Maybe he should simplify it for him: You have two closets, one has a ghost in it that cannot be detected by any means from our world, and the other has nothing at all. How do you tell which is which?
Ya can't blame Matt for gettin' frustrated and hanging up on callers like this. The guy just counldn't grasp what Matt repeatedly explained in how he was using an invalid method for determing what is real with his god hypothysis.
Agreed. I am not sure its wilful stupidity, I think part of it is simply an inability to grasp a reality outside of the one they've lived in all their life.
Many people think they are CHOSEN one, they think they finally figure out something, the secret to the universe. If a god doesn't manifest in reality, then no way to tell but some people think theirs mind can somehow connect to the God and talk to them directly. They believe they again are CHOSEN few, LOL.
" There is not a single Christian, who got up this morning, put on nice clothes and went to sit in church, who believes in a god that is 'just a possibility' or 'an idea'. "..... Brilliant!
Max Anguiano How does one determine that "the god hypothesis" is the likeliest one? Please provide a sound method, other than "I like to believe so" - AKA "the metaphysical arguments". ... A hypothesis is based on observation; since gods are not observable - as they are metaphysical concepts - you are using contradictory and confuse terms. Please clarify.
Max Anguiano How is empiricism arbitrary? Why do you confuse the naming convention with lack of imagination? Why do you confuse _what you know_ with _what you believe_? Do you _know_ how you get to _believe_ something? Why would anyone substitute the measurable facts with his own facts, no matter how he stares at the facts? _Consciousness_ is a word which defines a process that happens in a brain connected to sensorial parts. _Digestion_ is the same kind of word convention, which describes _a process_ which does not exist/manifest without the _actor_. What you describe leads to chaos and arbitrary. Nature is not chaotic, nor arbitrary.
Max Anguiano Firstly, the questions I've asked you were not rhetorical. Secondly, modal logic can be used to prove that my left kidney slapped your spline, let alone the existence of any imaginable entity, thus it doesn't help your case. As for metaphysics... as I said, digestion. Thirdly, stay on subject.
Max Anguiano "they tell us nothing about the innumerable other dimensions of reality."... Precisely. That's why is futile to believe something about such "other dimensions", or to claim knowledge about them. The default stance would be "we don't know". You are talking about something which can be defined as "magical realm", since everything is possible in any order (sounds like _arbitrary_ or _chaos_, to me). But... Is a fallacy to say that, because science and empiricism cannot prove nor disprove the magical realm, thus magical realm is true. By definition, _magic_ suspends all known laws of universe in someone's favor or in a such a way that someone would agree. "they cannot provide complete knowledge of anything." ... that's true, but doesn't validate, in any aspect, the "alternative explanations", if those "alternatives" cannot meet their burden of proof. Besides, if the "alternative realm" exists, then it can be investigated and it becomes a part of knowable universe. Provided that you already know what those "alternatives" are and you can define them, *what method do you use to investigate such "alternatives"?* I'll spare your time and, out of fairness, I will tell you that you don't have ANY! No one has identified such method, so stop pretending that you have one. Such method "would change the world", to quote Bill Nye. "The empirical sciences can yield only knowledge of certain aspects of things"... Not certain, but most probable, like in 99,99999% probable. But, admitting that 99,99999% is sufficiently reliable, people agree to rely on those results and use them in further investigation. Of course science corrects itself. It is a honest business, after all. Unlike the proponents of "magical explanation", who stopped all their investigations by saying "magic did it", thus being unable to correct their domain of... whatever it is what they do. So no, empiricism is NOT arbitrary restrictive because it has intrinsic methods to avoid "cherry picking" fallacies. Refuting woo-woo because it doesn't meet it's burden of proof is NOT something arbitrary, is part of a self-correcting mechanism proved to be the most reliable for finding further answers. Edit: You owe me five more answers to the following questions: -what method do you use to investigate such "alternatives"? -Why do you confuse the naming convention with lack of imagination? -Why do you confuse what you know with what you believe? -Do you know how you get to believe something? -Why would anyone substitute the measurable facts with his own facts, no matter how he stares at the facts?
Max Anguiano " [Saying _I don't know_ ] is an abdication of the responsibility to think; in other words, it's an intellectual cop-out." This is among the stupidest things I've heard along years. I don't even bother to read further.
According to this caller, at the point where science admits it doesn't know, you are then justified in allowing your imagination to have free reign, and whatever you come up with is true.
It is amazing when you hear people come forward to make claims that when challenged they have nothing to support those claims. When 'Why?' can only be followed by dead silence it is undeniable proof they don't know what they are saying.
Kalam cosmological argument: "Everything that begins to exist..." Do we have ANY examples of ANYTHING that "began to exist?" As far as I'm aware, the only thing that could possibly fall into that category is the universe and even then, we simply don't have enough information to conclude that it "began to exist." Everything else is merely a re-arrangement of pre-existing matter/ energy. Seems like the Kalam is a direct (and impossible) contradiction of the law of conservation of mass.
***** No need to be defensive; It's my understanding that Jehovah has the power to create Universes; why in the fuck would he need you to protect him from me? HAAAAUH? I actually hope this was an attempt a humor; if not, you are pathetic man.
+Jim Hart Vanquished is the wrong word; that would imply that force can determine someone's thoughts, which is absurd. The right phrase (as you intended) would be religion will die out as a consideration.
This is one of my old time favourite shows, I must have watched this about a dozen times, still it makes me smile and think how well these guys bring forth rational arguments and explain things so well.
What IS probable about god...? I guess: Him being the product of man's HADD (Hyperactive Agency Detection Device) and man's overactive pattern recognition in order to make sense of, and give meaning (no matter what, but preferably what has meaning to oneself) to an objective reality that REALLY doesn't give one shit what one thinks of it, nor cares about us, no matter how we might cherish such a belief, plus man's desire to feel accepted, understood, cared for, loved, safe etc. without him facing up to the fact that that aloof, blind, uncaring and unforgiving [because *consciousnessless*] OBJECTIVE reality that DOES NOT mercifully provide for those needs nonetheless, and that NO AMOUNT of prayer and admission of guilt will make it, magically, have pity on him one iota. WHEN will religious people finally realize that CARING FOR EACH OTHER, in our vulnerability, with our SUBJECTIVE needs, is what life REALLY is about - and that acceptance, understanding, care, shelter, love... is what we got to *GIVE* oneother, by recognizing our very own needs in others, and simply caring for them, by OURSELVES!!! Maybe THEN they might finally feel worthy to receive AND be able to accept the very same that they would, by then, FREELY give their fellow human beings THEMSELVES (instead of persuading them to go think like them, in a vain attempt to somehow "earn" the goodies).
I think that people on both sides frequently misunderstand this "absence of evidence" notion. Evidence isn't necessarily evidence that supports whatever it is that you're claiming. Evidence is simply information regarding the truth or falseness of a claim. If I say that there's a body in my closet and you open the closet and investigate its contents -- the results of that investigation are "evidence" -- and that's irrespective of what that evidence demonstrates. It may be evidence of the presence of a body in my closet or it may be evidence that there's no body in my closet. The point is -- evidence for the absence of the "body" is not absence of evidence. It is evidence that there's no body in my closet. Evidence for the absence of the body is not absence of evidence. It is the presence of evidence for the absence of the body -- or of whatever it is that you're looking for. "Absence of evidence" is when you haven't looked in the closet yet - and thus have no evidence either pro or con, in respect to the claim, "there's a body in the closet." "That" absence of evidence -- the fact that you haven't yet looked in the closet (and thus have no evidence either way), isn't "evidence of absence" -- in the sense that it doesn't constitute evidence that there's no body in the closet. NMS
"God" is merely a projection of one's own mind. hence, so many "one true god(s)". if there really were only one true god, there would only be one religion." MP. "faith is just believing what I wanna cuz I wanna..."
Assuming we are the only life in the universe, for the first 9 billion years or so the universe didn't contain any consciousness until complex creatures evolved. So was the universe not created by a god until complex brains evolved? ........Yet another theistic argument fails.
@@Ryder-wt9tk" What is your reasoning behind that". It's pretty understandable in the comment. The actual"laws of physics" is his reasoning behind that comment, you moron.
The reason we humans can do philosophy and animals cannot is because we have elaborate enough language, because of our evolved pre-frontal cortex. Not because of God.
+ MsAnthropea Necrosis They were probably probed at a young age by prophetic priests whose proboscis penetrated their puckered poopholes. Would that be the proposal with the highest probability perchance?
Matt: “How would you demonstrate that it’s more probable that it came from a mind?” Andrew:”That would be hard.” No, Andrew, so far that is impossible.😂
If you have proof of god then where is your Nobel prize and all of that prize money? Church: We're not greedy we don't take money we don't need Church: *takes people's money when they go to church*
I have been watching these A.E. videos and shows for a long time, and it only just now occurred to me that A) most of the callers identify as Christian, and B) many, many sound drunk. Fun watching, but the callers all sound equally clueless over time...
Well they prefer talking to theists and the biggest religion in the US is Christianity, that’s why they are most of the callers. And yes, I always think „damn I‘ve heard this before“ or „didn’t I just listen to this caller?“ But at least the constant repeating gets all the great argument counters into my head so I can use them too
Matthew Dean I have seen many potentionally interesting/entertaining conversations go to shit, just because matt qas unable to control his emotions. I prefer tracy as a host because she always stays calm and actually seems like she is interested in educating the callers.
for people like matt politics of far left its same how you are racist pig how you say up on stage if there are no colored or women next year i wont do it WTF how about people up there should be top of the field in that discussion not let some one up there who is less qualified but gets a pass because skin or sex organ . so racist like schools Asians getting docked points but blacks get extra and whites are even its sad and its racist .
Matt Dean I agree! I'm an Athiest also. I'm a new viewer and I've seen his behavior, it's not very good. I know it's his show and he can do what he wants but he "hanging up on people" when they defend thier belief or disagree with him is uncalled for.
Got boring after the caller's rejection of empirical evidence. We all know that for believer's it's about subjective truth, they don't care about reality as such. They live in the logic of their internal worlds with immutable givens, so they are correct if you accept their assumptions.
I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, ....well, that's where faith enters. Thank you, Mr. "I Have Logical Proof of God." Stutter on, Andrew. Stutter on.
+Michael Dobson That is faith for you. In order to have faith, you have to be willing to give up logic and reason to do so. This person has to go to extra ordinary lengths in order to have faith in this stuff because there is no logical reason to believe it.
The Bipolar Bear it wasn't the stutter that he was making fun of, it was the constant change in position, the stutter was a side effect of realization of the fallacious arguments presented
I think considering a universe without god is an effective way to affirm unbelief. Not every thing is explainable but when you realise just how much can be, without religion, you start down the atheist line of inquiry. Depending on how keen your skepticism is, god just sort of turns in to the Wizard of Oz after that.
Yes, all logical and intelligent people that start down this path of thinking or just study the history of their religion end up atheists. That's why I posit that atheists are the only ones who have taken religion very seriously. Anyone who does ends up an atheist; unless they are a gullible idiot. And there's plenty of them Unfortunatley
Yes, they do. Call God and the Devil by any names you want to call them and they are both from the Bible. The modern belief in each of them comes from that one book. I don't do apologetics or talk theology. There is no evidence, just your "faith," your belief, and the "tinglies" that you get form being in church or praying. As for myself, I refrain from closing my eyes and bowing my head, then talking to myself.
Well said but I am addressing the false concept that the Bible is the word of the living god (all others are false) and it contains vital knowledge about your soul and your afterlife. This life has no meaning at all and you must concentrate on the imaginary life you have after you die. Christians and Muslims both believe this so much so that some of them think their god has told them to kill you. I find none of this healthy and have studied it for many years. Once a preacher, today an atheist.
Religions claim they are friendly to each other but this is not true. Groups of people in one religion that think they all believe alike are wrong. All of them believe quite differently in reality as they add or subtract something from the common belief, yet they might meet as one. Even gods and devils are not friends, they are imaginary.
When a tree shrew sees a predator approaching it does it call attention to itself with a squeak and roll over to expose its belly or does it run the other direction, hide, etc? According to the evidence, virtually all animals’ behavior is dictated by rationality. Or they wouldn’t be here.
Haha the people laughing in the background are great lol they should record them and add them to every video in which a caller is making an absurd argument or statement from now on. 🤣😂
I actually came up with this same conclusion myself watching another AthExp show. Someone asked "if you don't define god, how can you be an atheist?" Same answer, either god exists in reality and we can test them, or they don't. If they don't exist in reality, they are by definition not real. If they do exist, we can test them. Since we have no proof of god, we can therefore assert that there is no rational justification for belief in a god.
Slight quibble. You say 'If they don't exist in reality, they are by definition not real.' Most theists try and get round that by saying they 'transcend' reality or exist outside it. My response to that is, 'then why should we care whether or not they exist?' The response is normally 'because of all the wonderful things he does for us' or something along those lines, at which point he's clearly 'in' reality... - cue your post!
Tom Dugmore, I think the problem there is, you're asking the wrong question, because by saying "why should we care?", whilst it is a fair question in my opinion, in essence you've accepted their premise that there is an "outside" of reality. It's cutting them too much slack. _"Outside"_ reality is not a real place, don't let anyone pretend otherwise. We are not certain whether or not there exists a multiverse, but *even* if there was and you interpret "outside reality" to mean in another universe or another dimension, then first you would need to prove that there exists other universes/dimensions/planes of existence; then you would need to prove that a god exists within that place. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing your point. One thing to keep in mind is that, with this form of logic, there is no rational way to refute it. For this very reason, theists don't argue rationally. If you want to convince a theist, you first must convince them of the benefits of reason.
KelniusTV"in essence you've accepted their premise that there is an "outside" of reality. It's cutting them too much slack. "Outside" reality is not a real place, don't let anyone pretend otherwise." Oh sure! As far as I'm concerned 'exists outside of reality' is just the same as 'does not exist'. I'm just pointing out that when they try and go down that rabbit hole, they essentially get to the point where they are no longer talking about the God that they actually believe in.
Having to pass through the obscurity of faith or given the difficulty of philosophical argumentation, it certainly follows that there will always be a minority of individuals, like you, who will not accept the existence of God as valid without empirical evidence (or proof). But, the notion that empirical evidence (or proof) is a requirement in order to validate all claims is simply arbitrary.
9:25 - “That would be hard...” 😂😂😂. That’s why science is hard. Religion makes it easy - you just believe... no thinking required. Religion because thinking is “hard” like this caller pointed out...!!!
Bob exists. He is manifesting in reality. I see him standing in front of door no. 1. Tom exists. He is not manifesting in reality because he is behind door no. 2. Door no. 3 has nothing behind it. How do you distinguish between doors 2 and 3 ?
The evidence for Christ is overwhelming. Historical fact, archeological discovery, & scientific evidence all point towards the truth of Christ & the Bible.
Matt your awesome. I think if you rub a lamp that you bought for under $15 while sitting on the floor wearing a bunny suit, the lamp will spit out $10 a second. So it must be true. Here's my reason, I seen a cartoon where a genie came from a lamp, so it's possible
Isn't the mind evolving from chemical reactions beautiful? There are many theories with evidence that support many parts of this naturalist story of abiogenesis and evolution, which give us good reason believe it is the case.
This is so sad to see someone who is wrapped up in their faith so blindly that when they are confronted with the very scripture they believe is perfect, they deny their own scripture and can't realize they're doing it. Some atheist may think that the Christian knows they are telling the truth and he wants to insist on believing it but I will tell you as a former Christian who was this stubborn once before that the reason for this Behavior is because a person of faith truly wants to believe it is all true so they will naturally become mentally defensive and try to find different meaning to the verse or versus so it can once again make sense to them and seem like is still true. I was once a Christian like this and no amount of Confrontation moved me just like this man couldnt be moved but when I decided 2 rewrite how I believed as a Christian I ventured back into the Bible and started reading with an open mind hoping God would personally give me understanding for how I should live as a Christian and believe and the result was I found fallacy error and contradiction of the entire religion just by rereading the New Testament with an open mind. I had nobody to argue with, my common sense kicked in and I broke free of this lie. I feel bad for those who are still in this state of mind who have been confronted like this man was on this video and continue to believe this obviously wrong religion so blindly. This is what religion does to people it poisons their mind. You can even go as far as saying this mentality is like a disease, and to think religious people say that atheism is a disease LOL. Religion is very similar to a drug addiction. Atheism is not something we have to think about in our daily lives because we don't believe somebody's watching our every move, we just live our lives. There is no disease in that.
Researchers in China say they've bred healthy mice with two mothers using a new type of gene editing technology, a significant feat that may help researchers better understand mammalian reproduction but carries significant ethical and safety questions. A total of 29 bimaternal mice were produced using 210 embryos in the study. They all were "normal, lived to adulthood, and had babies of their own," though they showed "some defective features," according to researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. But not all the mice pups survived the experiment. Mice produced from two fathers only survived a couple of days after being born.
Vertical Horizon As far as I'm aware the only test we have to prove self awareness in animals is the mirror test, and all canine species fail it. That doesn't mean that they aren't self aware either, but I don't know of any other test for self awareness. Animals that have passed include bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, eurasian magpies, elephants, some species of dolphins, orcas,... I'm possibly missing some, but dogs are generally confused by mirrors and don't recognize themselves at all which suggests that they don't know what they are. In some cases, like with gorillas, there's a good chance it doesn't work simply because making direct eye contact is a sign of aggression so they won't look at their reflection to figure it out. If you have some other evidence that proves dogs _do_ in fact have self awareness I would love to see it because this is a subject that really interests me and the more information on it, the better. I'm vegetarian (planning to go vegan at some point) so understanding an animals capacity to understand the world around it, or to suffer is quite important to me.
Ben Scott-Pye as an update, there is now a sniff test that seems to indicate dogs are self aware. www.google.com.au/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-09-stsr-dogs-self-awareness.amp From the article “"I believe that dogs and other animals, being much less sensitive to visual stimuli than humans and many apes, cannot pass the mirror test because of the sensory modality chosen by the investigator to test self-awareness. This in not necessarily due to the absence of this cognitive ability in some animal species," says Cazzolla Gatti.”
Bendyman Scratch-Poland It would seem as so. Matt always plays with his cup when his co host is embarrassing him. I've noticed it mainly with Don, Martin and Jeff Dee.
Ive said before…you can show your superior morality to a god with a few questions… 1. What would you do if you saw someone being sexually assaulted? 2. What does god do in those circumstances? My answers… 1. I would do everything possible to stop it…literally everything. 2. God does nothing and allows it to happen over and over to the same victim and MAYBE the assaulter will be punished after death…or they could be “saved”. This “god” is morally bankrupt 😑
I would rather believe in God and find out that there isn't one, then not to believe and find out that there is; if that makes sense because it's better to be safe than sorry.
Pascals wager Muslims jews and all other religioms think you got the wrong one. The chances of you having the right one are 1 in forty nine thousand. They can't all be right but they can all be wrong
Elaine Feist But the point really is to some of us the truth is more important then just "believing" something because it makes us feel good inside or to hedge our bets. I mean if you honestly think about it would an all knowing god be okay that the only reason you believe in him is similar to choosing one with a dart board containing thousands of gods where all are claimed to be the true one by the particular believers and at the same time all have an equally astounding lack of evidence?
Yes, religion is mainly just believing in an Almighty God(s), but the people who are devout Christians or Muslims believe so strongly that there is a God(s) that it becomes a reality for them. I know the website www.diffen.com/difference/Catholicism_vs_Christianity would be very useful for people who don't really understand the similarities and differences between Christians and Catholics.
Elaine Feist Its NOT reality, its a self afflicted delusion and it is very dangerous. "If you can convince people of absurdities, you can convince them to commit atrocities" - Voltare
I love Traci's Analogy and the way Matt displays it. I'm struggling myself trying to think for theists and distinguishing between God 2 and 3 because wow
He said god is all knowing which is false. God had to call out to find adam then he ask questions to adam and eve because he didnt know what happened. If he was all knowing why didnt he stop the serpent
Sorry Mr. Caller. Christians spend a great deal of time trying to prove The God Of Abraham exists. Not a "possibility of existence." "A God is a mind." WTF?! No mind exists without a brain. He hasn't proven God. And then makes attributes of this God. Andrew doesn't realize that he has to back up all his assertions. And then he wants argue it.
Martin actually got the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” wrong here-it would not be that a god could not exist because we didn’t have evidence of the god, because absence of evidence for god isn’t evidence of god’s absence.
Its not Confirmation of absence, but it is evidence. If I tell you “I just dug up a big pile of gold and I’ve got it in the back of my car” but when you go look at my car you find; No Gold, No Shovels & No dirt. The absence of that evidence, suggests my claim is not true.
If he claims that conscious things have to have been created, then he is necessarily arguing that his God was created. So who was that? And that question is his fault.
@@macysondheim Science encompasses what we have learnt about the physical universe so far, based on evidence we can test. There are many things that we know we don't know, and scientists continue to put up ideas, hypotheses, that can be tested. Atheism is the point of view that until there is testable evidence that a god (an intelligent entity alleged to outside the universe) exists, there is no reason to believe one does exist. So it's meaningless to say that science hasn't proved atheism. In fact, they are quite similar, in that they ask for evidence. If there was any evidence for a god, science would test it; if the tests supported the scientific evidence for a god, atheists would consider accepting it.
Even fundamental physics concepts taught in first semester non-calculus physics, seemingly so simple, often surprise even good students with their implications. To make a claim that something seems more likely is far from sufficient. The rationale for that likelihood should be written out and scrutinized carefully if one wishes to advance understanding.
"Science has limits". Yep, it's limited to REALITY!
Underrated comment
It's as limited as faith is stupid
This comment needs to be pinned
true haha
Bam!!
Maybe he should simplify it for him: You have two closets, one has a ghost in it that cannot be detected by any means from our world, and the other has nothing at all. How do you tell which is which?
Oh but you can feel it . You just know . Thats always going to be their answer.
@@saanpeco1557 that's because they have nothing else.
You ask your "pastor".
You dont, but he asks his pastor .................
@@saanpeco1557 "when you let jeeesus into your heart " ...................
"Don't put your ignorance on a pedestal and call it god"
Best quote ever
"Have an Oreo my son"
Harrison Bowman
What?
That Oreo biscuit is the body of Christ and the cream is his holy seamen.
@@chriswisejazz ?🤔
XD
I like how he grabbed the Oreo and kept going like "And another thing!!", dude, I can't take you seriously shake'n that Oreo at me lol.
Brilliant haha!.
Guy: "I can prove God"
Matt: "Ok go ahead"
Guy: "That would be hard...."
Martin makes some great points here throughout. I miss his presence on
the show.
Ya can't blame Matt for gettin' frustrated and hanging up on callers like this. The guy just counldn't grasp what Matt repeatedly explained in how he was using an invalid method for determing what is real with his god hypothysis.
Agreed. I am not sure its wilful stupidity, I think part of it is simply an inability to grasp a reality outside of the one they've lived in all their life.
And yet, not one other host on the show treats people like Matt does.
Many people think they are CHOSEN one, they think they finally figure out something, the secret to the universe.
If a god doesn't manifest in reality, then no way to tell but some people think theirs mind can somehow connect to the God and talk to them directly. They believe they again are CHOSEN few, LOL.
" There is not a single Christian, who got up this morning, put on nice clothes and went to sit in church, who believes in a god that is 'just a possibility' or 'an idea'. "..... Brilliant!
Max Anguiano
How does one determine that "the god hypothesis" is the likeliest one? Please provide a sound method, other than "I like to believe so" - AKA "the metaphysical arguments".
...
A hypothesis is based on observation; since gods are not observable - as they are metaphysical concepts - you are using contradictory and confuse terms.
Please clarify.
Max Anguiano
How is empiricism arbitrary?
Why do you confuse the naming convention with lack of imagination?
Why do you confuse _what you know_ with _what you believe_?
Do you _know_ how you get to _believe_ something?
Why would anyone substitute the measurable facts with his own facts, no matter how he stares at the facts?
_Consciousness_ is a word which defines a process that happens in a brain connected to sensorial parts. _Digestion_ is the same kind of word convention, which describes _a process_ which does not exist/manifest without the _actor_.
What you describe leads to chaos and arbitrary. Nature is not chaotic, nor arbitrary.
Max Anguiano
Firstly, the questions I've asked you were not rhetorical.
Secondly, modal logic can be used to prove that my left kidney slapped your spline, let alone the existence of any imaginable entity, thus it doesn't help your case. As for metaphysics... as I said, digestion.
Thirdly, stay on subject.
Max Anguiano
"they tell us nothing about the innumerable other dimensions of reality."... Precisely. That's why is futile to believe something about such "other dimensions", or to claim knowledge about them. The default stance would be "we don't know".
You are talking about something which can be defined as "magical realm", since everything is possible in any order (sounds like _arbitrary_ or _chaos_, to me). But... Is a fallacy to say that, because science and empiricism cannot prove nor disprove the magical realm, thus magical realm is true.
By definition, _magic_ suspends all known laws of universe in someone's favor or in a such a way that someone would agree.
"they cannot provide complete knowledge of anything." ... that's true, but doesn't validate, in any aspect, the "alternative explanations", if those "alternatives" cannot meet their burden of proof.
Besides, if the "alternative realm" exists, then it can be investigated and it becomes a part of knowable universe.
Provided that you already know what those "alternatives" are and you can define them, *what method do you use to investigate such "alternatives"?*
I'll spare your time and, out of fairness, I will tell you that you don't have ANY! No one has identified such method, so stop pretending that you have one. Such method "would change the world", to quote Bill Nye.
"The empirical sciences can yield only knowledge of certain aspects of things"... Not certain, but most probable, like in 99,99999% probable. But, admitting that 99,99999% is sufficiently reliable, people agree to rely on those results and use them in further investigation.
Of course science corrects itself. It is a honest business, after all. Unlike the proponents of "magical explanation", who stopped all their investigations by saying "magic did it", thus being unable to correct their domain of... whatever it is what they do.
So no, empiricism is NOT arbitrary restrictive because it has intrinsic methods to avoid "cherry picking" fallacies. Refuting woo-woo because it doesn't meet it's burden of proof is NOT something arbitrary, is part of a self-correcting mechanism proved to be the most reliable for finding further answers.
Edit: You owe me five more answers to the following questions:
-what method do you use to investigate such "alternatives"?
-Why do you confuse the naming convention with lack of imagination?
-Why do you confuse what you know with what you believe?
-Do you know how you get to believe something?
-Why would anyone substitute the measurable facts with his own facts, no matter how he stares at the facts?
Max Anguiano
" [Saying _I don't know_ ] is an abdication of the responsibility to think; in other words, it's an intellectual cop-out."
This is among the stupidest things I've heard along years.
I don't even bother to read further.
According to this caller, at the point where science admits it doesn't know, you are then justified in allowing your imagination to have free reign, and whatever you come up with is true.
24magiccarrot Yes. You can imagine though and use the example if science fiction rather than magic.
Serial caller Andrew trying out his faulty "logic" again, gets shot down every time.
He really did seem determined to make a complete ass out of himself every time he called!
"Ignorance on an altar." A beautiful summation of religion by the awesomely well-spoken Martin.
+Coy Hampton hell yes
Take the hell away and i agree! Lolz.
WOW, I love that phrase! " You don't get to put your ignorance on an alter and call it god " You just can not say it any better than that.
It is amazing when you hear people come forward to make claims that when challenged they have nothing to support those claims. When 'Why?' can only be followed by dead silence it is undeniable proof they don't know what they are saying.
Kalam cosmological argument:
"Everything that begins to exist..."
Do we have ANY examples of ANYTHING that "began to exist?" As far as I'm aware, the only thing that could possibly fall into that category is the universe and even then, we simply don't have enough information to conclude that it "began to exist." Everything else is merely a re-arrangement of pre-existing matter/ energy.
Seems like the Kalam is a direct (and impossible) contradiction of the law of conservation of mass.
It's the best when these two guys are on together!
I'm in a coma.... Therefore God....
It's the old "It's true because I believe it's true."
I lost it when he said, "Have an oreo my son" lmfao 😂😂😂
I have faith that religion will be vanquished.
*****
No need to be defensive; It's my understanding that Jehovah has the power to create Universes; why in the fuck would he need you to protect him from me? HAAAAUH? I actually hope this was an attempt a humor; if not, you are pathetic man.
Now you understand; but, I, myself, believe from reality; and yours is non-reality and hopeful dreaming.
+Jim Hart Vanquished is the wrong word; that would imply that force can determine someone's thoughts, which is absurd. The right phrase (as you intended) would be religion will die out as a consideration.
Vertical Horizon
Thanks grammar cop! What you said;)
+john smith I doubt it as atheism is growing thanks to science, reason and people actually using their minds ;)
This is one of my old time favourite shows, I must have watched this about a dozen times, still it makes me smile and think how well these guys bring forth rational arguments and explain things so well.
What the hell is probable about god?
rokridge That it doesn't exist.
What IS probable about god...? I guess: Him being the product of man's HADD (Hyperactive Agency Detection Device) and man's overactive pattern recognition in order to make sense of, and give meaning (no matter what, but preferably what has meaning to oneself) to an objective reality that REALLY doesn't give one shit what one thinks of it, nor cares about us, no matter how we might cherish such a belief, plus man's desire to feel accepted, understood, cared for, loved, safe etc. without him facing up to the fact that that aloof, blind, uncaring and unforgiving [because *consciousnessless*] OBJECTIVE reality that DOES NOT mercifully provide for those needs nonetheless, and that NO AMOUNT of prayer and admission of guilt will make it, magically, have pity on him one iota.
WHEN will religious people finally realize that CARING FOR EACH OTHER, in our vulnerability, with our SUBJECTIVE needs, is what life REALLY is about - and that acceptance, understanding, care, shelter, love... is what we got to *GIVE* oneother, by recognizing our very own needs in others, and simply caring for them, by OURSELVES!!! Maybe THEN they might finally feel worthy to receive AND be able to accept the very same that they would, by then, FREELY give their fellow human beings THEMSELVES (instead of persuading them to go think like them, in a vain attempt to somehow "earn" the goodies).
Mans need to seek answers to things he doesnt understand...therefore a magic sky man did it.
@@arjanstam78,I just watched the video. Thought it may had some interesting comments.
I am not disappointed.
@@caioribeiro3104 OK! I just love this show. Learning while having fun, yummie...
If grandma hadn't told you Jesus or a god existed
That thought would have never entered your mind
I think that people on both sides frequently misunderstand this "absence of evidence" notion.
Evidence isn't necessarily evidence that supports whatever it is that you're claiming. Evidence is simply information regarding the truth or falseness of a claim.
If I say that there's a body in my closet and you open the closet and investigate its contents -- the results of that investigation are "evidence" -- and that's irrespective of what that evidence demonstrates.
It may be evidence of the presence of a body in my closet or it may be evidence that there's no body in my closet.
The point is -- evidence for the absence of the "body" is not absence of evidence. It is evidence that there's no body in my closet.
Evidence for the absence of the body is not absence of evidence. It is the presence of evidence for the absence of the body -- or of whatever it is that you're looking for.
"Absence of evidence" is when you haven't looked in the closet yet - and thus have no evidence either pro or con, in respect to the claim, "there's a body in the closet."
"That" absence of evidence -- the fact that you haven't yet looked in the closet (and thus have no evidence either way), isn't "evidence of absence" -- in the sense that it doesn't constitute evidence that there's no body in the closet.
NMS
"You seem to be convinced by things that are physically demonstrable." No, no. The palm I'm slamming my face into isn't really there.
"I need an Oreo..."
I should start using that line
"God" is merely a projection of one's own mind. hence, so many "one true god(s)". if there really were only one true god, there would only be one religion." MP.
"faith is just believing what I wanna cuz I wanna..."
"i'm just chillin' back with an oreo, nothin' gay about that"
- matt dillahunty
Assuming we are the only life in the universe, for the first 9 billion years or so the universe didn't contain any consciousness until complex creatures evolved. So was the universe not created by a god until complex brains evolved? ........Yet another theistic argument fails.
The law of physics seem to rule out the existence of God like characters
What's your reasoning behind that?
@@Ryder-wt9tk" What is your reasoning behind that". It's pretty understandable in the comment. The actual"laws of physics" is his reasoning behind that comment, you moron.
The reason we humans can do philosophy and animals cannot is because we have elaborate enough language, because of our evolved pre-frontal cortex. Not because of God.
Why do none of these people understand what the word "probability" means?
+
MsAnthropea Necrosis
They were probably probed at a young age by prophetic priests whose proboscis penetrated their puckered poopholes.
Would that be the proposal with the highest probability perchance?
Matt: “How would you demonstrate that it’s more probable that it came from a mind?”
Andrew:”That would be hard.”
No, Andrew, so far that is impossible.😂
If you have proof of god then where is your Nobel prize and all of that prize money?
Church: We're not greedy we don't take money we don't need
Church: *takes people's money when they go to church*
Indigo's Not here its that thing they call tithing where they take 10% of everyones income. Cuz god said so
Hehehehe
I have been watching these A.E. videos and shows for a long time, and it only just now occurred to me that A) most of the callers identify as Christian, and B) many, many sound drunk. Fun watching, but the callers all sound equally clueless over time...
Well they prefer talking to theists and the biggest religion in the US is Christianity, that’s why they are most of the callers. And yes, I always think „damn I‘ve heard this before“ or „didn’t I just listen to this caller?“ But at least the constant repeating gets all the great argument counters into my head so I can use them too
I love Matt. He's a pioneer for rationality. But he does let his anger get the better of him sometimes.
Matthew Dean I have seen many potentionally interesting/entertaining conversations go to shit, just because matt qas unable to control his emotions.
I prefer tracy as a host because she always stays calm and actually seems like she is interested in educating the callers.
I don't blame him in the least. One needs almost infinite degrees of patience to deal with many of these theistic halfwits.
for people like matt politics of far left its same how you are racist pig how you say up on stage if there are no colored or women next year i wont do it WTF how about people up there should be top of the field in that discussion not let some one up there who is less qualified but gets a pass because skin or sex organ . so racist like schools Asians getting docked points but blacks get extra and whites are even its sad and its racist .
Not anger. Frustration
Matt Dean I agree! I'm an Athiest also. I'm a new viewer and I've seen his behavior, it's not very good. I know it's his show and he can do what he wants but he "hanging up on people" when they defend thier belief or disagree with him is uncalled for.
WHY didn't they ask Andrew....
"Do you believe this because you'd PREFER it?"
"What MOTIVATED you to believe this?"
true
trumanhw
He would just say he believed because it was true. And we know his ability to check if something was true...
@@Noname-w7f1e
lol
Andrew starts out lying, by trying to equivocate between proving something exists and proving a possibility that something exists.
This is peak theologian logic unfortunately
Christianity is the only true religion
@@macysondheim you wouldnt need to lie for anything that's true at all
Got boring after the caller's rejection of empirical evidence. We all know that for believer's it's about subjective truth, they don't care about reality as such. They live in the logic of their internal worlds with immutable givens, so they are correct if you accept their assumptions.
I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, I have this proof....uh...okay, maybe, not that proof, ....well, that's where faith enters.
Thank you, Mr. "I Have Logical Proof of God."
Stutter on, Andrew. Stutter on.
+Michael Dobson That is faith for you. In order to have faith, you have to be willing to give up logic and reason to do so. This person has to go to extra ordinary lengths in order to have faith in this stuff because there is no logical reason to believe it.
euno17 Mental gymnastics at its finest! :-)
Michael Dobson roflmaooooo I love this comment
Please don't pick on people with stutters. That's a personal low blow. Stick to intelligent arguments/debating.
The Bipolar Bear it wasn't the stutter that he was making fun of, it was the constant change in position, the stutter was a side effect of realization of the fallacious arguments presented
And this little God went wee wee wee all the way home
Based on probability
I think considering a universe without god is an effective way to affirm unbelief. Not every thing is explainable but when you realise just how much can be, without religion, you start down the atheist line of inquiry. Depending on how keen your skepticism is, god just sort of turns in to the Wizard of Oz after that.
Yes, all logical and intelligent people that start down this path of thinking or just study the history of their religion end up atheists. That's why I posit that atheists are the only ones who have taken religion very seriously. Anyone who does ends up an atheist; unless they are a gullible idiot. And there's plenty of them Unfortunatley
"Have an Oreo, my Son.."😅
I can tell you one thing about God and Satan. They both come out of the same book.
Dennis Pennington Actually, no. They don't.
Yes, they do. Call God and the Devil by any names you want to call them and they are both from the Bible. The modern belief in each of them comes from that one book. I don't do apologetics or talk theology. There is no evidence, just your "faith," your belief, and the "tinglies" that you get form being in church or praying.
As for myself, I refrain from closing my eyes and bowing my head, then talking to myself.
Well said but I am addressing the false concept that the Bible is the word of the living god (all others are false) and it contains vital knowledge about your soul and your afterlife. This life has no meaning at all and you must concentrate on the imaginary life you have after you die. Christians and Muslims both believe this so much so that some of them think their god has told them to kill you. I find none of this healthy and have studied it for many years. Once a preacher, today an atheist.
+Dennis Pennington They both came out? So are they living together now? Or at least friends?
Religions claim they are friendly to each other but this is not true. Groups of people in one religion that think they all believe alike are wrong. All of them believe quite differently in reality as they add or subtract something from the common belief, yet they might meet as one. Even gods and devils are not friends, they are imaginary.
When a tree shrew sees a predator approaching it does it call attention to itself with a squeak and roll over to expose its belly or does it run the other direction, hide, etc?
According to the evidence, virtually all animals’ behavior is dictated by rationality. Or they wouldn’t be here.
9:25 - The laughter in the background is - priceless...!!!
Haha the people laughing in the background are great lol they should record them and add them to every video in which a caller is making an absurd argument or statement from now on. 🤣😂
I actually came up with this same conclusion myself watching another AthExp show. Someone asked "if you don't define god, how can you be an atheist?"
Same answer, either god exists in reality and we can test them, or they don't. If they don't exist in reality, they are by definition not real. If they do exist, we can test them. Since we have no proof of god, we can therefore assert that there is no rational justification for belief in a god.
Slight quibble. You say 'If they don't exist in reality, they are by definition not real.' Most theists try and get round that by saying they 'transcend' reality or exist outside it. My response to that is, 'then why should we care whether or not they exist?' The response is normally 'because of all the wonderful things he does for us' or something along those lines, at which point he's clearly 'in' reality... - cue your post!
Tom Dugmore, I think the problem there is, you're asking the wrong question, because by saying "why should we care?", whilst it is a fair question in my opinion, in essence you've accepted their premise that there is an "outside" of reality. It's cutting them too much slack.
_"Outside"_ reality is not a real place, don't let anyone pretend otherwise.
We are not certain whether or not there exists a multiverse, but *even* if there was and you interpret "outside reality" to mean in another universe or another dimension, then first you would need to prove that there exists other universes/dimensions/planes of existence; then you would need to prove that a god exists within that place.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing your point. One thing to keep in mind is that, with this form of logic, there is no rational way to refute it. For this very reason, theists don't argue rationally. If you want to convince a theist, you first must convince them of the benefits of reason.
KelniusTV"in essence you've accepted their premise that there is an "outside" of reality. It's cutting them too much slack.
"Outside" reality is not a real place, don't let anyone pretend otherwise."
Oh sure! As far as I'm concerned 'exists outside of reality' is just the same as 'does not exist'. I'm just pointing out that when they try and go down that rabbit hole, they essentially get to the point where they are no longer talking about the God that they actually believe in.
Having to pass through the obscurity of faith or given the difficulty of philosophical argumentation, it certainly follows that there will always be a minority of individuals, like you, who will not accept the existence of God as valid without empirical evidence (or proof). But, the notion that empirical evidence (or proof) is a requirement in order to validate all claims is simply arbitrary.
Max Anguiano OK, so what's the alternative to empirical evidence that allows us to determine that God exists?
I love the "I need an Oreo" moment...
I need a "philosophical tree shrew" shirt
9:25 - “That would be hard...” 😂😂😂. That’s why science is hard. Religion makes it easy - you just believe... no thinking required. Religion because thinking is “hard” like this caller pointed out...!!!
Bob exists. He is manifesting in reality. I see him standing in front of door no. 1.
Tom exists. He is not manifesting in reality because he is behind door no. 2.
Door no. 3 has nothing behind it. How do you distinguish between doors 2 and 3 ?
So because science hasn't figured everything out yet , Andrew feels justified accepting made up things to fill the gaps in our knowledge . Lol......
Give me evidence for Jesus then
I'll wait
The evidence for Christ is overwhelming. Historical fact, archeological discovery, & scientific evidence all point towards the truth of Christ & the Bible.
elves tend my garden, WHOM OR WHAT TENDS YOURS?
Gardens cannot exist without elves.
Unicorn tears are what makes gardens grow.
I hire goblins
Trolls... greasy, giant, slimy trolls.
Oh my god, Matt's closing monologue is awesome
Have an Oreoooooo my son....
Is the sync off for anyone else?
If god created men from dust , then WHY is there still goddamm dust , in my house everywhere ? XD
What the L is a tree shoe?
He should have said "I don't give a tree shrew's ass."
"It's more probable." Is it? Do you realize a probability is an equation you have to do to actually determine what is most likely?
Matt your awesome.
I think if you rub a lamp that you bought for under $15 while sitting on the floor wearing a bunny suit, the lamp will spit out $10 a second. So it must be true.
Here's my reason, I seen a cartoon where a genie came from a lamp, so it's possible
Isn't the mind evolving from chemical reactions beautiful? There are many theories with evidence that support many parts of this naturalist story of abiogenesis and evolution, which give us good reason believe it is the case.
“You seem to only believe things that are demonstrable.”
Well, yeah....
This is so sad to see someone who is wrapped up in their faith so blindly that when they are confronted with the very scripture they believe is perfect, they deny their own scripture and can't realize they're doing it. Some atheist may think that the Christian knows they are telling the truth and he wants to insist on believing it but I will tell you as a former Christian who was this stubborn once before that the reason for this Behavior is because a person of faith truly wants to believe it is all true so they will naturally become mentally defensive and try to find different meaning to the verse or versus so it can once again make sense to them and seem like is still true. I was once a Christian like this and no amount of Confrontation moved me just like this man couldnt be moved but when I decided 2 rewrite how I believed as a Christian I ventured back into the Bible and started reading with an open mind hoping God would personally give me understanding for how I should live as a Christian and believe and the result was I found fallacy error and contradiction of the entire religion just by rereading the New Testament with an open mind. I had nobody to argue with, my common sense kicked in and I broke free of this lie. I feel bad for those who are still in this state of mind who have been confronted like this man was on this video and continue to believe this obviously wrong religion so blindly. This is what religion does to people it poisons their mind. You can even go as far as saying this mentality is like a disease, and to think religious people say that atheism is a disease LOL. Religion is very similar to a drug addiction. Atheism is not something we have to think about in our daily lives because we don't believe somebody's watching our every move, we just live our lives. There is no disease in that.
nothing................born, live,die, nothing..........................
Seems about right to me.
Jeff Daniels atheist haiku sort of....👍🏼
Researchers in China say they've bred healthy mice with two mothers using a new type of gene editing technology, a significant feat that may help researchers better understand mammalian reproduction but carries significant ethical and safety questions.
A total of 29 bimaternal mice were produced using 210 embryos in the study. They all were "normal, lived to adulthood, and had babies of their own," though they showed "some defective features," according to researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
But not all the mice pups survived the experiment. Mice produced from two fathers only survived a couple of days after being born.
Did the Atheist Experience get an Oreo sponsorship?
Martin is such an amazing part of this show
He's superb
Just to nitpick. Dogs have not been proven to have self awareness.
Bendyman Scratch-Poland Of course they have. So your comment is wrong.
Vertical Horizon As far as I'm aware the only test we have to prove self awareness in animals is the mirror test, and all canine species fail it. That doesn't mean that they aren't self aware either, but I don't know of any other test for self awareness.
Animals that have passed include bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, eurasian magpies, elephants, some species of dolphins, orcas,... I'm possibly missing some, but dogs are generally confused by mirrors and don't recognize themselves at all which suggests that they don't know what they are. In some cases, like with gorillas, there's a good chance it doesn't work simply because making direct eye contact is a sign of aggression so they won't look at their reflection to figure it out.
If you have some other evidence that proves dogs _do_ in fact have self awareness I would love to see it because this is a subject that really interests me and the more information on it, the better.
I'm vegetarian (planning to go vegan at some point) so understanding an animals capacity to understand the world around it, or to suffer is quite important to me.
Ben Scott-Pye as an update, there is now a sniff test that seems to indicate dogs are self aware.
www.google.com.au/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-09-stsr-dogs-self-awareness.amp
From the article “"I believe that dogs and other animals, being much less sensitive to visual stimuli than humans and many apes, cannot pass the mirror test because of the sensory modality chosen by the investigator to test self-awareness. This in not necessarily due to the absence of this cognitive ability in some animal species," says Cazzolla Gatti.”
If Andrew doesn't care if his beliefs can be justified to others then why is he even bothering calling?
Mon cher ami Matt
BINGO and again BINGO
Couldn't do Matts job, I would be dead by now, my blood pressure would be through the roof 👿
One of Martin's more cringey moments @ 20:59.
Brad Panter It seems like he's just there to make things harder for Matt.
Bendyman Scratch-Poland It would seem as so. Matt always plays with his cup when his co host is embarrassing him. I've noticed it mainly with Don, Martin and Jeff Dee.
Brad Panter its a joke. Lighten up.
Brad Panter no it wasn't a 'cringey' moment for Martin - they boys had fun - together.
Brad Panter I disagree. He made a shitty joke, but he has plenty of cringeworthy awkward moments.
Ive said before…you can show your superior morality to a god with a few questions…
1. What would you do if you saw someone being sexually assaulted?
2. What does god do in those circumstances?
My answers…
1. I would do everything possible to stop it…literally everything.
2. God does nothing and allows it to happen over and over to the same victim and MAYBE the assaulter will be punished after death…or they could be “saved”. This “god” is morally bankrupt 😑
And were supposed to believe you? I think you’d only “help” if it would benefit you in some way.
@@macysondheim No, only selfish theists would do good things for a prize.
@@giannipiccioni8411 incorrect. Scientific studies show atheists are much more selfish, uneducated, & more likely to be drug addicts/ alcoholics
I would rather believe in God and find out that there isn't one, then not to believe and find out that there is; if that makes sense because it's better to be safe than sorry.
Pascals wager
Muslims jews and all other religioms think you got the wrong one. The chances of you having the right one are 1 in forty nine thousand. They can't all be right but they can all be wrong
Every religion thinks that their God(s) are the right one(s) and I agree with you on that.
Elaine Feist But the point really is to some of us the truth is more important then just "believing" something because it makes us feel good inside or to hedge our bets. I mean if you honestly think about it would an all knowing god be okay that the only reason you believe in him is similar to choosing one with a dart board containing thousands of gods where all are claimed to be the true one by the particular believers and at the same time all have an equally astounding lack of evidence?
Yes, religion is mainly just believing in an Almighty God(s), but the people who are devout Christians or Muslims believe so strongly that there is a God(s) that it becomes a reality for them. I know the website www.diffen.com/difference/Catholicism_vs_Christianity would be very useful for people who don't really understand the similarities and differences between Christians and Catholics.
Elaine Feist Its NOT reality, its a self afflicted delusion and it is very dangerous. "If you can convince people of absurdities, you can convince them to commit atrocities" - Voltare
what does Martin do at 21.28 to the Oreo packet?
Matt is so impatient and has a hot temper. Not great when handling dim callers.
I think Matt was in a bad mood. Talking to idiots on a regular basis tends to do that to you.
I love Traci's Analogy and the way Matt displays it. I'm struggling myself trying to think for theists and distinguishing between God 2 and 3 because wow
He said god is all knowing which is false. God had to call out to find adam then he ask questions to adam and eve because he didnt know what happened. If he was all knowing why didnt he stop the serpent
Great session
Defining a philosophical god into existence is always a non-starter.
Will it not run if it's in a fire?
Sorry Mr. Caller. Christians spend a great deal of time trying to prove The God Of Abraham exists. Not a "possibility of existence."
"A God is a mind." WTF?! No mind exists without a brain.
He hasn't proven God.
And then makes attributes of this God.
Andrew doesn't realize that he has to back up all his assertions. And then he wants argue it.
Martin actually got the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” wrong here-it would not be that a god could not exist because we didn’t have evidence of the god, because absence of evidence for god isn’t evidence of god’s absence.
Its not Confirmation of absence, but it is evidence.
If I tell you “I just dug up a big pile of gold and I’ve got it in the back of my car” but when you go look at my car you find; No Gold, No Shovels & No dirt.
The absence of that evidence, suggests my claim is not true.
Alot of people call in from PA...
"That Oreo's totally 69'ing, look."
Does a dog not whine if you kick it.
He is committing a non sequitur, a hasty conclusion and a begging the question.
I would be "very" interested in your source for this info. Can you point me to it?
A pomegranate seed?
If he claims that conscious things have to have been created, then he is necessarily arguing that his God was created. So who was that? And that question is his fault.
“Science has limits.”
Ignorance of science has lower limits.🤤
And yet science can never prove atheism to be true
@@macysondheim But you can prove that you don’t have a clue what atheism means or how logic works.🤡
@@macysondheim
Science encompasses what we have learnt about the physical universe so far, based on evidence we can test. There are many things that we know we don't know, and scientists continue to put up ideas, hypotheses, that can be tested. Atheism is the point of view that until there is testable evidence that a god (an intelligent entity alleged to outside the universe) exists, there is no reason to believe one does exist. So it's meaningless to say that science hasn't proved atheism. In fact, they are quite similar, in that they ask for evidence. If there was any evidence for a god, science would test it; if the tests supported the scientific evidence for a god, atheists would consider accepting it.
lol i love it when matt is confronted with comically flawed arguments
This guy called from Bethlehem.
Probability.... That word, i don't think it means what you think it means.
Even fundamental physics concepts taught in first semester non-calculus physics, seemingly so simple, often surprise even good students with their implications. To make a claim that something seems more likely is far from sufficient. The rationale for that likelihood should be written out and scrutinized carefully if one wishes to advance understanding.
How did god create himself ?
14:56 What?