the impossible game

The impossible game is the hunt for gods — each path in the game represents a particular proposed god/groups of gods. The paths are not 'life paths' or 'world views'. The goal of the game has nothing to do with being a good person, or finding personal fulfilment, or any number of other relativistic enterprises. The goal is very specific: to find a god/gods that exists.

You will hear claim after claim on whatever path you choose. You can play for years — but will you actually find any gods? Up to you whether you wish to play the impossible game.

The clip is taken from the second video in the series 'there are no gods' series.

music © TheraminTrees

Category:

Education

Tags:

• the
• impossible
• game
• there
• are
• no
• gods

[andyfromsheldon]

What I find interesting is, of all of Theramin Trees' videos, this is the one that constantly bobs up on my subscription feed with people commenting on it, usually trying to argue with it. I think this is because, in a mere 1.15, it succinctly explains the problem with any asserted form of exclusive theism. Long before I ever reached the conclusion I was an atheist, I have always agreed with the sentiment expressed in this video.

[TheraminTrees]

@andyfromsheldon It's been interesting to see the responses — some playing the 'My feelings are evidence' card; some rehearsing detached, fallacious arguments like the Kalam; some hoping to sidestep the video by claiming you can't find gods through predefined paths, missing the irony that in doing so they conform to a predefined path: the 'Find your own path' path. And all of them precisely reflecting what the video predicts: lots of claims, but no gods.

[LucidCatnap]

I think this is a good video which beautifully illustrates the major flaw with nearly all religions in that they all claim to be ''the one''.

Funny though, how a large portion of the comments only argue over semantics.

[TheraminTrees]

@LucidCatnap 'Funny though, how a large portion of the comments only argue over semantics.'

—Yes. I think that's because, in the absence of any evidence, semantics is one of the few remaining spaces in which some folks feel they can find some refuge.

[TheraminTrees]

@TheAwesomeMaths 'How have you read it, when Vilenkin said 'that scientists can no longer avoid a beginning'?'

—Already repeatedly answered.

'Do you know anything that is spaceless, timeless, imaterial and belongs to the natural realm?'

—You don't know anything with these qualities in any realm. Saying that something isn't observed in the natural realm doesn't mean it exists in another realm. Exactly how many logical fallacies do you want to commit?

[damntull]

@damntull

But we can reason toward the truth. For example, any religion that claims the universe is eternal can be shown to be false, based on philosophical and scientific knowledge.

This game is far from impossible, especially since you don't have to discover the whole truth to win. Though the whole truth may be unclear, it's clear that throwing your toys to the floor and complaining the game is impossible, isn't the adult thing to do.

[damntull]

This little clip was a bit disappointing because the problems are so obvious. The illustration of a center point with radial lines all diverging in different directions doesn't seem accurate at all. The gods of the world's religions share many attributes, so it would make more sense for the paths to cross or be identical for stretches. Also, Trees acts as if we cannot reason at all toward the truth where truth claims conflict, cont.

[damntull]

@pandstar

The KCA does not equivocate. Drcraigvideos has posted "the 10 worst objections ..." Check it out. Doesn't it concern you that when Dr. Craig debates atheist philosophers they don't claim that the KCA equivocates? Please, you have to do better than this.

[pandstar]

@TheAwesomeMaths

Kalam contains an equivocation fallacy concerning the phrase "begins to exist". This fallacy ruins the modus ponens of the argument.

The argument's structure is no longer logically valid. You can't use 2 different definitions for the same word or phrase, when the conclusion depends on the definition of that phrase.

[TheAwesomeMaths]

@TheraminTrees "fallacious arguments like the Kalam". Seriously? I asked you to provide your sources but you did not because you do not have any. Furthernore,I asked you what is wrong with the Kalam and the only thing you were capable of saying is that the unknown does not equal God without giving any counter-argument.

I find that the only thing you are capable of producing are good sound effects but nothing more.

[azmanabdula]

@ph00xy if that were true religion would be gone in one generation, remember alot of children are forced into religion....

[ph00xy]

@azmanabdula

What's better for mankind is for individuals to not step on anyone's toes and not push their ideas on others.

[xTipshedax]

I would suggest moving aside a couple paths in room for a much better and truthful one where religion isn't the focus, you have good morals, and you live your life the way the UNIVERSE would allow you to, which is any one way you can possibly imagine.

[noraasworld]

@noraasworld By manmade paths I mean made up "truths" such as christianity, islam etc..

[noraasworld]

The key to winning the game is to stay in the circle, not choose a man-made path and to simply observe other people who are choosing paths. By doing this, we can see the illusion and not be a part of it. Atheists stay in the circle.