Regarding Sean and his need for staying where he is mentally. I completely agree with the bottom right guy. I Was there ones also. I used to see contradictions all the time, and errors and illogical premises. But I used to excuse it and not question it, because I wasnt allowed to.
Once I started to get rid of the bias, my apostacy was quite quick.
Anyone who believes in a god(s). Fine. I'll overlook that. But only a true fuck-tard could bring himself to beieve in Noah's ark. And the 'science' behind it.
Millions of animals on the same WOODEN boat. 8 People shoveling shit of millions of animals x2 by the way. The feeding them. There are tons of reasons why this is OBVIOUSLY a story. But even alone on just what I've mentioned, this fall apart. And all you need is one error which renders the bible imperfect, thus NOT written by god.
I think it's just a demonstration of a pshychological bias.
Can I direct you to the very excellent series of videos called "The psychology of belief" here on youtube by AntiCitizenX. It goes through all the psychological biases and conditions that may lead to impervious belief systems. Let me know what you think.
What amazes me is how regardless of showing Sean all the errors in the bible, the origins of christianity, even bits of where the actual stories of Adam and Even came from from, all that. He'll still disregard all that and still keep believing this horseshit.
I'm actually starting to believe that religious people have a certain gene that makes them believe this stuff. Like a computer that's designed to only compute, and not make toast lets say.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
Honestly, I have seen kids acting more mature then this british guy on the bottom left. He seems to have a very laymen's understanding how to behave around other people. Arron doesn't want to hear an answer, he is just constantly waiting for the chance to continue rambling. Thunderfoot, Venomfangx and the other voice caller are not really rude, they at least let the others make points and respond to them pretty decently.
I have been watching about 5 hours of skype conversation between these guys and different people. I'm Norwegian, and sooooo glad i dont have to deal with these people.
31.55 ...."we dont have the "original" design of kinds"............Therefore you dont have a known/evidence for even original kinds.....so how can you even state a god exists if you cant even display a little thing as a original kind LOL
3.55 ...."we dont have the "original" design of kinds"............therefore you dont have a know/evidence for even original kinds.....so how can you even state a god exists if you cant even display a little thing as a original kind LOL
How can you go back and prove that Jesus is Messiah through the Jewish scriptures? Because the guys who wrote the Bible decades later did their research when they were building their Jesus character - no God needed.
I don't think VenoomFangX really exists! He's too perfect! The best writers in Hollywood cannot create a character as consistently idiotic as PCS (Poster-boy for Creationist Stupidity)
I really dought Venom was kicked out of Hebrew school. I help teach Hebrew school! I would NEVER kick a 7 or 8 yr old out for saying G-d does not exist!
Integrity? He kept the money meant for a hospital. He placed false DMC claims. He acted as the freaking Joker during a response vid! It is obvious VenomFangX has no integrity.
The guy speaking at 51:25 is right, but that only applies to people who THINK. Venomfag does not stop and think about things critically. Shit just comes out.
When AronRa said "He called me a lair, he's mine", I nearly shit my pants. I would not want to be confronted by AronRa in a dark alley if I were a dumb-ass creo-tard. Bravo Aron!
@TheGuyWhoReviewGames The trouble is (cliche alert!) that debating creationists is like playing chess with pigeons: the pigeons have no idea how game works, they knock all the pieces over, shit all over the board and then fly home to coo about their glorious victory.
@mandrellian some of those pigeons dont even borther coming to play. they would actually just stay in their branch thinking that they will be safe there from a human being. if christians dont want to face the world eventually the world will come knocking on their door and smakc them in the face and say "you are pathic".
Consistency implies reality? I don't think so. I think something can be consistently contradictory and something can be consistently imaginative. I can consistently imagine a tooth fairy but this certainly doesn't mean a tooth fairy exists in reality. Consistency doesn't imply truth, either. Something can be consistently wrong. (I deleted my last comment about real and truth. I apologize. If you saw it in e-mail just know that I take it back.)
The problem with debating someone like Venomfangx is that the debate quickly becomes boring.
He is an uniformed person, he is not prepared for anything, all he does is memorizing old Kent Hovind videos. Therfore he repeats himself a lot.
He does not have material to go on for in a long debate.
Guys like Ray Comfort and Nephellim Free are also conservapedia educated morons, but they make up the lack of knowledge with their wit, Venom in addition to be a moron he also not funny.
I cant believe ive never seen a video by this channel and ive been sub'd to TF, Dpr, ToolTime, Aron, and many others for well over a year. I have heard the name a few times but it hasnt ever been advertised that much for me to check it out I guess.
There's a difference between something being impossible to explain given the laws of physics that we know of and something being physically impossible. Physically impossible means it has been reasoned to be impossible. It doesn't mean that it has yet to be reasoned possible! Physics can't explain miracles therefore miracles are physically impossible? No. An absence of an explanation is not an explanation of absence. (There's that again.)
Miracles are possible. Shawn's (sp?) definition does not mean "physically impossible". Physical laws are discovered by induction. They're not absolutely, necessarily without exception. What reason is there to think that there couldn't POSSIBLY be a suspension of natural laws? Mathematics doesn't account for love, empathy, sorrow, etc... so does this mean that those things are "mathematically impossible"? Absolutely not. Same thing with physics and miracles.
@alawrence89 wrote "What reason is there to think that there couldn't POSSIBLY be a suspension of natural laws?"
The point (as I understand it) they wanted to make is that there is no distinction between a) magic and miracles and b) god is responsible for all and any magic (as in the example of the sticks that turns into snakes with Farao).
@jomen112 I did not mark your comment as spam. Someone did, though. Anyway, just so we're clear, you didn't answer the question. (I'm not trying to be a dick. I just think your comment is addressing something else). I agree with you that they did try to make this point or one like it (about magic, miracles, etc...). That point doesn't do a whole lot for me, though, because it doesn't matter what we call a suspension of natural law. The question is whether or not it happens, not what to call it.
@alawrence89 wrote "The question is whether or not it happens, not what to call it."
Well afaik, no such event has ever been confirms and there is no rational reason whatsoever to believe such event ever have happen so in my opinion the question is purely hypothetical.
@jomen112 Not yet being confirmed is not the same as being disconfirmed. My book order is still in the mail. I've yet to confirm it's arrival at my house. Does this mean I have disconfirmed its arrival (meaning that I've confirmed that it won't arrive)? Even so, the rational reason for thinking such an event COULD happen is that natural laws (laws of physics, mathematics, etc...) are not necessarily true. The is no deductive argument that says that natural laws MUST always be true.
@alawrence89 wrote "Not yet being confirmed is not the same as being disconfirmed [bla, bla bla]"
Book orders are within the realm of laws of physics and you are making a point of making no point at all.
Pegasus, Santa Claus, or any other mythological being for that sake has not been confirmed to exist either. There is NO bloody evidence what so ever in history for things like magic or gods or Santa claus. Has never been and will never been. Get over it...
@jomen112 Showing your ass a bit? You don't get the point. The example with a book order is to explain the difference that I wrote (and you apparently summed up as "bla, bla bla"). It's ridiculous to object to the specifics of that example when they were actually beside the point. They were used to explain a point . They weren't the point themselves.The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Ever heard that? Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's unprovable. Get over it.
@alawrence89 "Showing your ass a bit? You don't get the point."
Before that you wrote "you didn't answer the question", to my first comment. May I correct you here: I did not gave you the answer you wanted. I then made then my standpoint clear in my second reply despite this you start a ramble trying to correct me and "prove" to me something I clearly stated I do not believe in. This forced me make a strong statement a third time, but apparently you still don't get it, do you?
@jomen112 Apparently not. I asked for a reason why miracles are impossible. You stated that they made the point that miracles and magic are basically the same. I said this isn't answering the question because it doesn't show how miracles are impossible. The 2nd comment you stated that we haven't confirmed miracles and have no reasons to believe that they have occurred. Still doesn't mean they're impossible. Lastly, you missed the point of the mail example because you responded that...
@alawrence89 wrote "Apparently not. I asked for a reason why miracles are impossible"
I already answered that in my 2nd reply, but as a moron you do not get it:
When you start argue for miracles then it includes the possibility that Santa Claus also can exists. I already told you in my second remark that it is possible Santa Claus exists but you are to stupid to understand this and had to repeats this in you next reply. But if you believe it is possible Santa Claus exists then you are a moron.
@jomen112 So it's time you act like a dick, I guess. Your second reply didn't explain why miracles are impossible. Because we don't have evidence for them doesn't mean they're impossible. "When you start argue for miracles then it includes the possibility that Santa Claus also can exists" WTF? "I already told you...it is possible Santa Claus exists... but if you believe it is possible Santa Claus exists then you are a moron." Genius.
@alawrence89 wrote "Your second reply didn't explain why miracles are impossible."
If you instead of start typing a reply as a reaction from the primal center of your spinal cord and spend some time thinking about what I actually wrote you may realize it does.On the other hand you seams to think I have a obligation to explain this for you.I have no need to further tell why it's not possible for Santa Claus to exists to someone that refutes rational reasoning as a reliable way to gain knowledge.
@jomen112 "When you start argue for miracles then it includes the possibility that Santa Claus also can exists." If you can show me how that follows at all I'll continue the conversation. Until then, consider yourself wrong.
@jomen112 "book orders are within the realm of laws of physics..." What the hell does this have to do with the difference between being disconfirmed and not yet confirmed? Then you reassert that there is no evidence for miracles/magic and gods and I should get over it. In all of this you haven't argued that they're impossible. If that wasn't your intent, why comment on this question?: "What reason is there to think that there couldn't POSSIBLY be a suspension of natural laws?"
@alawrence89 wrote "In all of this you haven't argued that they're impossible."
I told you in my second reply. Weather you like it or not is another matter.
""book orders are within the realm of laws of physics..." What the hell does this have to do with the difference between being disconfirmed and not yet confirmed? "
You tell me you brought it up but apparently your attention span is not long enough to handle a real argumentation no less a pseudo argumentation like this one.
@jomen112 Your second reply did NOT give reasons why miracles are impossible. That there's no evidence or reason (even if I accepted this) is NOT reason for thinking that miracles are impossible. The book example was to explain the difference between not yet confirmed and disconfirmed. Your response was irrelevant.
@alawrence89 wrote "I agree with you that they did try to make this point or one like it (about magic, miracles, etc...) That point doesn't do a whole lot for me, "
The second point they made from that was that god acted inconsistently.
@alawrence89 mathematics does not concern with the physical world or emotions, it's a construct of the mind: it is a formal system, with laws defined only by the principle of logical consequence, guided by mathematical logic. your assertion is pointless, because nothing in math adresses feelings, therefore it's not mathematics's concern to validate or disprove it. neuroscience does a remarkable job at adressing feelings, look into that, it's still science, and a pretty accurate branch.
@theVulcanGuy Mathematics actually does "concern with the physical world" but I've not written anything that is "pointless". I did not claim that it was a flaw of mathematics nor have I even expected mathematics to be able to explain emotions. The point was to show that just because physics has yet to explain (either because it can't by definition or can't because we have yet to understand something about it) this doesn't mean that the thing in question is "physically impossible". The math...
@alawrence89 no, math doesn't concern itself with the physical world, it's used in many aplications, but math is complitely uncaring of the physical world. if you suggest it is, please provide an example. please keep in mind i actually study math.
@theVulcanGuy I'm not arguing that math is "caring" of the physical world (whatever that means). Mathematics can determine the rate at which a water tank empties, the length of a curved rope, the distance from Earth to the Sun, the velocity of a rocket, the angles within a shape, etc... Mathematics is the language of nature. It is a description the physical world. That's what I mean when I say that math does concern itself with the physical world. I'm a math major myself.
@alawrence89 "math doesn't care of the physical world" means: is not developed with regards to the physical world, it's an abstract construct, with no conjuction with the tangible world. and, as a math major, you should damn well know that the applications of math are something else from the body of theory. mathematics isn't the language of nature, it's a tool we use to represent the world because it's extremely powerful. in which branch did you take major?
@theVulcanGuy Haha, calm down. I agree that Pure mathematics and Applied mathematics are two different things (if that's what you're arguing). I agree that mathematics is an abstract construct. What I'm saying is that mathematics can be and is used to describe the physical world. I've given examples of this. "It's a tool..." that's what I mean by "language of nature". You might be surprised to know that Galileo Galilei said " [The universe] is written in the language of mathematics"
@alawrence89 i'm well aware of it, he is a "must read" in our secondary schools, and i saw "donald duck in the land of mathemagic" ;) still, it doesn't make it any truer. to wrap this up: i don't get where you get your argument on AronRa's speech (above post), miracles can be classified in 2 categories, one of which is impossible, the other is merely a natural phenomenon, and can be explained. so, would you please tell me: where do the miracles you speak about fall into?
@theVulcanGuy Ok. I'll try to respond to this comment in full and then I'll let you have the last word so we can wrap this up. It may take several comments to do it. AronRa said at 10:05 that "if it has [something?] way and can't be accounted for by physics that means it's physically impossible". His reasoning is that if a miracle can't be explained with physics then it's physically impossible. I generalized his argument into "if something is unexplained then it's impossible".
@theVulcanGuy The miracles I speak about (by the way, I'm not arguing that miracles do or ever have occurred, but rather that the can or could have occurred) fall into the category of "contrary/new to observation and contrary to the laws of nature". There would not be a contradiction if a miracle (as I just described) were to occur. This is because the laws of nature are not necessarily true. We're extremely certain that these laws are true but not absolutely certain.
@alawrence89 please refer to the (extremely sketchy) proof for the absolute correctness of the laws of nature in the above comment. given that, we are certain on those laws, not on our representation of them, of course, since the models of physics are plagued by rounding and measuring errors.
i would like very much to have your opinion on the above proof.
@theVulcanGuy They cannot be proven beyond doubt. Mathematical laws, fine, they can be proven beyond doubt but physical laws (such as Archimedes' law of buoyancy) cannot. The laws of nature are reasoned thusly: X was discovered to be the case. X was discovered to be the case again and again. It seems that X follows pattern Y. X fits pattern Y for all known occurrences of X. Therefore, it is likely that X will always fit pattern Y. (Notice, it's not 'Therefore, X MUST follow Y.)
@alawrence89 you are describing our representation of the laws of nature (and the scientific method), not those laws. the difference is crucial: newton's gravity law is a representation of the phenomenon of gravity, not the rule that nature follows (since we saw many times newton's law fail, but we have yet to see gravity fail). my entire reasoning is based on the "nature" side of the argument.
@theVulcanGuy My math major is not specialized. I've taken Calculus 1-4, Advanced Calculus, Linear Algebra and Matrices, Differential Equations, Modern Algebra, and Combinatorics.
@theVulcanGuy statement was an analogy. Do you agree with AronRa that miracles are "physically impossible" because Physics cannot (by definition) explain them? If so, defend it.
The analogy (to make things very clear) is this: Emotion are unexplained by mathematics therefore emotions are "mathematically impossible". Miracles are (or would be) unexplained by Physics therefore miracles are "physically impossible". Why reject the first one (about math) but accept the second one (about physics)? I reject them both!
@alawrence89 the analogy is incorrect: if math doesn't explain something, it isn't "mathematically impossible" it's just unexplained by math; your implication is illogical. to justify my stance with AronRa: if miracles are unexplained by physics (i.e. the entaglement in relativity), they are not "impossible by physics", but if they are against physics, they are "physically impossible": the laws of nature cannot be "suspended", a violation of said laws is impossible. continues in next post.
@theVulcanGuy "if math doesn't explain something, it isn't "mathematically impossible" it's just unexplained by math". This is exactly what I've been saying. I wrote "Absolutely not" in response to my question about emotions being mathematically impossible. I wrote that "I reject them both!" to show that I reject the reasoning that if something is unexplained then it is impossible. AronRa is the one who argued the point that we both, apparently, disagree with. Look at 9:52-10:09
@alawrence89 i don't think AronRa is rooting for something as ridicolously wrong as saying "if unexplained then impossible" because it would be demonstrably wrong just by looking at genetics, a field in which he should be very able. i don't understand where you find you point in AronRa's argument.
@theVulcanGuy " the laws of nature cannot be "suspended", a violation of said laws is impossible." This has yet to be argued convincingly for, IMO. We cannot say with absolute certainty that such laws are insurmountable. It would be incredibly unlikely but it COULD happen. There is no logical reason to say that natural laws are necessary truths (that is, that they HAVE to be true) and that they cannot possibly, ever, in any way, overcome.
@alawrence89 there is a difference between nature's laws and our comprehension of them. our knowledge might be incomplete, nature on the other hand isn't faulty. "There is no logical reason to say that natural laws are necessary truths (that is, that they HAVE to be true) and that they cannot possibly, ever, in any way, overcome. " yes there is: reality is nature, and is the ruler on which we measure "thruths". anything beyond said laws is not reality and, by axiom, not "thruth" or true.
@alawrence89 "An absence of an explanation is not an explanation of absence. (There's that again.)" i do perfectly agree on you with this one, but, as in the former post I wrote as example the entaglement, it is a miracle until it is explained. so, miracles divide in two classes: things current theory doesen't explain, but aren't contaddictory with the observation, and thins unexplained AND contraddictory with the theory. the miracles you are talking abaout in which class fit in? (continues)
@theVulcanGuy Miracles wouldn't be *contradictory* to observation but would rather be *contrary* or brand new to observation. We've never seen a person walk on water as is described in the Bible. Now, were a person to actually have this ability it would something we've never seen before and would be contrary, or different, to everything we've already seen but it wouldn't contradict what we know because the laws of nature do not explain them as impossible but rather as not yet possible.
@alawrence89 no, archimedes laws on the force with which a fluid reacts to mass displacement is extremely simple and effective: a human, only by the means of the body, will never walk on water here on earth. "not yet possible" is meaningless in this discussion: nature's laws do not change, what is impossible today, will be impossible foreverm under the same circumstances. if humans evolve an apparatus to walk on water, conditions will change, but that is not a miracle.
@theVulcanGuy Let me ask you then; how do you think Archimedes arrived the law that you describe (water and its displacement)? Did he sit back and reason purely from mathematics (without doing experiments, without measuring water, mass, etc...) or do you think he did it with a bit of both? He most likely arrived at his laws using observation and testing. Thus, his laws are valid for the observations and conditions that he tested. That is an inductive argument. Those laws have worked for...
@alawrence89 i'm sorry on archimedes law, being italian i have to "work around" and translate in english what i learned; i don't know how it's written in english... sure, that is inductive reasoning, but that is not the law af nature, that is our representation of it. And, that is physics, not math.
@theVulcanGuy No problem. I'm impressed with your English, if that means anything to you. "that is physics, not math." I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here but I would argue that although math is built on deductive arguments (and some inductive) physics is largely inductive. It uses math to explain the behavior of the real world as our senses perceive it. Would you say that we can "prove" that reality is real?
@alawrence89 not prove, Godel st an 2nd theorem move reality beyond the means of mathematics.
but since reality obeys the "cause&effect" and "correctness&completeness" we can say that reality is at least as consistent as mathematical logic. and consistency implies reality (since reality being "unreal" would contraddict it's existence).
@alawrence89 a comment of yours seems to have been removed, i'm responding here.
"if you insist that reality and truth are the same then we know that reality and non-reality exists because true and non-truth exists. Real doesn't mean true. " no, since by my hypothesis "not real" means (by equivalency) "non existent" because the un-true is equivalent to the non-existent. "Consistency implies reality? I don't think so" generally speaking, no. in the case of reality however, it does (continues)
@theVulcanGuy everything we've seen and testing thus far. It is a mistake to reason that his laws therefore explain all scenarios with water and it's displacement under every possible consideration. To make it a bit clearer. Consider that I reason this way: Every time I've went to bed, the next day I've woken up. Thus, every time in the future that I go to bed, I will wake up the next day. Thus, I will live forever. That should show the problem with trying to turn an inductive argument into ...
@alawrence89 the fallacy you are invoking is a problem of the inductive procedure: you have to demonstrate that if something working today implies it will work tomorrow, regardless of when is "today&tomorrow" then yeah, i will live forever. of course not, since me being alive today doesn't imply i will be tomorrow. i am aware of this problem, but you are confusing the laws of nature with our representaion of them. the latter may be faulty, the former does not.
@theVulcanGuy Yes, the problem of induction. Natural laws DO suffer from this. How would you reason that, say, Archimedes law of buoyancy is true? By induction. Inductive arguments are about probability, not absolute certainty. You'd need to find a deductive argument for the laws of nature in order for me to agree with you that the laws of nature are logically impossible to overcome. Which principle of logic would you use to do this, by the way?
@alawrence89 modal logic, on an intuitionistic model: nature follows a set of laws (or what you want to call them, possibly not our representation for them), so these laws are "permitted" in a given instance; now, using the meta-introduction of the universal quantifier (genericity of instance), we can call for the "permitted" operator on every instance, so, by axiom, the operator in now "requiered". so: nature is requiered to obey her laws.
this could be the model of the deduction you asked for.
@theVulcanGuy I don't understand what most of that means. What reason is there to "call for the "permitted" operator on every instance"? Can you put your proof in more simple terms that wouldn't require me to know modal logic? It simply doesn't follow that because nature has followed a law once, twice, three times, as many times as we know of, that it must follow that law at any and every given time in the future. This has the problem of induction written all over it.
@alawrence89 this is a deduction, not an inductive provedure, the fallacy doesn't apply; simply put it is this: if nature follows a set of rules in a moment in time A, then (by the fact that said moment A is a parameter, so an arbitrary one) we can introduce the universal quantifier and turn said moment in the variable X we are quantifying on. so "for every X then P(X)". since P(X) = "nature follows the rules in the moment X" then we have the thesis.
@alawrence89 ... in the case of reality however, it does, since the condition for reality is existence, and something cannot be existent and unexistent at the same time. so this gives us that not everything can be shown to exist in reality, therefore reality cannot produce everything, thus showing that reality doesen't imply the absurd (universal constant for FALSE) via "ex falso" law; so, reality is consistent.
@alawrence89 (continues) "Why reject the first one (about math) but accept the second one (about physics)? I reject them both!" because the first is a false analogy, as previously shown, so accepting it is meaningless for our problem. as in a previous post of yours "It doesn't mean that it has yet to be reasoned possible" yes, but in science we don't use something which as yet to be proven. and this would still fall in the "entaglement" category. i hope i've been sufficiently complete.
@KalimaShaktide Well to be honest, AronRa tended to ramble especially after he got angry and didn't give Shawn time to answer/make a fool of himself. It subtracts from the legitimacy of the pwnage but this was still entertaining to listen to.
I just wish every creationist would just admit they can't prove god exists, or any god. Why can't they put away people who believe in a 'god'. Because telling people they 'believe' in a fictitious book or being is mental instability
Seriously, DPR - you need to just make sure you can control who talks. I had hoped that at least the regulars would learn to stop being interrupting animals but this kind of forum needs parental moderation, otherwise it's all a bit of a disaster.
Not that it stopped VFX getting owned but... that's hardly a challenge.
@ProphetTenebrae ... moderation is necessary in most "debate" situations... even if BOTH parties are respectable. with VFX there is a history, as you know, which even for us onlookers makes it hard not to want to pick up the screen and shake it screaming "between one number and another??"... then he has to go eat, moms got his plate made.
i actually wrote a 'book of the unicorn' to give to theists who want to use the bible to prove the bible. they are always flabbergasted. 'your just being silly' ...'i know you wrote it so why would i beleive its from a god?' ... ' just because you say it disproves my god, it doesnt go close' ... ' why would i beleive that?' ...
I applaud the patients by all of these guys especially Aron. Smart as hell. Matt D would've hung up on this idiot hours ago so I really appreciate this show. VFX is so fucking annoying but sadly, one of the best creationists have. He's ignorant in things he doesn't study and thinks him being an "expert" in the bible, gives him authority over guys that actually study all religions and science. So sad and so common.
I hate this kid so much. All he has to do is say he disagrees. He never says why he disagrees he just does. Oh you have evidence that's irrefutable and can be demonstrated with utmost certainty that it's true? I disagree.
@ 8 minutes, VFX gave an opportunity: "I believe because Jesus fulfills OT prophecy."
Are there naturalistic explanations for this? Could the story of Jesus have been developed, modified, and evolved so that the story of Jesus fulfills OT prophecy (as we see in Matthew)? It seems plausible. If so, one would expect characteristic markers. And when we look, we find those markers!
HEY dpr should hold up a sign that let's people know when they can speak and when they have to shut up so every body gets a turn. Then maybe you won't be stuck on the same point for 2 FREAKING HOURS GOD DAMN!!!!! Just stop Aaron! Aaron you're just smashing your head against a brick wall and it is painful to watch....... informitive, but painful
@uewVumopVapIsVdn It's not painful, it's a means. When you make such a determined, relentless, informed, rational attempt and you STILL can't get the other guy to be honest or reasonable, you make a powerful demonstration to onlookers of the bankruptcy of his position.
Lol, "we are running in circles now", well, duh, of-fucking-course you're running in circles if every time they annihilate your way of thinking you just assert without any knowledge: "I disagree, I know god is real", every time you say that they have to start over and systematically try to make reality clear to you again, fucking imbecile Shaun, young earths like you can only be two things, generally acknowledged fucktard or a poe, which one are you?
Scientist : Look we have peer reviewed evidence from different fields that support evolution.
Creationists: Well that´s your opinion.
Cuythulu 1 month ago
WARNING 37:13 there is risk of severe face palm injury, extreme caution is advised.
Cuythulu 1 month ago
Man, Thunderfoot is irritating. Always interrupting!
Domzdream 1 month ago
Regarding Sean and his need for staying where he is mentally. I completely agree with the bottom right guy. I Was there ones also. I used to see contradictions all the time, and errors and illogical premises. But I used to excuse it and not question it, because I wasnt allowed to.
Once I started to get rid of the bias, my apostacy was quite quick.
Domzdream 1 month ago
It's so Annoying when AronRa keeps getting interrupted.
Domzdream 1 month ago 2
Anyone who believes in a god(s). Fine. I'll overlook that. But only a true fuck-tard could bring himself to beieve in Noah's ark. And the 'science' behind it.
Millions of animals on the same WOODEN boat. 8 People shoveling shit of millions of animals x2 by the way. The feeding them. There are tons of reasons why this is OBVIOUSLY a story. But even alone on just what I've mentioned, this fall apart. And all you need is one error which renders the bible imperfect, thus NOT written by god.
Domzdream 1 month ago 5
@Domzdream
I think it's just a demonstration of a pshychological bias.
Can I direct you to the very excellent series of videos called "The psychology of belief" here on youtube by AntiCitizenX. It goes through all the psychological biases and conditions that may lead to impervious belief systems. Let me know what you think.
Grysham 1 month ago
@Grysham
Cool, I'll watch it now. Thanks.
Domzdream 1 month ago
What amazes me is how regardless of showing Sean all the errors in the bible, the origins of christianity, even bits of where the actual stories of Adam and Even came from from, all that. He'll still disregard all that and still keep believing this horseshit.
I'm actually starting to believe that religious people have a certain gene that makes them believe this stuff. Like a computer that's designed to only compute, and not make toast lets say.
Domzdream 1 month ago
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
jimsms 2 months ago
Venomfangx made 2+ accounts to dislike this!
KingOystar 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
09:37 - 09:53 The editor mutes thunderf00t. How messed up!
RandomfVideos 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheMagicSandwichShow
Comment removed
RandomfVideos 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheMagicSandwichShow
Why do you do this to yourself dprjones.
Weapuhx 2 months ago in playlist MSS June 12 2011
Honestly, I have seen kids acting more mature then this british guy on the bottom left. He seems to have a very laymen's understanding how to behave around other people. Arron doesn't want to hear an answer, he is just constantly waiting for the chance to continue rambling. Thunderfoot, Venomfangx and the other voice caller are not really rude, they at least let the others make points and respond to them pretty decently.
BibleIsland 3 months ago
I have been watching about 5 hours of skype conversation between these guys and different people. I'm Norwegian, and sooooo glad i dont have to deal with these people.
kklindh 3 months ago
"It's somewhere between one number and another!"
Ultimate Facepalm
hcdfanatic83 3 months ago 2
Is it possible to be a guest on one of these debates?
EthanNin0 4 months ago
@EthanNin0 yes, check the blog tv channel. theres a link in the magicsandwichshows' profile.
justtryharder 4 months ago
Two fossil species with distinctive feather imprints and many dinosaur features were unveiled at a news briefing at the National Geographic Society
The two animals were discovered in the rich fossil beds of China’s Liaoning Province
Just but your fingers in your ears and repeat birds are not dinosaurs ......and ignore the evidence at all costs
devante11 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
venom : "I know" god exists
31.55 ...."we dont have the "original" design of kinds"............Therefore you dont have a known/evidence for even original kinds.....so how can you even state a god exists if you cant even display a little thing as a original kind LOL
devante11 4 months ago
venom : "I know" god exists
3.55 ...."we dont have the "original" design of kinds"............therefore you dont have a know/evidence for even original kinds.....so how can you even state a god exists if you cant even display a little thing as a original kind LOL
devante11 4 months ago
How can you go back and prove that Jesus is Messiah through the Jewish scriptures? Because the guys who wrote the Bible decades later did their research when they were building their Jesus character - no God needed.
jcgadfly 4 months ago
I don't think VenoomFangX really exists! He's too perfect! The best writers in Hollywood cannot create a character as consistently idiotic as PCS (Poster-boy for Creationist Stupidity)
eastjones 4 months ago
aronra said "If you cannot show it, you do not know it"
that's a lot like a pickup line I overheard once: "but if you won't show 'em, how can I know 'em"
eastjones 4 months ago
I really dought Venom was kicked out of Hebrew school. I help teach Hebrew school! I would NEVER kick a 7 or 8 yr old out for saying G-d does not exist!
KingOystar 4 months ago
It's somewhere between one number and another lmao.
mzyzer19 4 months ago
Integrity? He kept the money meant for a hospital. He placed false DMC claims. He acted as the freaking Joker during a response vid! It is obvious VenomFangX has no integrity.
MunkyDrag0n 4 months ago
hehehee, I liked the part where he pulled the Matt Dillahunty.
Th3Sh1n1gam1 4 months ago
From this "debate", what I've learned so far... The most feared statement a creationist has every said, "I don't know"
Setsotama 4 months ago
@Setsotama "Ever"
Setsotama 4 months ago
Person Y: Answer this question, "Blah blah blah?"
Person X: Well, first....
Person Y: ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Person X: Well...
Person Y: ANSWER THE QUESTION! *RANT* *RANT* *RANT*
Person X: Well...
Person Y: ANSWER THE QUESTION!
t0f0b0 4 months ago
Welcome to The View.
t0f0b0 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shawn is a very frustrating person to deal with, however I also thought this came across at times leaning a bit to much towards attack than debate.
Aron gets so pissed off I think I would just agree with him regardless if I actually did, just to get him of my case. ( I say jokingly )
PiskieBenWa 4 months ago
Comment removed
PiskieBenWa 4 months ago
"Are you ready for the number? Are you ready for the number? It's somewhere between one number and another."
...So, it's a number then.
CammehYaBams 4 months ago
The guy speaking at 51:25 is right, but that only applies to people who THINK. Venomfag does not stop and think about things critically. Shit just comes out.
bbenally88 4 months ago
I'm atheist but believe this is more of an attack than a debate. Just my opinion though.
tanberetO 4 months ago
I think Thf00t was already drunk :-P
maujo2009 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maujo2009
"I think Thf00t was already drunk :-P"
I think Tf00t could take pcs while three sheets to the wind.
paspax 4 months ago
I actually feel sorry for VFX in this video. he's not allowed an opinion and even when he tries to express himself everyone starts shouting at him.
fair enough they think/know he's wrong, it's not the point.
There needs to be far more respect in these things.
MentallyDeadKev 4 months ago
@MentallyDeadKev as implied by the title, there just fed up of him by this point, he had PLENTY of chances to state his opinion on things.
lewismurray1 4 months ago
When AronRa said "He called me a lair, he's mine", I nearly shit my pants. I would not want to be confronted by AronRa in a dark alley if I were a dumb-ass creo-tard. Bravo Aron!
hohoking5150 4 months ago 7
AronRa comes down on you hard
MannyKunV 4 months ago
AronRa- "Birds are dinosaurs."
PCS- "I disagree with you."
AronRa- "Well, you're welcome to be wrong."
EmpiricalTruth 4 months ago
When I look at Thunderfoot and AronRa side by side it's like I'm seeing two versions of Jesus
mko 4 months ago
These guys need to learn how to talk in turn. All any of them do is butt in.
mikdalton 4 months ago
venom has to be the one of the best trolls ever
golga8963 4 months ago
"It's somewhere between one number and another!"
Dprjones' look of disgust after he says that is priceless.
MrJimmyNapoleon 4 months ago
This guy is a fucking idiot.
Sinnessa 4 months ago
Atheist are winning every single time. every topic we give them they come up with bull shit.
TheGuyWhoReviewGames 4 months ago
@TheGuyWhoReviewGames The trouble is (cliche alert!) that debating creationists is like playing chess with pigeons: the pigeons have no idea how game works, they knock all the pieces over, shit all over the board and then fly home to coo about their glorious victory.
mandrellian 4 months ago
@mandrellian some of those pigeons dont even borther coming to play. they would actually just stay in their branch thinking that they will be safe there from a human being. if christians dont want to face the world eventually the world will come knocking on their door and smakc them in the face and say "you are pathic".
TheGuyWhoReviewGames 4 months ago
AronRa needs to calm down a bit. But I understand his frustration as dealing with VFX isn't the easiest of things. Very deceptive cocksucker.
Darw1n1st 4 months ago
Only 1 minute in and AronRa is delivering severe pwnage. I'm so glad this man exists.
robbegx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Consistency implies reality? I don't think so. I think something can be consistently contradictory and something can be consistently imaginative. I can consistently imagine a tooth fairy but this certainly doesn't mean a tooth fairy exists in reality. Consistency doesn't imply truth, either. Something can be consistently wrong. (I deleted my last comment about real and truth. I apologize. If you saw it in e-mail just know that I take it back.)
alawrence89 4 months ago
This is good practise for the future con-artist and fraudster venomfangX.
sugmegpls 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God, I hate this show.
C0LLIDER 4 months ago
I just watch because of dpr jones reactions to what venomfangx is saying lol its hilarious!
playboi182 4 months ago
Now if we could just get Matt Dillahunty and VFX on the same show...
Shaggy6386 4 months ago
The problem with debating someone like Venomfangx is that the debate quickly becomes boring.
He is an uniformed person, he is not prepared for anything, all he does is memorizing old Kent Hovind videos. Therfore he repeats himself a lot.
He does not have material to go on for in a long debate.
Guys like Ray Comfort and Nephellim Free are also conservapedia educated morons, but they make up the lack of knowledge with their wit, Venom in addition to be a moron he also not funny.
JerezJulio 4 months ago
Who's the bottom-right guy?
poniesinashed 4 months ago
This just goes to show that Shawn didn't listen at all. He's paying lip service to himself.
PikminDS 4 months ago
There is only one Miracle. And that is the song and album by Queen!
neil73 4 months ago
1:00 What is that? What is Thunderf00t doing?
RadarKat73080 4 months ago
I cant believe ive never seen a video by this channel and ive been sub'd to TF, Dpr, ToolTime, Aron, and many others for well over a year. I have heard the name a few times but it hasnt ever been advertised that much for me to check it out I guess.
Unzem 4 months ago
"I need closure on this anecdote" lol
tobbems 4 months ago
Comment removed
alawrence89 4 months ago
Comment removed
alawrence89 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's a difference between something being impossible to explain given the laws of physics that we know of and something being physically impossible. Physically impossible means it has been reasoned to be impossible. It doesn't mean that it has yet to be reasoned possible! Physics can't explain miracles therefore miracles are physically impossible? No. An absence of an explanation is not an explanation of absence. (There's that again.)
alawrence89 4 months ago
Miracles are possible. Shawn's (sp?) definition does not mean "physically impossible". Physical laws are discovered by induction. They're not absolutely, necessarily without exception. What reason is there to think that there couldn't POSSIBLY be a suspension of natural laws? Mathematics doesn't account for love, empathy, sorrow, etc... so does this mean that those things are "mathematically impossible"? Absolutely not. Same thing with physics and miracles.
alawrence89 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawrence89 wrote "What reason is there to think that there couldn't POSSIBLY be a suspension of natural laws?"
The point (as I understand it) they wanted to make is that there is no distinction between a) magic and miracles and b) god is responsible for all and any magic (as in the example of the sticks that turns into snakes with Farao).
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 I did not mark your comment as spam. Someone did, though. Anyway, just so we're clear, you didn't answer the question. (I'm not trying to be a dick. I just think your comment is addressing something else). I agree with you that they did try to make this point or one like it (about magic, miracles, etc...). That point doesn't do a whole lot for me, though, because it doesn't matter what we call a suspension of natural law. The question is whether or not it happens, not what to call it.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 wrote "The question is whether or not it happens, not what to call it."
Well afaik, no such event has ever been confirms and there is no rational reason whatsoever to believe such event ever have happen so in my opinion the question is purely hypothetical.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 Not yet being confirmed is not the same as being disconfirmed. My book order is still in the mail. I've yet to confirm it's arrival at my house. Does this mean I have disconfirmed its arrival (meaning that I've confirmed that it won't arrive)? Even so, the rational reason for thinking such an event COULD happen is that natural laws (laws of physics, mathematics, etc...) are not necessarily true. The is no deductive argument that says that natural laws MUST always be true.
alawrence89 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawrence89 wrote "Not yet being confirmed is not the same as being disconfirmed [bla, bla bla]"
Book orders are within the realm of laws of physics and you are making a point of making no point at all.
Pegasus, Santa Claus, or any other mythological being for that sake has not been confirmed to exist either. There is NO bloody evidence what so ever in history for things like magic or gods or Santa claus. Has never been and will never been. Get over it...
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 Showing your ass a bit? You don't get the point. The example with a book order is to explain the difference that I wrote (and you apparently summed up as "bla, bla bla"). It's ridiculous to object to the specifics of that example when they were actually beside the point. They were used to explain a point . They weren't the point themselves.The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Ever heard that? Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it's unprovable. Get over it.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 "Showing your ass a bit? You don't get the point."
Before that you wrote "you didn't answer the question", to my first comment. May I correct you here: I did not gave you the answer you wanted. I then made then my standpoint clear in my second reply despite this you start a ramble trying to correct me and "prove" to me something I clearly stated I do not believe in. This forced me make a strong statement a third time, but apparently you still don't get it, do you?
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 Apparently not. I asked for a reason why miracles are impossible. You stated that they made the point that miracles and magic are basically the same. I said this isn't answering the question because it doesn't show how miracles are impossible. The 2nd comment you stated that we haven't confirmed miracles and have no reasons to believe that they have occurred. Still doesn't mean they're impossible. Lastly, you missed the point of the mail example because you responded that...
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 wrote "Apparently not. I asked for a reason why miracles are impossible"
I already answered that in my 2nd reply, but as a moron you do not get it:
When you start argue for miracles then it includes the possibility that Santa Claus also can exists. I already told you in my second remark that it is possible Santa Claus exists but you are to stupid to understand this and had to repeats this in you next reply. But if you believe it is possible Santa Claus exists then you are a moron.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 So it's time you act like a dick, I guess. Your second reply didn't explain why miracles are impossible. Because we don't have evidence for them doesn't mean they're impossible. "When you start argue for miracles then it includes the possibility that Santa Claus also can exists" WTF? "I already told you...it is possible Santa Claus exists... but if you believe it is possible Santa Claus exists then you are a moron." Genius.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 wrote "Your second reply didn't explain why miracles are impossible."
If you instead of start typing a reply as a reaction from the primal center of your spinal cord and spend some time thinking about what I actually wrote you may realize it does.On the other hand you seams to think I have a obligation to explain this for you.I have no need to further tell why it's not possible for Santa Claus to exists to someone that refutes rational reasoning as a reliable way to gain knowledge.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 "When you start argue for miracles then it includes the possibility that Santa Claus also can exists." If you can show me how that follows at all I'll continue the conversation. Until then, consider yourself wrong.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@jomen112 "book orders are within the realm of laws of physics..." What the hell does this have to do with the difference between being disconfirmed and not yet confirmed? Then you reassert that there is no evidence for miracles/magic and gods and I should get over it. In all of this you haven't argued that they're impossible. If that wasn't your intent, why comment on this question?: "What reason is there to think that there couldn't POSSIBLY be a suspension of natural laws?"
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 wrote "In all of this you haven't argued that they're impossible."
I told you in my second reply. Weather you like it or not is another matter.
""book orders are within the realm of laws of physics..." What the hell does this have to do with the difference between being disconfirmed and not yet confirmed? "
You tell me you brought it up but apparently your attention span is not long enough to handle a real argumentation no less a pseudo argumentation like this one.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 Your second reply did NOT give reasons why miracles are impossible. That there's no evidence or reason (even if I accepted this) is NOT reason for thinking that miracles are impossible. The book example was to explain the difference between not yet confirmed and disconfirmed. Your response was irrelevant.
alawrence89 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawrence89
"What reason is there to think that there couldn't POSSIBLY be a suspension of natural laws?"
Natural Laws disallow their suspension, because they are LAWS.
paspax 4 months ago
@alawrence89 wrote "I agree with you that they did try to make this point or one like it (about magic, miracles, etc...) That point doesn't do a whole lot for me, "
The second point they made from that was that god acted inconsistently.
jomen112 4 months ago
@alawrence89 mathematics does not concern with the physical world or emotions, it's a construct of the mind: it is a formal system, with laws defined only by the principle of logical consequence, guided by mathematical logic. your assertion is pointless, because nothing in math adresses feelings, therefore it's not mathematics's concern to validate or disprove it. neuroscience does a remarkable job at adressing feelings, look into that, it's still science, and a pretty accurate branch.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy Mathematics actually does "concern with the physical world" but I've not written anything that is "pointless". I did not claim that it was a flaw of mathematics nor have I even expected mathematics to be able to explain emotions. The point was to show that just because physics has yet to explain (either because it can't by definition or can't because we have yet to understand something about it) this doesn't mean that the thing in question is "physically impossible". The math...
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 no, math doesn't concern itself with the physical world, it's used in many aplications, but math is complitely uncaring of the physical world. if you suggest it is, please provide an example. please keep in mind i actually study math.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy I'm not arguing that math is "caring" of the physical world (whatever that means). Mathematics can determine the rate at which a water tank empties, the length of a curved rope, the distance from Earth to the Sun, the velocity of a rocket, the angles within a shape, etc... Mathematics is the language of nature. It is a description the physical world. That's what I mean when I say that math does concern itself with the physical world. I'm a math major myself.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 "math doesn't care of the physical world" means: is not developed with regards to the physical world, it's an abstract construct, with no conjuction with the tangible world. and, as a math major, you should damn well know that the applications of math are something else from the body of theory. mathematics isn't the language of nature, it's a tool we use to represent the world because it's extremely powerful. in which branch did you take major?
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy Haha, calm down. I agree that Pure mathematics and Applied mathematics are two different things (if that's what you're arguing). I agree that mathematics is an abstract construct. What I'm saying is that mathematics can be and is used to describe the physical world. I've given examples of this. "It's a tool..." that's what I mean by "language of nature". You might be surprised to know that Galileo Galilei said " [The universe] is written in the language of mathematics"
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 i'm well aware of it, he is a "must read" in our secondary schools, and i saw "donald duck in the land of mathemagic" ;) still, it doesn't make it any truer. to wrap this up: i don't get where you get your argument on AronRa's speech (above post), miracles can be classified in 2 categories, one of which is impossible, the other is merely a natural phenomenon, and can be explained. so, would you please tell me: where do the miracles you speak about fall into?
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy Ok. I'll try to respond to this comment in full and then I'll let you have the last word so we can wrap this up. It may take several comments to do it. AronRa said at 10:05 that "if it has [something?] way and can't be accounted for by physics that means it's physically impossible". His reasoning is that if a miracle can't be explained with physics then it's physically impossible. I generalized his argument into "if something is unexplained then it's impossible".
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 i don't completely agree on your interpretation, but if this is the case, i agree: he is stinkingly wrong.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy The miracles I speak about (by the way, I'm not arguing that miracles do or ever have occurred, but rather that the can or could have occurred) fall into the category of "contrary/new to observation and contrary to the laws of nature". There would not be a contradiction if a miracle (as I just described) were to occur. This is because the laws of nature are not necessarily true. We're extremely certain that these laws are true but not absolutely certain.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 please refer to the (extremely sketchy) proof for the absolute correctness of the laws of nature in the above comment. given that, we are certain on those laws, not on our representation of them, of course, since the models of physics are plagued by rounding and measuring errors.
i would like very much to have your opinion on the above proof.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy They cannot be proven beyond doubt. Mathematical laws, fine, they can be proven beyond doubt but physical laws (such as Archimedes' law of buoyancy) cannot. The laws of nature are reasoned thusly: X was discovered to be the case. X was discovered to be the case again and again. It seems that X follows pattern Y. X fits pattern Y for all known occurrences of X. Therefore, it is likely that X will always fit pattern Y. (Notice, it's not 'Therefore, X MUST follow Y.)
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 you are describing our representation of the laws of nature (and the scientific method), not those laws. the difference is crucial: newton's gravity law is a representation of the phenomenon of gravity, not the rule that nature follows (since we saw many times newton's law fail, but we have yet to see gravity fail). my entire reasoning is based on the "nature" side of the argument.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy Anyway, thanks for the conversation and thank you for remaining civil. Have a good day.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 thank you. it was very interesting. live long, and prosper.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy My math major is not specialized. I've taken Calculus 1-4, Advanced Calculus, Linear Algebra and Matrices, Differential Equations, Modern Algebra, and Combinatorics.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy statement was an analogy. Do you agree with AronRa that miracles are "physically impossible" because Physics cannot (by definition) explain them? If so, defend it.
alawrence89 4 months ago
The analogy (to make things very clear) is this: Emotion are unexplained by mathematics therefore emotions are "mathematically impossible". Miracles are (or would be) unexplained by Physics therefore miracles are "physically impossible". Why reject the first one (about math) but accept the second one (about physics)? I reject them both!
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 the analogy is incorrect: if math doesn't explain something, it isn't "mathematically impossible" it's just unexplained by math; your implication is illogical. to justify my stance with AronRa: if miracles are unexplained by physics (i.e. the entaglement in relativity), they are not "impossible by physics", but if they are against physics, they are "physically impossible": the laws of nature cannot be "suspended", a violation of said laws is impossible. continues in next post.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy "if math doesn't explain something, it isn't "mathematically impossible" it's just unexplained by math". This is exactly what I've been saying. I wrote "Absolutely not" in response to my question about emotions being mathematically impossible. I wrote that "I reject them both!" to show that I reject the reasoning that if something is unexplained then it is impossible. AronRa is the one who argued the point that we both, apparently, disagree with. Look at 9:52-10:09
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 i don't think AronRa is rooting for something as ridicolously wrong as saying "if unexplained then impossible" because it would be demonstrably wrong just by looking at genetics, a field in which he should be very able. i don't understand where you find you point in AronRa's argument.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy " the laws of nature cannot be "suspended", a violation of said laws is impossible." This has yet to be argued convincingly for, IMO. We cannot say with absolute certainty that such laws are insurmountable. It would be incredibly unlikely but it COULD happen. There is no logical reason to say that natural laws are necessary truths (that is, that they HAVE to be true) and that they cannot possibly, ever, in any way, overcome.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 there is a difference between nature's laws and our comprehension of them. our knowledge might be incomplete, nature on the other hand isn't faulty. "There is no logical reason to say that natural laws are necessary truths (that is, that they HAVE to be true) and that they cannot possibly, ever, in any way, overcome. " yes there is: reality is nature, and is the ruler on which we measure "thruths". anything beyond said laws is not reality and, by axiom, not "thruth" or true.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@alawrence89 "An absence of an explanation is not an explanation of absence. (There's that again.)" i do perfectly agree on you with this one, but, as in the former post I wrote as example the entaglement, it is a miracle until it is explained. so, miracles divide in two classes: things current theory doesen't explain, but aren't contaddictory with the observation, and thins unexplained AND contraddictory with the theory. the miracles you are talking abaout in which class fit in? (continues)
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy Miracles wouldn't be *contradictory* to observation but would rather be *contrary* or brand new to observation. We've never seen a person walk on water as is described in the Bible. Now, were a person to actually have this ability it would something we've never seen before and would be contrary, or different, to everything we've already seen but it wouldn't contradict what we know because the laws of nature do not explain them as impossible but rather as not yet possible.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 no, archimedes laws on the force with which a fluid reacts to mass displacement is extremely simple and effective: a human, only by the means of the body, will never walk on water here on earth. "not yet possible" is meaningless in this discussion: nature's laws do not change, what is impossible today, will be impossible foreverm under the same circumstances. if humans evolve an apparatus to walk on water, conditions will change, but that is not a miracle.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy Let me ask you then; how do you think Archimedes arrived the law that you describe (water and its displacement)? Did he sit back and reason purely from mathematics (without doing experiments, without measuring water, mass, etc...) or do you think he did it with a bit of both? He most likely arrived at his laws using observation and testing. Thus, his laws are valid for the observations and conditions that he tested. That is an inductive argument. Those laws have worked for...
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 i'm sorry on archimedes law, being italian i have to "work around" and translate in english what i learned; i don't know how it's written in english... sure, that is inductive reasoning, but that is not the law af nature, that is our representation of it. And, that is physics, not math.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy No problem. I'm impressed with your English, if that means anything to you. "that is physics, not math." I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here but I would argue that although math is built on deductive arguments (and some inductive) physics is largely inductive. It uses math to explain the behavior of the real world as our senses perceive it. Would you say that we can "prove" that reality is real?
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 not prove, Godel st an 2nd theorem move reality beyond the means of mathematics.
but since reality obeys the "cause&effect" and "correctness&completeness" we can say that reality is at least as consistent as mathematical logic. and consistency implies reality (since reality being "unreal" would contraddict it's existence).
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
Comment removed
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 a comment of yours seems to have been removed, i'm responding here.
"if you insist that reality and truth are the same then we know that reality and non-reality exists because true and non-truth exists. Real doesn't mean true. " no, since by my hypothesis "not real" means (by equivalency) "non existent" because the un-true is equivalent to the non-existent. "Consistency implies reality? I don't think so" generally speaking, no. in the case of reality however, it does (continues)
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy everything we've seen and testing thus far. It is a mistake to reason that his laws therefore explain all scenarios with water and it's displacement under every possible consideration. To make it a bit clearer. Consider that I reason this way: Every time I've went to bed, the next day I've woken up. Thus, every time in the future that I go to bed, I will wake up the next day. Thus, I will live forever. That should show the problem with trying to turn an inductive argument into ...
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 the fallacy you are invoking is a problem of the inductive procedure: you have to demonstrate that if something working today implies it will work tomorrow, regardless of when is "today&tomorrow" then yeah, i will live forever. of course not, since me being alive today doesn't imply i will be tomorrow. i am aware of this problem, but you are confusing the laws of nature with our representaion of them. the latter may be faulty, the former does not.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy Yes, the problem of induction. Natural laws DO suffer from this. How would you reason that, say, Archimedes law of buoyancy is true? By induction. Inductive arguments are about probability, not absolute certainty. You'd need to find a deductive argument for the laws of nature in order for me to agree with you that the laws of nature are logically impossible to overcome. Which principle of logic would you use to do this, by the way?
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 modal logic, on an intuitionistic model: nature follows a set of laws (or what you want to call them, possibly not our representation for them), so these laws are "permitted" in a given instance; now, using the meta-introduction of the universal quantifier (genericity of instance), we can call for the "permitted" operator on every instance, so, by axiom, the operator in now "requiered". so: nature is requiered to obey her laws.
this could be the model of the deduction you asked for.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy I don't understand what most of that means. What reason is there to "call for the "permitted" operator on every instance"? Can you put your proof in more simple terms that wouldn't require me to know modal logic? It simply doesn't follow that because nature has followed a law once, twice, three times, as many times as we know of, that it must follow that law at any and every given time in the future. This has the problem of induction written all over it.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 this is a deduction, not an inductive provedure, the fallacy doesn't apply; simply put it is this: if nature follows a set of rules in a moment in time A, then (by the fact that said moment A is a parameter, so an arbitrary one) we can introduce the universal quantifier and turn said moment in the variable X we are quantifying on. so "for every X then P(X)". since P(X) = "nature follows the rules in the moment X" then we have the thesis.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
Comment removed
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawrence89 ... in the case of reality however, it does, since the condition for reality is existence, and something cannot be existent and unexistent at the same time. so this gives us that not everything can be shown to exist in reality, therefore reality cannot produce everything, thus showing that reality doesen't imply the absurd (universal constant for FALSE) via "ex falso" law; so, reality is consistent.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
@theVulcanGuy a deductive one.
alawrence89 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alawrence89 (continues) "Why reject the first one (about math) but accept the second one (about physics)? I reject them both!" because the first is a false analogy, as previously shown, so accepting it is meaningless for our problem. as in a previous post of yours "It doesn't mean that it has yet to be reasoned possible" yes, but in science we don't use something which as yet to be proven. and this would still fall in the "entaglement" category. i hope i've been sufficiently complete.
theVulcanGuy 4 months ago
I swear venom is F...ing around with them lol
neoarcadezr 4 months ago
dprjones epic facepalm!
MunkyDrag0n 4 months ago
I love debates that have venom
neoarcadezr 4 months ago
very informative. Thoroughly enjoyed and favourited, please keep this up.
Matchfyre 4 months ago
It's like listening to a 5 year old argue quantum mechanics with a team of physics professors.
dlhitch2007 4 months ago
For F*&^ sake people stop interrupting Aron!!! its really annoying
KalimaShaktide 4 months ago
@KalimaShaktide Well to be honest, AronRa tended to ramble especially after he got angry and didn't give Shawn time to answer/make a fool of himself. It subtracts from the legitimacy of the pwnage but this was still entertaining to listen to.
WhiteKnitter 4 months ago
What "kind" is VenomFangx?
PJDolan1 4 months ago
OMG my jaw dropped when vfx said, "It's between one number and another"
xShadowxPhoenix 4 months ago
Thanks for posting I enjoyed this video.
Grymyrk 4 months ago
THERE IS A GOD!!!! HIS NAME IS ARON RA!!!
MrWill7980 4 months ago 11
I just wish every creationist would just admit they can't prove god exists, or any god. Why can't they put away people who believe in a 'god'. Because telling people they 'believe' in a fictitious book or being is mental instability
xShadowxPhoenix 4 months ago
I'll break down every fundie christian argument right now.
It's like this: If you believe EVERYTHING the bible says, you "know" that EVERYTHING that shows the bible's inaccuracy is the work of satan.
Facts are of satan.
How fucking pathetic...
Zentz29 4 months ago
Seriously, DPR - you need to just make sure you can control who talks. I had hoped that at least the regulars would learn to stop being interrupting animals but this kind of forum needs parental moderation, otherwise it's all a bit of a disaster.
Not that it stopped VFX getting owned but... that's hardly a challenge.
ProphetTenebrae 4 months ago
@ProphetTenebrae ... moderation is necessary in most "debate" situations... even if BOTH parties are respectable. with VFX there is a history, as you know, which even for us onlookers makes it hard not to want to pick up the screen and shake it screaming "between one number and another??"... then he has to go eat, moms got his plate made.
proximoto 4 months ago
AronRa for president!
krammit25 4 months ago 10
My god (pun intended), VenomfangX is such a moron!
Farksisten 4 months ago
AronRa kicks ass!
Itsquinnlollz 4 months ago
No two creationists seem to be able to agree on what a Biblical 'kind' actually is.
If Shawn considers all finches to belong to a single 'kind', then does that mean that Shawn considers a 'kind' to be a 'family' or 'genus'?
dingodavid 5 months ago
For a brief moment there I thought Aron was going to go supernova.
stramster1 7 months ago
i actually wrote a 'book of the unicorn' to give to theists who want to use the bible to prove the bible. they are always flabbergasted. 'your just being silly' ...'i know you wrote it so why would i beleive its from a god?' ... ' just because you say it disproves my god, it doesnt go close' ... ' why would i beleive that?' ...
for a minute they understand atheism.....
scottpastry 7 months ago
(in Mortal Kombat voice) to AronRA: FINISH HIM!
njintau 8 months ago
I applaud the patients by all of these guys especially Aron. Smart as hell. Matt D would've hung up on this idiot hours ago so I really appreciate this show. VFX is so fucking annoying but sadly, one of the best creationists have. He's ignorant in things he doesn't study and thinks him being an "expert" in the bible, gives him authority over guys that actually study all religions and science. So sad and so common.
clipsryan 8 months ago
I paused these videos numerous times. I just had to a break each time VFX had said something because it is so unbearably stupid.
isamu135 8 months ago
Thunderfoot: You're wrong and here's why
Venom: I disagree with you.
AronRa: Evidence.
Venom: No I disagree with you.
I hate this kid so much. All he has to do is say he disagrees. He never says why he disagrees he just does. Oh you have evidence that's irrefutable and can be demonstrated with utmost certainty that it's true? I disagree.
yillow1 8 months ago 3
@yillow1 Lol exactly! That's all he seems to do!
He doesn't realize his ridiculous opinion doesn't count as evidence of ANYTHING.
The sad part is, many christians, most of the ones I know IRL, are like that.
Ital21 8 months ago
@ 8 minutes, VFX gave an opportunity: "I believe because Jesus fulfills OT prophecy."
Are there naturalistic explanations for this? Could the story of Jesus have been developed, modified, and evolved so that the story of Jesus fulfills OT prophecy (as we see in Matthew)? It seems plausible. If so, one would expect characteristic markers. And when we look, we find those markers!
Zeos314 8 months ago
@Zeos314 self forfulling prophecy? absolutely.....
scottpastry 7 months ago
James was great. Need more folks like him. Shaun, well... what can I say.
p0rtaccio 8 months ago
"If you don't start with God, then you end up with no certainty about anything".
When one realizes that that is a point in favor of non-theism and not a point against it, then one is ready to become intellectually adult.
DuhIdiot1 8 months ago
HEY dpr should hold up a sign that let's people know when they can speak and when they have to shut up so every body gets a turn. Then maybe you won't be stuck on the same point for 2 FREAKING HOURS GOD DAMN!!!!! Just stop Aaron! Aaron you're just smashing your head against a brick wall and it is painful to watch....... informitive, but painful
uewVumopVapIsVdn 8 months ago
@uewVumopVapIsVdn It's not painful, it's a means. When you make such a determined, relentless, informed, rational attempt and you STILL can't get the other guy to be honest or reasonable, you make a powerful demonstration to onlookers of the bankruptcy of his position.
DuhIdiot1 8 months ago
@DuhIdiot1 I guess you have a point. Some people you just can't reach.
uewVumopVapIsVdn 8 months ago
Lol, "we are running in circles now", well, duh, of-fucking-course you're running in circles if every time they annihilate your way of thinking you just assert without any knowledge: "I disagree, I know god is real", every time you say that they have to start over and systematically try to make reality clear to you again, fucking imbecile Shaun, young earths like you can only be two things, generally acknowledged fucktard or a poe, which one are you?
zalmanusa 8 months ago