention something does not mean they do not know it.
(cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
You STILL have not pointed to anything the Bible actually says that justifies your argument.
You cannot use what the Bible does not say to challenge the correctness of what it does say. You must prove that what it DOES say is incorrect and you have not done that at all yet.
IslandBard 2 years ago
I didn't use what the Bible "didn't say," I said that the Bible was wrong based on what it did say. Job 26:7 doesn't "suggest" a planet that "might" be moving through space, it states plainly that Earth "hangeth over nothing." The only way to say that this isn't in conflict with the fact that the Earth is in constant movement is to rationalize that "hangeth" doesn't really suggest a stationary object, which it does.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
My argument that the Bible doesn't represent a divine intelligence is justified primarily by the fact that it doesn't make any statements about the world as it is currently understood, technically the burden of proof would be on you to show that it does, although it seems that you're more interested in showing how one of many possible examples of incorrect statements made by the Bible isn't really incorrect than you are showing how the Bible displays divine intelligence.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I've noticed that I'm the only one using relevant Bible verses here, perhaps you'd like to show where the Bible makes accurate statements about the universe that people of the time period couldn't guess or make up. Perhaps the Bible accurately predicts the value of pi, or accurately describes the nature of the solar system and/or star formation. There's plenty of opportunities on your end to provide positive evidence, if you're interested.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Okay, I admit, I'm going to laugh my ass off if you do 1 Kings 7:23, it's one of the most common examples out there, but if you're just aiming for some low-hanging fruit.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Sorry but the only way to end your endless carry on is to block you after you have been warned several times.
That you have no understanding of what the Bible is saying is clear however. I strongly suggest you try understanding it instead of just looking for excuses to not believe it.
But so others are not mislead and you may contemplate your error I will explain 1 Kings 7:23 to you.
(cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Aww, that's adorable, you took a few minutes to look up 1 Kings 7:23 on a website and explain how it's accurate.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I know you don't like to actually list websites that you jack, but would I find it on the first page of google if I typed "Kings 7:23 pi" into the search bar?
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Apparently I'm not debating you so much as I'm debating whoever actually does these websites that seem so easy to find when looking up controversial Bible verses, so this really is an appropriate ending, isn't it?
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
But please, do explain, I bet I can tell you what website you stole from when you post the argument, because they're all different arguments over the same flaw. (this is where you end this, I'd guess, that threat's just too great)
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"1 Kings 7:23 "23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. "
If you had bothered to investigate you would have found this section of the Bible is describing the metalwork undertaken by Hiram of Tyre in the construction of the first Temple by King David. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
The "sea" was the name given to a large metal bath of water in which the priests performed their ritual cleansing.
This passage simply describes how it was made correctly noting I might add that if it has a diameter of 10 cubits it will have a circumfrence of approximately 30 cubits.
Your additional comments have simply confirmed and justified my decision to block you.
IslandBard 2 years ago
By the way I did not need to check with any websites, merely my Bible. It is so obvious a child would understand it. Clearly though you have not.
IslandBard 2 years ago
I guess I'm just not willing to fudge your God's math, maybe I just respect him too much, oh well.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
As long as you can make yourself believe that pi=3 (2+2 sometimes equals 5, that's a nice literary reference for anyone interested), that's all I really need to know.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Ah, the ol' "Bible isn't a science book, therefore it doesn't have to be right" argument, I can appreciate that.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
At least you seem to appreciate that the purpose of the passage was a general description and not a mathematically concise design manual.
That it is makes your argument totally bogus AGAIN seems to escape you.
IslandBard 2 years ago
No, I believe it should have made an effort to be something resembling concise, and I've read half a dozen arguments better than yours for why it actually is relatively exact (111/106 would have at least been interesting), it's just nice to see that you're willing to call the Bible a book on science one minute (and on astronomy, clearly not your strong suit considering everything I had to tell you about the nature of planetary orbits) and then say that it's not necessarily accurate the next.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I mean, it's only the Word of God, pffff, why should it be accurate? Just because a more accurate measure of pi, reduced to as little as six or seven digits, would have turned the Bible into an irrefutable example of mathematical discovery inspired by divine thought, doesn't mean that it was necessary. 3 is close enough!
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Now you are going to do the old strawman argument bit and claim I said the Bible was a book of science when I have said nothing of the sort. Merely that what the Bible DOES say is in accordance with the reality science is only now discovering.
But I have now managed to find the alternative method of blocking you hopefully this endless barrage of meaningless comments from you will stop.
Thank you for at least justifying my actions.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Even by your standards, that was an unusually pathetic cop out. The Bible suggests a stationary planet hanging over nothingness, absolutely none of which is true, and all of which suggests an understanding of the planet from people thousands of years ago. Just saying that it wasn't the point isn't good enough when it makes statements that are thoroughly wrong and easily disproven.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Cable cars *hang* from a cable and travel thousands of metres up mountains, across canyons, etc. Baskets hang from balloons and travel hundreds of kilometres. Missiles hang from jet fighter wings and travel faster than the speed of sound. Men hang from - hang gliders, and travel hundreds of miles sometimes at great speed.
It is very obvious with a few moments of thought to realise "hang" does not necessitate "stationary".
Your argument is spurious at best, fabricated at worst.
IslandBard 2 years ago
"Your argument is spurious at best, fabricated at worst"
Says the one trying to draw a comparison between planets moving due to gravity and physics and cable cars moving due to machinery that 's actually attached to the cable cars, balloons that are attached to the basket, missiles hanging from jets, etc.
Your argument one minute is that it's an accurate portrayal of how the Earth is positioned, and the next minute you're arguing that it's the same as cable cars actually attached to something
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
So what exactly is Earth hanging from, if any of your analogies are accurate? Heaven? Nothingness? It's amazing they've never found the string that Earth dangles from in the North Pole, you would think they would have noticed it by now.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
The examples were merely to show up the naivety of your argument that the word "hangs" implies the object is stationary. Clearly from just a few short examples it does not imply that at all.
But thank you for highlighting the accuracy of Job 26:7. The Earth indeed "hangeth upon nothing" as Job so accurately proclaimed. But it certainly does not imply that the earth is stationary just because it uses the word "hangeth" as those examples so plainly illustrate.
IslandBard 2 years ago
So it hangs, even though it doesn't actually hang from anything, and it hangs over nothing, even though it actually doesn't in any way other than the sense that it's not literally on top of another object.. The fact that it doesn't imply movement seems to be the smallest flaw, looking at it more closely.
One might also point out that "hangeth upon nothing" suggests a specific position, and is at best misleading and at worst not divine knowledge at all, but hey, what does that really matter?
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Like I said before, it's easy to make the Bible make sense when you're willing to add and take away words to make a point.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"The fact that it doesn't imply movement seems to be the smallest flaw, looking at it more closely. "
Clearly you are more interested in creating arguments than understanding realities. What it doesn't imply is "stationary". That is merely what you WANT to believe, it is not what it says.
The earth neither hangs upon anything nor rests on any thing. It literally "hangs upon nothing". It is a quite accurate description even if you will not face up to that reality. But believe what you will
IslandBard 2 years ago
Just like I said before (several times). It hangs but it doesn't hang. I mean, just because it says it hangs, doesn't mean that it actually hangs, right? "Hangs" and "hangs" aren't aren't synonymous just because they're identical. That's why it doesn't appear that we dangle from a cable of some sort, because we're not hanging from anything, even though we are. That makes way more sense than gravity.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Clearly you are either just creating endless arguments for the sake of creating endless arguments. either that or you have no understanding of what is being discussed at all. Your comments have become meaningless and nonsensical.
This discussion is going nowhere and needs to be concluded and seeing as you only intention seems to be seeing how long you can keep dancing around the issue, then I am forced to take the necessary steps to end it for you so others can ask serious questions.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Sounds like you can't win a real debate and you're power-tripping to prove a point. That's okay, we both know what happened here.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
BTW, I like how I offered you the opportunity to provide positive evidence before the Bible and you responded by claiming that I was making endless arguments (apparently by providing you with examples of things you could use in your defense of the Bible). Threatening to block me only tells me that I've won.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I mean, if you're still interested in a real debate and providing real evidence, I'm still interested, but I'm not interested in someone that would prefer to play word games and pretend to get offended than debate.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
great video 5 stars *****
MrAubery 2 years ago
Thank you. Although I must give thanks to the Lord (Yahweh / Jehovah) who enabled me to do it.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Okay, I just started watching Reality Bender 03A, and less than two minutes in, I think it's going to be pretty safe to assume that the Reality Bender series is complete shit. If you have one that isn't based on a laughable strawman, let me know, otherwise I'm gonna pass.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I should also point out that, while the Reality Bender series is awful (I watched a couple of others just to make sure my assumption wasn't wrong, and unfortunately it was dead on) the "Atheists" dilemma made me chortle.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Everybody has to decide for themselves whether they are going to be a seeker of truth or just a scoffer. Entirely your choice.
IslandBard 2 years ago
You're still assuming that your beliefs are the absolute truth, while providing a number of videos that seem to prove the exact opposite.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Hopefully your comment will encourage people to check out the videos and decide for themselves. I always encourage people to seek the truth for themselves and not be put off by those who do not want them to.
IslandBard 2 years ago
I'm sure they will. I noticed that basically every video you make either has comments from 10 months ago from Christians that liked it, or from atheists within the past few weeks or months telling you how thoroughly awful your arguments are, kind of like what I've already done here. I've yet to see anyone convert based on your ramblings, although I've seen a few atheists laugh.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Followers of Christ tend to be more concentrated on serving the Lord and rescuing the perishing rather than seeking the approval of each other. We worship the Lord, not each other. Although we do encourage one another when the going gets tough.
But Jesus warned us nearly 2,000 years ago that there would be increasing numbers of scoffers. We are under no illusion as to what we are up against (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
As Paul advised Timothy (2Timothy 3)
"1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: ".
IslandBard 2 years ago
(cont.)
So all that you are seeing really is yet another exact fulfilment of Biblical prophesy and yet more evidence of the existence of the Lord who can tell you "the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done" (Isaiah 46:10)
But I am not so much interested in those parading about like peacocks. Rather my hope is in those who observe quietly and seriously ponder these things in their heart as they earnestly seek the truth for themselves.
IslandBard 2 years ago
I did seriously ponder your videos, and I responded seriously, at least at first. You assume that anyone that anyone that disagrees with you simply isn't exploring hard enough, when the reality is that your fallacy-laden arguments couldn't convince any relatively educated person of your position. Even if your mystical being was the "one true god," your arguments for his existence are awful, as I've shown before.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
How hard people seek the truth is up to them, I simply urge them to do it. Whether you agree or disagree with my videos is also up to you. I am merely pointing out things that actually exist in the reality you live in. It is your choice whether you seriously ponder why such things exist or simply choose to ignore their existence.
(cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
I do not judge people, BUT I do judge the arguments people make. If people make illogical, irrational, false, misleading, or non-real arguments I will point it out to them and anybody else observing. However to keep it purely objective and rational I endeavour to avoid emotional and derogatory words like "awful". I find argument by inference and inuendo to be a poor substitute for actual logical, reasoned and rational discussion.
Those who desire the truth will seek it. Those who do not won't
IslandBard 2 years ago
So do you judge yourself? I pointed out all of the logical fallacies in this video, step-by-step, explaining both the concept of the logical fallacy and how your video made the fallacy (90% of which were mere assertions, of course). You proceeded to argue that they weren't logical fallacies because they made perfect sense to you. That's about the time that I stopped taking you seriously, in case you were wondering.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Well you made your comments and I posted my responses. I think people can judge BOTH our comments and decide for themselves the pros and cons of what has been said and how it has been said?
Judging by your comments all along I think it is clear you were never really going to take me seriously. But that is your choice, I certainly have no control over it. Others can read what is posted and judge and decide for themselves. That's the whole point - to get people seeking the truth for THEMSELVES.
IslandBard 2 years ago
I took you seriously, about a month ago, from the period of time between starting the video and the argument itself. Then taking you seriously became a weaker option when I actually heard your argument. Then I actually talked to you, explained the flaws in your argument, explained why those flaws are considered logical fallacies, and you blew it off as an atheist disagreeing with you and not seeking "THE TRUTH." Like I said before, you're just as much a source of misinformation as any church.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
BUT the whole point of the videos is to explain why the Atheist concept of "logic" is flawed and not based in reality.
You are merely arguing they are not flawed by using the SAME flawed logic.
I am trying to break the vicious circle of using the same flawed logic in order to justify the application of the self-same flawed logic. This new version of Atheism pushed by the likes of Dawkins (and yes it is a new version that many academic Atheists consider an embarrassment to Atheism) (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
is sustained by a self- perpetuating set of flawed arguments used to support each other. But they do not stand up to reality based logic and impartial reasoning.
But to see it you first have to break out of the cyclic pattern of arguments. That is what I am trying to encourage people to do by investigating reality for themselves rather than just believing what they have been told or taught.
IslandBard 2 years ago
So let me get this straight: the science you like is alright, that's not bad science, it's only the atheistic science that says things like the Earth is 4 billion years old and humans evolved from another organism that's wrong. That's truly a fascinating concept, I'm amazed no one has every thought of that before.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I am merely pointing out that science itself does not preclude the existence of the Lord and many well renown and highly respected scientist currently are and throughout history many have been devout theists. Often BECAUSE of their scientific research.
Creation is as much a scientific theory as Evolution and many scientists lean toward it. Catastrophism is a more evidence supported scientific theory than Uniformitarian Theory AND it accomodates the possibility of the Flood of Noah (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
However there is a section of the scientific community that will not accept the possibility that the Lord may exist and will not accept any scientific theory that supports that possibility. Evolution theory was promoted as a counter to Creation Theory. Uniformitarian theory was introduced as a counter to Catastrophism, etc. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Merely pointing out that science itself does not deny the existence of the Lord, only a section of the scientific community that will not accept the existence of the Lord as a possible fact of the reality it is exploring.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Evolution was offered as a counter to the Creation theory? Tell me you're joking. You do realize that evolution and creation aren't even mutually exclusive, much less opposed to each other, right? You're probably thinking of abiogenesis, if you're thinking at all.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
For the record, atheists neither invented the concept of the logical fallacy, nor did atheists alone assemble the list of logical fallacies accepted today. In your desperate attempt to turn atheism into a boogieman and yourself into the white knight battling the demons, you've made the deeply flawed and intellectually dishonest assumption that the logical fallacies that you committed were made up by the atheists. In the process, you made a lot of Christian scholars roll over in their graves.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Not sure what this ramble is supposed to prove, or if it is just an excuse for a bit of character assassination as a substitute for reasoned and logical argument. The fallacies are not mine, they are Atheism's
But as I said before, why keep making such vague innuendos and inferences? Why not just let our respective arguments stand as is and let people decide for THEMSELVES the validity of the points raised.
I assume you do not mind allowing people to think for themselves about the issues.
IslandBard 2 years ago
The assertions, strawmen, and shifting burden of proof fallacies are on the atheists? I'm pretty sure you've got ownership of all of those, as I've shown previously.
I should also point out that, again, I haven't bothered with using any type of physical evidence or making my own video, I was only here pointing out the (numerous) flaws in your video, as it is, your argument isn't strong enough to stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny, anyway.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"I haven't bothered with using any type of physical evidence"
Yes I noted you do not relate your arguments back to the reality we live in. Personally I test everything against reality. Understand reality and truth are synonomous. If you really want to seek the truth you ALWAYS have to come back to reality. That which accords with reality is the truth. That which does not accord is not the truth.
That is why I direct people's attention to reality so they can see the truth for themselves.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Direct people's attention to "reality" by assuming that the Bible is the absolute truth and declaring all laws of logic that you break were atheist inventions to prevent the truth from being spread? You make me laugh so hard sometimes.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
That's the same cop out you've already thrown up over half a dozen times now. You're assuming that if someone looks at the evidence hard enough, they'll believe exactly what you believe, which is not only thoroughly ridiculous and incredibly conceited on your part, but the complete opposite seems to be the case when you consider the rising percentage of atheists with rising degrees of education.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
What you choose to believe is up to you. I am simply trying to get people to explore and investigate the factual reality about them BEFORE choosing.
I can only point out the factual reality. I have no control over what people choose to believe.
"when you consider the rising percentage of atheists with rising degrees of education. "
You mean the rising degrees of ATHEIST BASED education. Naturally Atheism will increase if you only allow Atheist teachings in schools and supress any other.
IslandBard 2 years ago
And all I'm saying is that you're pushing all atheists, agnostics, and anyone capable of critical thought and/or anyone that has some kind of experience with debate away from your beliefs with incendiary videos gushing with logical fallacies that you neither acknowledge nor appear to understand.
Also, "ATHEIST BASED education?" What, you mean "science." Oh, wait, you've researched science, atheist based education isn't necessarily science, just science you disagree with.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"with incendiary videos gushing with logical fallacies that you neither acknowledge nor appear to understand. "
But that's the point. You only THINK they are. The "logic" of Atheism is a school of thought that *only* Atheists believe, but it is not based in reality. I deal in reality based logic, not artificial constructs and idealistic beliefs. That is, I deal with logic as applied to and consistent with the reality we live in. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
At the moment it is like trying to hold a discussion while speaking different languages.
The videos are only "incendiary" if you are looking for a reason to flare up. The reality is nobody can give offense to somebody who will not take it. But there are others who willingly take offense when none is given.
I will not take offense at your last comment for instance. Merely explain that "Atheist based education" is an education system that suppresses any teachings involving a deity. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Understand that Science does not deny the existence of a deity, ONLY Atheistic based science does. That portion (and it IS only a portion) of the scientific community that does not accept in any way the possibility that a deity may exist and therefore will *only* accept theories that do not require the existence of a deity.
You should be aware that science arose from religion, not from Atheism.
IslandBard 2 years ago
To avoid confusion that last line should have read:-
"You should be aware that science arose from Theism, not from Atheism. "
IslandBard 2 years ago
No, I don't just "think" that they are, I explained why each and every logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. I didn't make them up, you can look up the list of logical fallacies online, and I guarantee that more Christians worked on it than atheists.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
And I have explained the reality based logic I have employed to expose the flaws in the arguments Atheism puts forward. The issue is not who invented the errors, it is that Atheism employs them and perpetuates them as justification for believing there is no God.
But you have put forward your case and I have put forward mine. Why not just leave it for people to contemplate and ponder for themselves what we each have said?
"Mine are better than yours" comments help nobody.
IslandBard 2 years ago
So, in other words, you're fighting against common logic because you don't like how people use to in arguments against your faith. As it is, I never actually put forward any case, I just noted the flaws in your case. If I decided that science needed some kind of defense against Christian apologetics, I'd probably do my own video.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"So, in other words, you're fighting against common logic"
No, simply pointing out the logical flaws in many Atheist arguments and leaving it for people to think for themselves about the points raised.
A truly logical person with a bit of commonsense and a grasp on reality will be able to work it out for themselves.
Anybody is free to look at the points I make and the points you make and decide for themselves who is making more sense and better addressing the reality they see about them
IslandBard 2 years ago
How have you pointed out any logical flaws when you violate so many logical flaws asserting messy arguments? Either you're going by the laws of logic or you aren't, picking and choosing which ones you like and which ones don't fit is like picking and choosing Bible verses and ignoring beauties like Job 26:7 when declaring that the Bible is scientifically accurate.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"ignoring beauties like Job 26:7"
Finally, an actual fact we can discuss. Thank you for pointing out evidence to SUPPORT my point. I can only conclude either you have not read the verse or you have not understood it at all. Let me put it up so everybody interested can actually see it and immediately dispel your erroneous inference it is not scientifically accurate:-
Job 26:7 "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. " (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
The first thing we note is it accurately describes the northern regions of the earth as empty and desolate (the Hebrew has both meanings). Think Arctic Circle, Tanundra, etc.
The other thing is it accurately describes the Earth as floating in space suspended on ... nothing!.
Isaiah 40:22 Describes the Earth as circular. So CONTRARY to the Atheist propaganda the Bible describes the Earth as a circular object floating in space.
Pretty advanced scientific information they had I'd say.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Uh, it doesn't say that Earth is "floating," (and that would also be inaccurate, nothing in space "floats,") but describes it as "hanging." And, to add to that, Earth isn't on top of "nothing," there's billions of stars and galaxies across the universe, and they're all around Earth, including underneath it.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I should also point out that even minor errors should be considered red flags when this information is supposed to be coming from the omniscient creator of the universe. If your god made everything, and he doesn't even know the nature of gravity, or the fact that Earth isn't "hanging" over pure nothingness, it sounds like he's getting his science from humans living hundreds of years before modern science and physics.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
The "Earth being over nothing" nonsense is perhaps the most damning thing of all. Humans have known that stars are everywhere and all around the planet longer than they've known that our planet isn't flat. Now we know that billions of galaxies can be seen in every direction. Saying that the Earth is positioned over "nothing" is pure lunacy, unless, of course, you decide that the Bible didn't actually mean that Earth hangs over "nothing" and really means "nothing up to a point" or something
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
And, just to expand on this a little more, you can say that God really meant "hanging over nothing up to a point" or "hanging over anything important," it's not hard to put words into religious texts, especially when the words came from people that knew next to nothing about the natural world. But don't pretend that the Bible is filled with evidence of the omniscient creator when that creator doesn't know more about his creation than the average person of that time period.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
And expanding on this concept even more, what about Bible verses stating that disease is caused by demons? Sure, Jesus might have said "microbes" or "bacteria," explained that tiny organisms cause disease, and convince all skeptics that he was the human manifestation of the creator of the universe when discoveries centuries later proved him to be correct, but instead, he told people that demons cause illness, which would lead to people drilling holes in their heads to cure headaches years later.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
If you have issues with the word "float" then you are free to find another word that describes how an object remains in space without touching or being touched by any other object. But the reality is Earth neither hangs from anything nor rests on anything which is what the phrase "hangeth the earth upon nothing" actually means.
But note how, rather than accepting that simple reality you have fabricated a convoluted excuse to avoid it. It's your choice but few others will be convinced by it.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Have you ever heard of "gravity?" It never seemed like the writers of the Bible had such a great idea of what that was all about, which seems a little odd. As for the phrase itself, it's clearly wrong, even if you're taking it as a metaphor, which it does not appear to be in its context. And how can I believe some infinite intelligence was behind the Bible when it has flaws a ten year old could easily spot?
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Actually, if you're going per capita, the ratio of Christians to non-Christians has risen greatly since Jesus was actually alive. Saying that more non-Christians would exist is like saying more babies would be born in the future. That's a completely useless sentiment.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Not sure what this comment relates to. If you want a response you are going to have to link it back to a specific comment of mine.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Hot damn, I just saw your "Inconvenient Truth about Atheism" clip, no wonder you had to disable comments, that steamer was even worse than this one, although it does help explain why you are still using that train wreck of a logical argument.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Had you actually made any rational or logical argument or point we might have had something to discuss.
The truth is I have yet to see Atheism actually win any debate except in its own opinion. Atheism does not actually debate at all. It simply ignores or rejects out of hand anything that disproves or conflicts with its beliefs. At best with a condescending attitude, at worst with outright mockery and ridicule or satire.
Atheism is in reality a very closed minded belief system.
IslandBard 2 years ago
You've already made the assumption that there was something to discuss. Your "Inconvenient Truth about Atheism" clip asserts that claiming the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist is a positive statement that requires as much physical evidence as the claim that it does exist. That's not an "argument," that's a textbook case of a logical fallacy, and, as I mentioned before, probably the main reason why people mock you for incompetence.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
The reality is that the sum of every argument you've made up to this point essentially builds on a false statement, that being that atheists are making a positive claim by not believing in your god, and all that you've added to that profoundly ignorant statement are platitudes ("atheists are close-minded for not believing in my god"), assertions ("if god came down and made his presence known, people would rebel") and non sequiturs (basically everything you've said about what atheists believe)
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
As far as your assertion that atheists don't win debates except in their own opinion, it's probably speaking well of an atheist to say that they at least went over your head. If you still believe in the kind of argument you've been using up to this point, and you can actually understand an atheist's point of view, chances are the atheist is either dumbing it down or doesn't know what' he's talking about any more than you do.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
You are making the error most Atheist's make that it is a "positive" vs "negative" argument. This is a fundamental error in Atheist logic. It is actually a true vs false argument as is every argument about reality.
It is about reality (true) vs not reality (false).
Atheism is actually claiming something to be true, (the non-existence of a deity) not making a "negative" argument.
Atheism is "close minded" in that it simply ignores or denies those things in reality that contradict it.
IslandBard 2 years ago
That's nothing more than a semantics argument. You could just as easily say that all atheists believe that all religions are false, and that people that believe in a religion believe that one of the religions is true. It doesn't do anything to change the fact that physical evidence doesn't prove the existence of any supernatural being. Again, damn, you really need to learn how to make a real argument if you're going to have a real debate.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"Again, damn, you really need to learn how to make a real argument if you're going to have a real debate."
If all you want to do is debate and try and prove to everybody just how superior you are to them go join a debating team. I have no need to boost my ego by debating anything. I'm happy to just discuss and listen. I do not actually care what you think of me. It's not about me - its about Jesus Christ. HE is the one who is important. I can't even save myself let alone anybody else. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
I do not believe in the "supernatural". I believe in "unknown reality". That is I believe there is far more to reality than mankind knows about. Because man cannot do it does not mean it cannot be done. Because man has not seen it does not mean it does not exist. Look not for evidence of the "supernatural". Look for evidence of the greater reality.
Go outside one night, look up and contemplate the greater reality you live in and how little of it you know.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Ah, the classic "what could make the natural world except the Judeo-Christian God as described by the Bible." Yeah, that's definitely being "open minded."
You do realize that, by claiming that atheists are being "close minded" for not believing in exactly what you believe in, that the only thing you accomplish is becoming a caricature of yourself, right? I'm not sure if anyone's ever mentioned that, it seems like something worth bringing up.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
For the record, you were never "discussing" anything, you made an incendiary video and you've fought with everyone that posted any comment relating to your awful logic. I can actually read all the comments here, and most of them are you fighting with atheists that generally stand in awe at your flaws.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Sorry for the delay. Things get hectic here now and then.
The "close mindedness" I speak of is not about not believing me, it is about a disconnection to reality. The arguments Atheism puts forward are not founded in the reality we see about us. Even the version of "logic" espoused is not reality based but something artificially contrived.
It is not something most Atheists do intentionally, it is just what they have been led to believe by others. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
I am well aware most Atheists will simply disagree and deny it is the case. I fully expect that. My hope is that some (even one would make it worthwhile) might start to honestly and seriously examine and test what they have been told against the reality about them.
Where it leads is up to them. I just want them to start seriously thinking for themselves about who they can trust to tell them the truth about this life they have been born into by testing EVERYTHING they are told against reality
IslandBard 2 years ago
You do realize that, unlike most Christians that are raised Christian, Atheists, particularly in the U.S., are usually raised Christian and become Atheist after considering the questions of life, right? Your position was, is, and apparently always will be that you are right and atheists are wrong, and if atheists just "explore" some (i.e. perceive the natural world as you do) that they will reconsider the Judeo-Christian God. That's not just soft, that's pathetically conceited on your part.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I am sure many Atheists were once, nominally at least, "Christians". I myself was a "christian before I was an Atheist which was before becoming a follower of Christ. What drove me to Atheism was the erroneous teachings and traditions of the church I grew up in (tenuous though the connection was). It was only after I read and understood what the Bible was actually saying that I chose to follow, not a church, but Christ Jesus Himself. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
That many Atheists have been poorly taught about what following Christ is all about and what the Bible actually says is abundantly clear by the many erroneous comments they make about both.
The problem is instead of seeking the actual truth for themselves they appear to have simply swapped the erroneous teachings of many churches for the erroneous teachings of many Atheists.
What is wrong is the erroneous information they are being fed from all sides. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
A person MUST decide for themselves who and what they choose to believe and who and what they do not. What I am trying to do is encourage people to seek and investigate the truth - for themselves, rather than just believing the erroneous information many people are feeding them.
Understand, I have as many issues with the erroneous teachings of many churches and denominations as I do with the erroneous teachings of Atheism.
My issue here is with erroneous teachings - from anybody.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Ironic that you have issues with erroneous teachings of "anybody," and yet your own videos are nothing more than pro-Christian, anti-Atheist rhetoric gushing with logical fallacies, particularly assertions that can only be supported by the Bible, assuming that the Bible is the absolute truth. You're no better than those churches.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
You're assuming that Atheists are Atheist because they were turned off by a church, a dangerous and ignorant assumption that only applies to a small percentage of the Atheists in America. The fact that you're still assuming that the Bible is the absolute truth is more than enough to show that you have no claim on what is really "true."
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
So now you're arguing that, while atheists aren't wrong just for disagreeing with your view, they are disconnected from reality because they don't view the world through your eyes. That's powerful stuff right there.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"For the record, you were never "discussing" anything"
The videos are to try and get people thinking about these things instead of just accepting what they have been told by Atheism. I am quite happy for people to investigate these things for themselves. Actually I encourage it.
I TRY and discuss what people ask me about on the assumption they (and others watching) are seriously seeking the truth for themselves. But if all they want to do is fight, argue or scoff others might see that too
IslandBard 2 years ago
(cont.)
Your last comment is an example of how "close minded" works. Whether you can see it or not Atheism has constructed a "world view" that does not actually accord with the reality around it. When confronted with a physical and/or logical reality that contradicts the artificial world view of Atheism it survives by simply denying or ignoring the reality.
It makes discussion with Atheists extremely difficult as they argue a version of reality that does not actually exist. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
The trouble is the only way you can see that is to seriously question the things Atheism has told you and to take a real long hard look at the actual reality in which you live. To drop all preconceived notions (especially about what is and is not possible) and actually investigate things for yourself with an open mind.
To find your own sources of information, To actually listen without pre-judging or needing to prove anything. The only person you have to prove anything to is - yourself.
IslandBard 2 years ago
So now you're arguing that physical evidence does suggest the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, after spending days trying to convince me that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Pick a stance, man
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"Absence of evidence" as evidence a deity does not exist is an argument of Atheism. I am merely pointing out that in the REALITY you live in there is actually a considerable amount of EXISTANT evidence that supports the existence of the Lord and no evidence that supports His non-existence.
That Atheism simply chooses to ignore the reality the evidence actually exists is part of that disconnect from reality I was speaking of.
Instead of pondering the evidence they simply deny it exists.
IslandBard 2 years ago
First off, don't spend days arguing that the absence of evidence does not necessarily mean the evidence of absence and then argue that evidence actually does exist without naming anything. It makes both arguments weaker.
Second, you have a horrible understanding of science if you think that atheists should consider the untestable supernatural as an answer to real questions in science. "God did it" is never an acceptable answer until God can be tested in an experiment that can be re-tested.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"then argue that evidence actually does exist without naming anything."
I have a whole series of "Reality Bender" videos up on the channel specifically dealing with much of the existent evidence. It saves having to repeat it all over and over again to every Atheist who has been taught that no evidence exists.
Please feel free to view as many as you want and investigate it all for yourself. It is all well documented on the internet, in Libraries. etc. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
"until God can be tested in an experiment that can be re-tested."
I do not believe in the "supernatural". I believe in the "unknown reality", that ENORMOUS portion of reality mankind, and his science, still knows absolutely nothing about and has no idea what exists in it and what is possible in it.
Do you believe science knows everything? If not why will you only believe something exists if science declares it exists?
IslandBard 2 years ago
Your definition of an "unknown reality" is a nicer way of saying "supernatural" without the negative connotations attached to that word, and your only argument for its existence is the fart-in-the-wind "if science doesn't explain everything, clearly we need a God of the gaps," argument.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
No, "supernatural" tends to infer an alternate reality or something beyond the everyday reality we experience.
"Unknown reality" speaks of the one universal reality, the very one we all live in. However it understands how little we actually know of that reality and the vast bulk of it we know absolutely nothing about.
Much of science is like studying a single leaf and deducing a theory about the whole forest. What we actually know about the reality we live in is pitifully small.
IslandBard 2 years ago
I don't think I'm even going to dignify your definition of "supernatural" with a response, except to say that whenever you start a definition with "tends to infer," you're probably about to talk out of your ass, especially when you're comparing it to a term that you made up.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
That's OK I can't dignify your comment with a response either.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Not to be an ass here, but the only two videos of yours that I have seen have been absolutely Godawful. If it's the same anti-Atheist, pro-Christian rhetoric and fallacy-laden arguments that barely serve as entertainment, I'm not going to be happy after watching them.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Just to set things straight, you are receiving extra hostility from atheists because, after establishing yourself as someone incapable of normal debate, you compensate by getting preachy and resorting back to "you'll go to hell if you don't agree with me." In general, you come off as a pretentious asshole, and you'll probably receive a lot less hostility if you get better at real debating and stop attempting to declare what will happen to atheists if they disagree with you.
Thank me later.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Oh please.
Atheists do it to EVERYBODY who disagrees with them. This "New Atheism" the likes of Richard Dawkins promotes is not "atheism" so much as "anti-theism". It mocks and ridicules ALL theism itself regardless of who the theist is.
You are aware that even many of the traditional academic Atheists are embarassed by the behaviour and carry ons of Dawkins and many of the other "new Atheism" proponents.
You cannot blame others for how YOU choose to behave. It's called self-control
IslandBard 2 years ago
Gotta go again - life and reality calls.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Wah, Atheists represent less than a tenth of the population in the U.S. and an even smaller percentage of the world's population and we're the bullies beating you people up. Maybe that's a hint that Christians need to learn how to debate instead of complaining about all the smarties being mean to them.
I never mentioned Dawkins or "New Atheism," those are things you're bringing up because you want it to appear as though I'm attacking you just to be mean, when nothing is further from the truth
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Just to sum things up, you are at least the worst person at this that I've seen today, although I've met plenty of Christians that don't appear to know a damned thing about how to debate, and you succeeded in nothing more than making me chortle with your failures, particularly the assertion that your religion needed to be proven false. In the future, if you're going to say something to me or any other rational person, I suggest learning some basics about debate first.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"In order to prove that I'm more credible than the atheists shouting the exact opposite of what I'm shouting, I'm going to make a video that just asks the viewer to decide for themselves what to believe. Now here's some Christian rhetoric and implied threats if you don't believe in my God."
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
I'm not shouting anything, merely trying to EMPHASIS certain important things and words that people keep on missing.
The Lord does not make "threats", He makes "promises" about the consequences of your action. But I am not God that I can threaten or promise anything.
If you do not believe God exists then you do not believe a threat exists. There is *ONLY* one way to follow Christ and that is by your *own* freewill choice. But EVERY choice you make has consequences - THAT'S reality.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Hey, great job, I only commented a week ago, I was beginning to worry that my comment would fall on deaf ears as I waited for you to respond.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
But, in all seriousness, your entire video is littered with logical fallacies.
"Something else that puzzles people is why doesn't God simply pop up in the sky and say 'See I exist?'? Well the answer to that is, it is not about FORCING people to believe in Him. That is not what (or should I saw WHO) He's after"
Do you really think anyone is stupid enough to take that answer? Apparently so, considering the rest of the clip. I can see why you've received so much hostility from atheists.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
This entire clip is based on the logic that your god can't actually prove his existence to doubters because then they will be forced to believe, which would, for reasons unexplained, would mean that they wouldn't be able to trust your god and would rebel against him. Thus, only the people willing to accept your religion and nothing else are in the clear. That's nice and all, but if you post something that soft on youtube, you should probably expect to get ripped by nonbelievers.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
But the Lord CAN prove His existence and has done many times. He proved His existence to the Israelites, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, etc. on many occassions and they STILL would not OBEY Him.
The Lord's purpose has nothing to do with proof of existence (even Satan and his demons KNOW the Lord exists). It has everything to do with MUTUAL love, faith, respect, obedience, loyalty, a god and *HIS* people together. THAT can only be by *freewill* choice. It cannot be demanded / commanded.
IslandBard 2 years ago
The only evidence you have that he "made his presence known" is that the religions of Abraham said he did. Calling that proof is yet another bare assertion, it might satisfy you, but it will get torn apart by anyone that knows anything about basic logic and reasoning.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
Let's make no bones about it. The only proof you have for any of your assertions are religious texts, which are also assertions, and assertions distorted by time and translation, at that. If that was enough to convert atheists, then it would have probably worked by now, your video is basically for people with very low standards for what passes as "proof."
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
(cont.)
The Lord seeks a *relationship*, not robots or pets. The closest thing we have to the depth of relationship He seeks is that of a loving marriage and Jesus used it frequently as an example of the type of relationship the Lord seeks with us.
A forced marriage without mutual love, respect, obedience, faith, etc. is a farce. These are not things you can force people to have. They can only be GIVEN, not taken.
IslandBard 2 years ago
You asserted that your god making his presence known would be be forcing people to believe in him while simultaneously meaning that they wouldn't be able to trust or love him. That's an astoundingly bad foundation for your argument.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
"But, in all seriousness, your entire video is littered with logical fallacies."
Argument by inference is easy, you just infer whatever you want people to believe. Now if you actually *demonstrated* and *proved* what you are claiming - that would be different.
"Do you really think anyone is stupid enough to take that answer?"
Another argument by inference. You are a non-believer are you not? The Lord has not forced YOU to believe has HE? But *your* choice has consequences as does mine.
IslandBard 2 years ago
You respond awfully slow, I kinda already made another comment explaining the flaws in your video
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
If you want me to actually name logical fallacies, I could do that, too, although most of the fallacies in this are pretty much basic assertion fallacies.
You started off the clip with the assumption that your god exists and implied that some atheists are atheists because they are just rebelling from your god, which is both fallacious and assholish
After this, you state that a relationship with your god must be "two-way" and then asserted that this couldn't happen if he made his presence known
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago
You then asserted that if he made his presence known, he would thus be forcing himself on all humans, which, you again asserted, would mean that many people would not trust him after he made himself known and would, (again, bare assertion) rebel against him.
ReservoirdogEC 2 years ago