วีดีโอ

Thank you for the encouragement!

Richard just saw this comment from you. Thank you very much for the wonderful encouragement.

True...but it is only a 2:20 minute video...meant to be thought provoking and a platform for discussion to be honest.

By the way the reaction video you did on my video was hysterical...lol...my wife cracked up. Nicely done. Although, I cannot find it anymore, did you take it down?

@@proverbsforlife3326 Its going to be a short talk, the video is full of logical fallacies and error. Grossly oversimplyifed, and shows an utter lack of awareness of many scientific answers. Questions sometimes do not have answers of course, and we have to learn to love the mystery.

@@proverbsforlife3326 No its on my other channel, it gets a bit complex here. I have two channels named Deconverted Man because way back in the day google did google+ and forced us all to swtich to it, so I did, that somehow made a second account of "Deconverted Man" but I had the name already, so I just added 1 thinking that was the one for google+ well somehow (SIGH) that g+ account became my youtube account but I still kept the OTHER youtube account because I still had the name Deconverted Man... SO at some point g+ no longer was a thing and then POOF I had two youtube accounts but one of them had subs (this one) and the other one did not (the other one) and so now there are two Deconverted Man's on youtube. Also I did an interview with The Deconverted Man... just to make things even more complex. But that interview is on this channel that I am typing from. I will switch to my other account and respond with that account so that you see what I mean, maybe. @_@; Weeeee.

you just suck at this youtube thing.

Okay I'm not sure what the logical fallacies are in this video when I am just asking if materialism can account for those 4 facts...please let me know, I certainly do not want to use logical fallacies! 1) Something from Nothing; 2) Life from Non-Life; 3) Consciousness from Non-Consciousness; 4) Self-Consciousness from Consciousness. Can you explain how any of these things arose from your own worldview??

@@proverbsforlife3326 I could list the logical fallacies, if that would help. But I'll just go with what you are writing for now. 1: No one (in cosmology) claims that the universe came from "nothing". The idea that we asign to the word nothing might not even be a thing at all, that is, the fundemental state of reality might not allow for a true nothing to exist, there must be at least the rule of logic that does not alow for paradox, and if that rule is there, then that is not nothing, the law of reality not allowing for paradox would be something that would simply 'have' to be, for without it, all and any thing is possible and soon madness arives where you have square circles that are married to bachelors. The fallacy here is a strawman. Attacking an argument that (no one in the properfield) has made. 2: This is answered by abiogenesis. Of course we have to say what life "is" and that is a tough thing to do, viruses are not consedered alive - but act very much like living things..if they have the right conditions to do so, else they do not. So we must define what "alive" or "live" is. Are cells alive? If you have polynucleotide on its own, is it "alive" or does it need other things to be called "alive". Chemicals that chain up together, slowly, though time will at some point move in a way that might be called "alive" but pinning down "when" that happens might be impossible. Its like going from black to white slowly, the shades between the two, you can't really say for sure when it "became" white, only that it, at some point was more white then black, it might be the same for life, it was sort of alive, then more alive or something of that nature. But, you would have to dig into abiogenesis to understand more. I'm no expert on the matter. 3: This is explained by biological evoultion, for the most part. Simular issues from the above in 2 where what it means to have or not have "consciousness". and, it might be that there is simply no way to pin down "when" that happened. 4: Same as 3. "Can you explain how any of these things arose from your own worldview?" Irreverent. Science can and has, explained much of this, I do not need to apply any given worldview to see the results of tests done, data gathered, and research performed as well as predictions made etc that science produces. Its all been done, we know its real because we have the evidence for it. *HOWEVER* Even IF science provided no answer - so what? That means nothing. Even IF my "worldview" provides no answer - so what? That means nothing. A worldview could say "its magic." that explains it all, a wizard did it using magic. There, that explains everything. Of course, there is no evidence of magic, let alone a wizard, so perhaps having something that you think explains something is not as good as having an epistemology that can get you to the right answers, or at least get you away from the wrong ones.

@@proverbsforlife3326 Besides the fallacies, I think the problem is Christians are not intellectually honest when it comes to these arguments. One could postulate anything and it would be just as valid and have the same explanatory power as a God. Explaining a mystery, consciousness or whatever, with another mystery, God, explains nothing. What you need to provide is a reliable method that actually validates your God exist in the first place. Postulating imaginary things, doesn't get you any closer to the truth. Which is why I say these arguments are intellectually dishonest. It plays on the intellectual honesty of the non theist or people that are unaware of the natural explanations for these things. If I said "I don't know", to any or all of these questions; how does that validate God? When your God has absolutely no predictive, repeatable, and reliable methods to be validated in the first place? It's not a gotcha, all you are doing is postulating something and pretending like you have one up on others, you don't, and in fact you are fallacious in doing so. These are not good arguments, they are equivalent to me saying "I can't figure out why my car is broke down so therefor Gremlins did it, and explain why it's broken down."

@@BlasterMaster80 First of all, Happy Thanksgiving to you. I hope you have a wonderful day today. Secondly, I fully understand the critique you are making about positing God as a cause with no direct testable, repeatable and reliable methods that can be validated. That said, the problem the atheist and theist are confronted by is the classic problem of causal categories. The atheist typically wants to see evidence of direct causality by God which would make sense--who would not want to see that? In fact, the Bible makes the claim many times of direct causality by God, so why don't we have that same level of evidence/proof today? At least this is one version of the argument that I believe many atheists argue. Fair enough. That said, there is an entire category of evidences that we accept everyday that are the same category that the theist posits in many (not all) of their arguments. This evidentiary category is called forensic evidence. We deduce reliable inferences all the time without the privilege of direct observation. So when you take categories such as "explanatory scope" and "explanatory power", we ask the question 'what explanation best accounts for the data that we observe?' If for instance it can be shown that strict materialism is inadequate to account for certain basic facts of reality, then it is reasonable to ask if there are explanations that go beyond strict materialism that can account for the facts of reality that are know. This is the move that the atheist in principle rejects because it makes absolutely no sense to posit causal agency to anything beyond the material world. This is where the debate gets stymied. The theist is open to non-material ultimate causes if materialism alone cannot in principle provide an adequate explanation for certain basic facts. This is where the 4 questions I asked come in (as well as many others such as religious experience, the theist's argument from evil, etc...). What answers does materialism provide for 1) Something from absolute nothing; 2) Life from non-life; 3) Consciousness from Non-consciousness; 4) Self-consciousness from consciousness. These are 4 basic facts that materialism seems wholly inadequate to account for (at least as of today). So if a theist has a deep faith in God that provides great meaning, satisfaction, peace and joy in their life, why would they possibly consider giving those things up when the materialist alternative provides no answers.

@@proverbsforlife3326 “Okay I'm not sure what the logical fallacies are in this video…” You’re not sure what logical fallacies? Why not? Have you thought to take university-level philosophy and logic? “…I am just asking…” Imagine someone asks you, “What does purple smell like?” You’d object to the question, right? But can you explain exactly what’s wrong with it? I.e., why is it ‘malformed?’ In the same way, sir, although you’re “just asking questions,” they are malformed. I’d further wonder: If you are unaware of your errors (it appears you don’t even know you don’t know), how would you understand answers to your questions?

I would suggest the same for you Deconverted Man...read the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof.

@@proverbsforlife3326 why should I read whatever that is? What is it? I've never heard of it. What evidence is there for the claims it makes? Also suggest the same for me? What logical errors did I commit? :D

@@DeconvertedMan if you are not familiar with the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof then honestly I think this conversation is most likely beyond your knowledge. That is not a judgement, I totally understand that we all have busy lives and don't always have the time to do thorough research, That said, you are pretty dogmatic in your opinions which I would suggest you become a little more modest/humble about when you are not even familiar with one of the most important cosmological principles of the past decade.

@@TheAreteWay Well, I have to disapoint you as well, because you are not familiar with the Lobsterist, and thus this is beyond you, you must therefor read the Lobsterist (both of them) in order to understand what I am saying. Now, ask yourself - is what I just wrote a good argument? Does it compell you to read the lobsterist? If not, then perhaps you should not use that argument upon me. If you do think its a good argument, then you must therefor read the Lobsterist, and then prove you read it in some coherent way. I'll ignore the bits about being humble etc since that is not anything to do with the argument at hand. Why should I read that book(?) books(?) no idea what it is you have not told me yet. You have not yet given me a valid argument to compell me to read that. Nor have you answer if the thing that you wish me to read has itself the evidence that is lacking in this video. Why not just post whatever the Borde says in a video? Better yet, if it has evidence, then just post the evidence.

@@DeconvertedMan Okay I understand what you are saying. In some ways it makes sense, however, it also is a way of detecting the degree of awareness you may or may not have of the cosmological evidence. Feel free to go to TH-cam and check it out for yourself, that's not my job. I just wanted to give you the source to look at if you are truly serious at evaluating all the evidence and not just straw man arguments. My best to you Deconverted Man, keep that mind open you might be surprised in the future at what you realize is true.

Please read the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof...sometimes we just need to be aware of what is out there.

@@proverbsforlife3326 you believe in talking snakes and magic fruit but I'm the one who needs to read more LOL Let there be light! Poof hahaha

@@racebannon5523 I mean this with all sincerity but I’m sorry for whatever extremely limited perspective you were given about Christianity. You obviously have had very limited exposure to much of Christian thinking and exegesis. I can see why on this basis you have the reactions you do. You have missed out on so much rich analysis and understanding of Christianity. Reading your messages is much like reading the ideas of an angry teenager rather than of a thoughtful person who is aware of the broad traditions of the Christian faith. Stretch yourself by going beyond the straw man arguments you are erecting Race. You will be glad you did regardless if you are ever ultimately convinced. Start with Walter Brueggemann.

@@proverbsforlife3326 do you believe a man named Jesus died and was dead for 3 days and then came back to life? If so I don't need to look at your worldview because you're a gullible sap.

@@proverbsforlife3326 if I sound angry it's because of your condescending and arrogant attitude. The Earth wasn't made for you. You're not very good at this perhaps you should get yourself a soapbox and find a street corner.

Race you might very well be right. I’m always interested in how people come to their strong conclusions as you have. Is there a particular book(s) or scholar that you would recommend?

@@proverbsforlife3326 Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty, AronRa, Paulogia are just a few off the top of my head. If it must be a Bible scholar Bart Erhman.

@@racebannon5523 That's definitely a list of atheist heavy hitters for sure. Who have you read out of curiosity on the other side?

@@proverbsforlife3326 what have you read besides the Bible?

@@proverbsforlife3326 out of curiosity what did you mean by on the other side?

BlasterMaster80 I love your question buddy. I have used that with many people as well. To be honest, I would love to hear your alternatives. Let's take the 2nd one since I've already been talking about the first one. What are values in your view?

@@TheAreteWay Hi thanks for responding, lets do this. Here is the thing, if someone asked me why I believe something and I gave them my top 5 reasons and they showed those reasons to be fallacious, I would revise and or discard said belief. I just want to know if you are being honest here or if this is a complete waste of my time? To get us started though; Do you know what an argument from consequence, or an appeal to consequences is?

@@BlasterMaster80 okay let’s discuss. I’d enjoy that. And yes, I am familiar with an argument/appeal from consequence. Tell me your thoughts about that.

@@BlasterMaster80 inductive inferences from consequences occur all the time and are valid, do you disagree?

@@TheAreteWay In the second reason you provided in the video here, you are suggesting you can't imagine things having meaning or purpose without your God, (argument from personal incredulity, another fallacy) and that somehow validates your position. It doesn't actually matter what the consequences are, even if life is ultimately meaningless, or not. That has nothing to do with the validity of your position, and it's fallacious to suggest it's a good reason to believe. What you are suggesting, is a text book argument from consequence and should be discarded on that alone. Side note; I also think this can be described as a form of Stockholm syndrome; as though your religion has convinced you, that you cannot have meaning or purpose without it. I mean, this is said by every other cult that has ever existed. All this is to me is a demonstration that you have probably been manipulated into thinking there are no alternatives that could be valid. Here is an example of the same type of belief. In north Korea, they believe that the sun rises due to the great leader, Kim Ill Sung, giving them purpose and meaning. Without the great leader and the Sun, there would be no purpose or meaning. Do you find that to be a compelling argument; or do you find it to be a fallacious appeal to consequences?

yep, they are the typical terrible and ignorant claims of a theist. You'd think they'd have something better after 2000+ years.

Ateriana I think your questions are very good ones. Probably can't be fully answered in a comments section, but maybe an analogy might be helpful? Let me know what you think about this. If you were asked to start from the number 1 and count to infinity, you could obviously start the process of counting but you would never arrive at infinity because there would always be a next number (because of the nature of infinity). However, if you were asked to start at "negative infinity" and count to 10 you could never begin to process because there is not beginning point to start the count (there would always be a prior number to wherever you start because of the nature of the negative infinite). In the same way, in order to get to the point in time that we are in today, there cannot have been an infinite number of past moments of time or we could never get to the present moment. Logically there has to be a "First" moment before we could get to the present moment. All this argument claims is that since science strongly leans against the idea of an infinite and eternal universe (as does logic), then something else must be the ground of all time, matter, energy, and causation. This is what has traditionally been understood as the First Cause. Thoughts on this?

@@velkyn1 Hey Velkyn, calling names is usually not a great way for people to learn. I genuinely would love to hear your thoughts on an alternative to God being the First Cause? What else would explain the existence of everything?

@@TheAreteWay There doesn't need to be a beginning. It could for example be a circle. "then something else must be the ground of all time, matter, energy, and causation" -you That doesn't follow. There is no reason to just add something. Even if I grant you a beginning, it doesn't mean it's outside of our reality. We simply can't conclude a beginning or a specific cause. It's simply unknown. Adding a God or something, is nothing more than a placeholder. It's like dark matter or dark energy. We don't know what those are, but we can measure their effects.

@@ateriana5116 Okay I see what you are suggesting. If I may ask you another question, I'd be curious your thoughts about this. One of the reasons that the "circular" view of time is widely rejected is because eventually the cause and the effect logically become the same thing in order for the circular view to work. How would you explain that? Or here is a picture of that to make it a bit more clear. A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, D Causes E, and E causes A. You might see the logical problem with this. How can E cause A when E doesn't even exist until D causes it which requires C to cause D which requires B to cause C which then requires A to cause B. But A doesn't exist until E causes A. What are your thoughts on this?

You bet John, love the Proverbs buddy!

Yessir, an ounce of prevention goes a LONG way...well said.