Labeling God

The art of thinking and reasoning is in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of human misunderstanding. We can't prove or disprove something we don't fully understand.

This video will help show why the question "How do you know something else didn't create the Universe?" is illogical.

Honors for this video (2)
#37 - Most Discussed (This Week) - Education
#59 - Most Viewed (This Week) - Education - Italy

Category:

Education

Tags:

• God
• Universe
• patcondell
• theamazingatheist
• thunderf00t
• venomfangx
• richard
• dawkins
• theory
• of
• evolution
• Evolution
• existence
• label
• energy
• string

[Greatslayerplayer]

Athiest tend to target the Chistan god more than any other, they think if they disprove or prove one thing like evolution they go "OH EMM GEE DARE IS NU GOD!!!!!!111!!!!111!" /facepalm

One brick does not make the tower fall.

[miksedene]

Well said. My most recent video echoes some points you make here, however, I personally wouldn't want to put the label 'God' on the unknown cause simply because of the connotations it has with spiritual substance, an intelligent being etc.

Because of this, I don't accept the proposition that admitting there is an unknown cause amounts to belief in God and would also dispute your use of 'belief' in this context.

[eggory]

If god is to be so generally defined that he/it lacks inherent religious significance then so, too, does this topic of pondering and/or discussion.

[eggory]

It is illogical to try to disprove things which we cannot understand. But of course the reasoning behind atheism is not that we can disprove god. It is that it is illogical to believe in something which we cannot prove. "How do you know something else didn't create the universe?" is still a valid question because the enigmaticism of one hypothesis does not discount the plausibility of others.

[lilshnappinturtle]

/ Will you now call me a liar, as well?

' I will have something. I will have terror. I will have drought. I bring the dearth. Famine's contagious. Also is thirst. Privation, privation, bareness, void. I dry up your glands, I poison your well.' - Stanley Elkin, "A Poetics For Bullies"

[doesgodnotexist]

Yes, it's a simple postulation; I have never denied being religious, and nor have I have I claimed be religious. In light of this, you cannot make such bold claims about what I am. It's as simple as that.

It was nice talking to you.

[doesgodnotexist]

Yes, "failure" does have universal "quality". Linguistics, phonetic value, all of it, confirms as such. Dhorpatan made a statement, reaffirmed it twice, and attempted to push it down our throats. I am NOT oversimplyfying. I am being nothing but reasonable when I say God belief is not confirmed by ALL of human history as failure.

[doesgodnotexist]

So, let me get something straight: you believe I changed Dhorpatan's meaning by emphasizing "all"? Is that what you're trying to say?

[CAFoster58]

Goodness. You just got done telling me that you never denied being religious. Interesting.

I must leave you with the last word, for now, as I must also proctor a student presentation of a capstone research project.

But I'll look in and see where you go after that.

Have a good day.

[CAFoster58]

So you would take the alternative view, and I don't believe that I am being "picky," at all. The whole of human history is a rich tapestry that simply cannot be oversimplified as you (and Dhorpatan) APPEAR to have done in your discussion.

To claim that meaning is evident is arrogance. It presumes that the meaning that YOU inclucate in something has some universal quality. You can't back that up.