Good point. On one hand, I can’t blame them for trying their hand at various techniques to manipulate the emotions of their “flock“, as even Hitler understood a great deal about how to effectively play upon the feelings of his followers through public speaking, but at the same time it does imply to me that the need to use those techniques - at all - could reveal that they know, and understand deep down that their arguments (and facts themselves) do not support the conclusion that their God exists.
It has always confounded me how believers do not grasp the concept that if there truly were a god, why would that god be a jealous god? This god is supposedly all knowing and all powerful and essentially perfect. If one assumes that, then why would that god feel the need to be worshipped and punish those who do not. Or even create beings that are imperfect and/or would not follow his commands? And why doesn't he intervene when bad things are happening or about to happen? Or prevent it from happening. As I sit here typing, somewhere in the world multiple underage girls are being raped. Where is this god to stop that? The only reason that the god of the bible is jealous is because god is a human construct and human beings are jealous and get angry, etc. The writers of these fables were human beings so they created a character that is reflective of human beings and who feels the emotions of human beings. How believers cannot grasp that I will never understand.
@@gmh471 My EXACT thoughts! Couldn't have said it better! This is what led me out of Christianity. I rather join "hell" than worshipping a god like this. It sickens me just thinking about it.
No and yes. Yes for yeah probably but no because I don't know nor do I even remember a slightest thing that happened to me the moment I was born, let alone say billions of years before my very birth or my very bubbly jubbly existence
@@matthewmanucci you mean, religious people believe in fairytales? Is that what you truly mean? Lets just put it blunt here, if the Bible was never written, no human would be talking about things that aren't real one bit, you only believe because of a book....... called the Bible. I know for a fact that nothing happens after brain death occurs, just eternal oblivion
@Bob Smith near death experience SCIENCE?? The only times it's been scientifically tested the floating souls haven't seen the messages left visible from above. If they were indicative of afterlife then there's plenty of different afterlifes available, few if any that correspond with the streets of gold mentioned in the bible. In reality of course the fact that it's more likely to be described like traditional ideas and scenes from movies can be easily explained and also goes to show how few "christians" read a bible!
@Bob Smith regardless if religious or atheist trying to predict how someone will proceed with a conversation is a dick move. I notice you didn't answer the stuff about contradictory afterlifes between experiences, religions and religious book descriptions which I think would be important if determining an afterlife as knowing which one and how to get there would surely be the most useful result of this kind of study. Also if those experiencing floating above their body never pay attention to anything else that could make it unfalsifiable unless the messages are placed on the person themselves after they were unconscious
2022: boys can be girls & girls can be boys The Bible: he made them male & female. Truth is unchanging because it’s from the unchanging, eternal, creator God. Truth doesn’t come from man who changes with the times & currently denies basic biology. Our world is on fire because we reject God.
@@phillipmoore9012 Nice dodge. You have no answer to this question so you call it "babble". Tell me, in a materialistic universe, where your thoughts and my thoughts are nothing more than random firings of neurons and chemical fizz in the meat machine we call a brain, where do you get truth? And how could you know it to be true? The very second you attempt to answer the question you've forfeited your own position. I wont hold my breath that you'll understand that, though.
I really tried to watch the whole debate, but Joe is the type of religidiot who tries to redefine things that are already defined. He comes across as a very unhappy, mean spirited person, and actually embodies everything that is wrong with religion today. Kudos to Mr. Barker for putting up with him.
Joe Boot's entire argument was based upon personal feelings and beliefs which are impossible to verify as being valid in any shape or form. He consistently made presuppositions to support his personal beliefs but presented nothing to validate those presuppositions. He presented a collection of rehashed tired old arguments which have all been presented by theism for centuries, all of them have all been debunked so many times before it made his entire argument null and void.
I read some of these comments and thought that maybe Boot did "win" the debate. What I'm finding after 10 minutes is that Boot is making all sorts of assumptions with no cogent argument. It's all emotional appeal and sound and fury signifying nothing. He is clearly afraid of death and who isn't sometimes. Some of us are just more honest and are not willing to believe fairytales without evidence as a defense against that fear.
"It was more important for god to create you than to not create you". How does that address the question of why did he create endless suffering of innocents?
It is very difficult to take a person seriously who has doubts about the theory of evolution (for which there is a stack of supporting evidence) but instead prefers to believe a Bronze Age book (for which there is zero supporting evidence). The more I listen to the religious try to make their case, the more I believe that the Internet is going to deal religion a massive blow in the next 50 years.
It's good that there are secular vs religious debates on the internet. Before there was an internet young people, in religious families, had no instruction except what they got from their parents and church. Now they can get a variety of viewpoints and decide for themselves what is true and what is fiction. 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Every time I listen to Religion vs Atheist debates I always find myself wondering just WTH was the Religious debater talking about🤔!?!? Then when Dan, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss or some other well versed on the topic Atheist speaks Coherency, Logic, and Normalcy sets in and I get a clear and sound understanding of what’s being said. Listening to Dan after the Religious guy was like being rescued from the Twilight Zone and brought back down to Earth.
I was once a Christian and the more I listen to people like Rev. Joe Boot. is the reason why Christianity. is it so full of BS. God has his so-called heaven, and God's personal torture chamber. Rev. Boot after life death is so damn sick.
I seriously doubt you were ever a Christian. Your lack of understanding, or wanting to bother to understand suggests to me that you were exposed to Christianity, probably went to church but didn't like the idea of having to live a certain way that countered your own will.
Soaptoaster Yeah, I don't like the idea of living a certain way that counters my will either. The god of the bible supports rape, slavery, genocide, misogyny, racism, and homophobia. All of those things are against my own will, so I discarded that horrible book. Dionysus on the other hand, is someone I would totally hang out with. Both gods have equal footing as far as credibility or evidence goes, though. :D
Again, I find this so interesting. All these red herring issues you have brought up show you really have not bothered to take 2 seconds to dig just a bit deeper and simply thrown up these weak objections and walk away. With the most minimal research, one would find out quickly the bible is in fact ANTI-slavery, never condoned rape, has no misogyny, racism or homophobia. What surprises me most is you speak of these things as if you have a moral outrage against these things as if there are evil and good in this world, like the world "ought" to be governed by certain things that are objectively right and wrong. But in the atheist/agnostic worldview, there is absolutely NO objective grounds for holding these views. They are simply YOUR own personal opinion and absolutely nothing more. But you cry out about this as though these are grave injustices that offend all of humanity. Do you see the self-contradicting argument you are making. You are sawing off the very branch you sit on. But you stated it clearly, you have your own will, and you want to do things YOUR way and that's it. This is the essence of the fall of humanity in a nutshell. Thanks for helping illustrate this so clearly. And for the record, picking slavery for example. This tired old argument that people heard somewhere and try to throw out like it has credibility has always been incorrect. For the record this argument is wrong from the outset as it tries to equate “slavery” in the ancient nation of Israel with the African slavery of America and Europe, when the facts show that these two forms of slavery were nothing alike whatsoever. Slavery in ancient Israel was voluntary, not racist and done as a way for a man to provide for his family. If a person was in financial debt to another, the debt could be paid off by becoming a servant in the household of a wealthy landowner. Famines, droughts or marauders could bring financial ruin to a lesser off family and thus "slavery" allowed the family to have security and safety by “selling onseself” as a servant.. It was a purely financial arrangement. Once the debt was paid, the slave was free to go. The debt could even be paid by a “kinsman redeemer” ( a relative of the slave who had enough money) Have a great day.
Haha. You know that you're morally bankrupt whenever you stand up for slavery… you really have no idea how ignorant you sound, do you? And god very much did condone slavery and rape. I suggest reading the bible if you don't know this. Slavery was justified by the bible for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Well, these are not new questions. So the question really comes back to you, what do you do with the information that is provided to you? What if your answer is sufficiently replied to...then what? Do you shrug and say, well God doesn't exist anyway or do you say, well I do believe in God but now this aspect makes more sense, I'm interested to learn more. Ask yourself ultimately, why you're asking. Are yiou admitting that there may be inviolable moral laws? How can there be moral laws without a moral lawgiver? In other words, your question isn't about atheism or disbelief, but what kind of God does exist. In the meantime, here's a response to you to begin with: www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2009/06/did-god-commit-genocide-in-the-bible/
I hate it when people simply claim things as fact. Joe boot is argument from ignorance incarnate. At the end of each of his little sentences, simply ask him to produce his claim. Keep these little shites accountable for what they are trying to get away.
The churches habit of calling preachers "Reverend" clearly shows what they truly think of their "Flocks of Sheep". Let's face facts: There is little or nothing to revere about the preachers!
I will save the viewer a lot of time: the Rev. Joe Boot's argument is this: "I believe there is life after death because I believe there is a god who has the attributes that I say he does." That is his "argument". Nothing but a statement of his religious belief. He believes what he believes. It is a waste of time to listen to Joe Boot.
For many years now I have asked a simple question. It begins with the observation that hundreds of authors lived the broad vicinity of the Jesus as contemporaries. HUNDREDS!, I have looked up forty Roman’s who actually lived in Rome. FORTY! What about all those of other countries and cities. Hundreds of educated men who were both voluble writers of whose works are available today and incredibly interested in the world around them. Of whom we have actual tangible evidence of their existence. Not just testimonial evidence, second, third or fourth hand. Yet, and YET NO MENTION OF THE JESUS IS UTTERED! Not a single burp. Isn’t this at least curious. That is my question. Cheers Mike
A living man telling me there is life after death is like a scientist in a lab saying experiment subjects don't suffer. They haven't been in the position of the sufferer and they cannot possibly know how the subjects feel.
Boot seems pretty pissy during the question and answer period, but I can see why. He's defending his erroneous belief system because he must. Otherwise, he might have to admit that this is the only life we've got and that scares the shit out of him. He's also defending his livelihood, the money-grubbing charlatan.
"is there a destiny beyond this life" - oh come on, how should I know? I don't THINK there is.. but I don't really know. AND neither do you. The main difference between you and I is that I don't PRETEND to know what I can't possibly know. That's arrogant and completely illogical. GET REAL.
Man it would be difficult to debate this guy (Boot). In just ten minutes he has coined several phrases that are total BS. I don't even know where I would start with him.
@@mikerodgers7620there sure is life after everybody's death untill all lifeforms will become extinct! And it is preposterous to believe that only the species of big apes called the Homosapiens are able to survive their own death by going to an imaginary hell or heaven just because they developed a bigger brain and frontal lobe by the process called evolution! Absurdity squared!
This Joe Boot character is an absolute clown. He should have done more science & not as much religious studies then he wouldn't have so many stupid questions to ask.
"No physicist or scientist can define what energy is, hence energy = God" - If that is not the exact description of the God of the gaps, I don't know what else can be. What Joe Boot doesn't realize (yet) is that he has opened the door for someone to come and explain what energy is (sometime in the future), which will then drive religious people to try and find something else that is yet to be explained to call God. 21st folks, and we are still having these type of discussions, some "smart race" we are.
Isaiah 45:7 says God created EVIL. He doesn't just allow it, he created it. Therefore, according to the author of the Isaiah, if God exists, he is responsible for everything Evil. That includes slavery, rape, genocide, misogyny, torture, Satan, etc. If you can't create something from nothing, then if God created evil and humans that are sinful, it means that God has evil inside him and is sinful.
49:50 If humans evolved to be social creatures, it is an inherited trait for us to care about each other. Since we are sentient and can think about complex concepts, we can think about and discuss what is in our best interest. If we can agree on a goal (such as maximizing well being), we can discuss actions that we think will get us closer to that goal. That doesn't mean we'll be correct every time. But we will be able to learn from our mistakes and hopefully make better decisions in the future.
I understand that the "theory" of gravity may also be proven wrong just as Joe thinks the "theory" of evolution has been. Evidence for evolution is overwhelming including many examples of intermediate fossils.
"dont do harm, do good." hitler thought he was doing good - if you are going around killing a whole lot of people, its doing harm. Hitler was a very evil man. His "good" wasn't. Killing people usually isn't considered not doing harm. This is the real world. In the real world, most people can tell what constitutes harm. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to say, and people need to debate the relative merits of an action. Most SANE people, however, would not say Hitler was doing "good". GET REAL
Agree. Joe is brilliant and an extremely articulate communicator. It was almost sad watching Dan try to keep up with him but was unable to grasp what Joe was saying.
"I'm happy to hear what belief you hold to be true. what us our origin? thoughts, theories, or do you care? " - what us our origin? . nobody knows, - Thoughts? - well, a lot of my thoughts are actually my own. I think them in my brain. - Theories? - well, the best theories are from science. I don't presume to know what I don't actually know. - Morality? - that's pretty easy. Don't do harm, do good. - objective right or wrong? - don't think there's an objective anything much. Especially morality
Why did Joe look upon Dan's gift of coffee with childlike suspicion? He examined it like he had never seen such a thing before and then tucked it away out of sight.
Science DID refute intelligent design, many times... And science doesn't need to disprove god, it's the other way around, if you say that god exist, YOU have to prove he exist !
Yes, I am an atheist. However, I don't want to argue indefinitely - particularly as you come across as a decent, rational person who is not constantly quoting passages from the Bible. It's the wild-eyed fundamentalists who drive me crazy. No, I don't believe that life has a meaning - apart from our main biological task of reproducing before we expire. However, as I'm sure you have heard stated before, each of us have to give meaning to our own lives.
I believe Boot did give Barker a definition of a spirit before 1:21:11, and yes this is a worldview issue. Barker will only accept a "material" definition for something as Boot says is "immaterial". Of course you won't accept the definition because according to his worldview, there is no immaterial.
"So, yes, I did in fact do what you accuse me of not doing. Why are you so mad?" - id rather use the word "angry" instead of "mad". I'm only angry at religious people when they try to impose their ideas on others. Something they are extremely good at. I am still unconvinced that you searched for truth from "atheism to Buddhism". A, B and C. You don't show a very good grasp of what atheism IS, so I hardly consider you made an objective search. Ive just heard too many theistic lies in TH-cam.
"intelligent design is self evident and one doesn't need to be a scientists to see the fingerprints of God." - ohh that's right, how could I ever forget that ID is self EVIDENT. Your right, no use having evidence, it's already evident enough. Why would we ever want to use science? Whenever it comes to your beliefs, we should just refer to your wisdom. You say its self evident so that wraps it up for me. I now believe in ID. There must be lots of self evident things you believe in, preach on.
"by posting here, are you not doing something similar?" - By posting here I am voicing my opposition to theocracy. I don't care what nonsense you believe in. I won't enable you in your delusion that religious superstitions make any logical sense. When you call atheism a world view, you show a remarkable lack of insight as to what atheism is. You rejected something you don't understand. And you don't understand science, either. So I can't trust your "research" at all.
You have to wonder if these public speaking theists really believe what they are saying. Then he mentioned he has a family. What else can he do for a living to shelter, feed, and clothe them? Can you imagine when religion dies out? You think our unemployment rate is bad now? Holy crap (pun intended), all these child molesters would be jobless.
Soaptoaster To a different degree it is. A ripe tomato is red, this is a truth that is observable, but still relative in a sense. Being gay is not evil, this is a moral idea and so is harder to observe, even though to most people it is still quite obvious.
2+2 = 4 is objectively true, nothing relative about that. The only reason I included that is to add to your tomato example. Objective truths do exist, laws and logic and such. However we are talking about morality and moral relativism. What I find interesting is that to truly hold to this view (what you think is obvious) is that you have literally cease arguing with me because in the end, you are saying there is no 'objective' truth, right or wrong, moral or immoral. It's relative. What is right for you is not right for someone else. You use gay not being evil as an example. I say that if there is no truth or moral rightness, then you really shouldn't ever care to argue about being 'right' about any one particular moral view because ultimately, there is no ONE correct way. So, you're own argument falls on it's own sword. It's self-defeating.
Soaptoaster The point of my example is, that as we live our lives, we need to make up morals that seem logical for the betterment of society. Sometimes things change and therefor morals need to change too. In the past if there was a crazy killer, the only way to make sure your community is safe is to kiil him, that was a seemingly moral choice. Now we have the facilities to lock him up, re-educate him. In this changed situation, morals also change, killing him in this case is rather immoral. In the end, all morals are just a consensus that people make together. There is never a 100% right answer to moral questions because morals are only in our heads, not by divine design, but by human design and compromise.
Soaptoaster It is a fact that no objective morality can exist for a theist as his morality hinges on god. God is a subject and so it is gods subjective morality. Not to mention that one day god orders to murder people because he likes to or he does it himself and on the oher he says don´t murder, but only if it is not a disobedient children as then you have to murder it. This is the law of god.
"Since there is no purpose there is no design..Designed to acomplish what?" - whenever they get stumped they say ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh god works in mysterious ways,
I am an atheist and have been so for decades. I follow no religion, I do not believe in a creator of the Universe. I was in China in 2001 when I had a dream my grandmother had died. She was sitting on a white bench and told me that she had passed. She told me that she didn't want me to worry. I called home and was lied to by my mother and girlfriend. The following evening I had the same dream, but when I called home they lied to me again. I suspected that something was wrong, so I pressed my girlfriend who broke down crying to tell me that my grandmother died the previous day. When I got home two weeks later, I found out that my grandmother had died around 1pm. I was told that the last thing she said before she passed was that she asked for me by name.
Dan was not asking Joe to describe a god. He asked Joe to describe what a spirit is without saying what it isn't. The argument over definition was over how different religions define "god." God is one concept of a spirit but the word spirit has been applied to humans, angels, demons, nature, gods, etc. His question still stands. If I, as a person, am both physical and spiritual then describe what my "spirit" is. Dan should have corrected Joe and restated his question.
Driving to this debate, the pastor had a serious car accident and almost died. The audience had to wait for him. Why did his god did that to him, and to the audience?
Joe defined and answered Dan barker about six times about the definition of spirit and he could not grasp what Joe was talking about. After awhile, you begin to feel bad for Joe, who's essentially playing chess with a guy who only knows how to play checkers, yet the guy who loves checkers gets frustrated at the chess player.
Hi Lily, would love to hear your thoughts on what caused you to adopt another system of faith like atheism? In the world of atheism and believing as you might, that our world came about as a spectacular accident, then there really is no truth per se, it is all arbitrary. So since there was no 'intentionality' as to why humans have consicousness or why we exist at all, what makes think there is any such thing as truth, love or kindness? Aren't these all relativistic concepts?Hope to hear from u.
Anyone ever got general anesthesia before an operation? It's not like sleep. Your conscious awareness is completely shut down; you have no sense even of time passing. Six hours passes by in a blink of an eye. This is a strong indicator that what we call consciousness is tied to the biochemical activities of the brain. If anesthetizing part of the brain shuts off consciousness completely, what then when the physical brain shuts down permanently (IE, death)? Seems logical that everything we call consciousness (the soul as it were) also gets wiped out permanently.
The idea that mind "just exists" is more parsimonious than the idea that mind emerges from the activities of non-conscious bits of matter that also "just exist". I think the idealists have it right - there is no reason to assume the existence of anything beyond mind. If mind is fundamental, then there is no reason to believe that mind ceases to exist with the death of the body. By Occam's Razor, the idea that consciousness continues beyond death is the most logical default position.
No, because for the mind to exist without the brain, you need a mechanism. Otherwise, you are appealing to magic. So what is the mechanism that makes a mind possible without a brain, and how do you know it’s parsimonious? You don’t really. It’s cheating to say that God or brainless minds are parsimonious. Just because you can say those things in a small number of words doesn’t make them parsimonious. Any such God or mind would have to be extremely complicated. You posit nothing about their mechanisms, so you can say nothing about their parsimony, except this: for them to be true, you’d have to make more assumptions than for the alternative interpretation, and that’s the opposite of Occam’s razor. You’re confusing minimal with parsimonious. Parsimony involves making as few assumptions as possible. A simple explanation requiring many new assumptions is not parsimonious (example new assumption: there are elements of the mind’s existence that are completely undetectable to us). I don’t have to assume that minds and brains are connected. I can see it on an MRI. You are asking me to make a new assumptions, so you are doing Occam’s razor wrong.
@@lebojay Outside of proposing an infinite chain of imaginary entities, all positions have what is known as an ontological primitive, which is simply that which exists without explanation. To say that mind "just exists" without explanation is no more magical than to say that a physical universe "just exists" without explanation. If anything, the idea that mind magically pops into existence when non-conscious bits of matter reach a critical threshold of complexity in otherwise non-conscious systems is the appeal to magic. The existence of subjective experience is the direct fact of existence. There is something it is like to be me, therefore subjective experience exists. This is beyond contestation. Thus, if all things can be explained categorically in terms of what we already know to exist (mentality), then that is obviously more parsimonious than an explanation that requires the assumption of a new category of stuff that can never be known to exist (the physical). This is true for the same reason why explaining the magic trick of a magician in terms of a complicated series of hidden actions that obey the known laws of physics is more parsimonious than proposing actual magic. The proposition of a new force outside of what we already know to exist makes actual magic the less parsimonious position. *_"You posit nothing about their mechanisms"_* Idealism requires no such mechanisms. Only physical explanations for mind require complex physical mechanisms. Idealism has the reverse problem -- the so-called decomposition problem, which is addressed through the concept of dissociation. *_"You’re confusing minimal with parsimonious. Parsimony involves making as few assumptions as possible."_* No, I am not. In fact, it's the opposite! The mainstream physicalist must assume a new category of stuff that we do not know to exist (the physical). From there, they explain what we do know to exist (mentality) as a magically emergent property of complexity in their assumed "stuff". That is _actually_ less parsimonious than explaining all things in terms of the category that we already directly know to exist (mentality). *_"I don’t have to assume that minds and brains are connected. I can see it on an MRI."_* What you can see on an MRI no more favors the physicalist idea that mind pops into existence as a result of brain activity than it does the idealist position that your biology is the extrinsic appearance of your dissociated perspective in mind-at-large.
Jordan Hartley That is exactly what I think too. Or maybe we existed just like some type of energy without any thoughts just waiting to be rebirth. I am just speculating, WE know nothing.
***** I would submit that we DO know some things for certain by and through revelation from the God of the Bible who created all things. One of the things that is known for certain is that we begin our existence by the eternal decree of God at conception. consider Psalm 139:13-16 "13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them." Jesus the Creator and unique Son of God was the only Person who existed before His earthly existence because He is the Eternal, uncreated God who took on human flesh to live a perfect life and bear the punishment we deserve for our sins against God. (Romans 5:8)
Jordan Hartley Well that is what the bible says just like the Holy Quran states, but that is not evidence. We need real personal evidence not from what our parents or society taught us. All religions came from man's imagination. Imagination is not always an illusion but it comes from man's creative Mind or thoughts. Jesus the Creator and unique Son of God was the only Person who existed before His earthly existence because He is the Eternal? With all your respect the Man Jesus was not eternal, what was eternal was His "True Self" and we all have a "True Self" inside of us that is eternal and did not have a beginning. There's a lot of things that you do not know yet , so I will leave it right here just the way it is. The reason why I said that the most difficult question to ask is "Where was I before I was born? because this life is an illusion and who we are today is not our Real Self, because our real Self is Eternal. What is Real? Real is permanent, eternal, unchanging that is our Self. Our real Self its exactly how you described Jesus to be, but we are all of that too.
+Inner Being First off, I'd like to know how you know what the nature of man is and what the nature of reality is. In other words, how do you know what is real? I noticed that you said originally that "I am just speculating, WE know nothing." But now you are asserting things as if you DO know something. How do you reconcile that?
Actually, taking a position or "view" whether it is backing or rejecting something, is a view. If you see the world as being an arbitrary collocation of atoms and this entire universe and our earth is an unintended accident, that is your VIEW of the world. Get it? That literally means, worldview. It's not complicated.if u still don't get it try this: Worldview: the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual. Atheism IS a worldview.
48:30 To be specific, Dan said the mind is a function of the brain. We have no evidence that a mind can exist outside a brain. So we can not conclude a mind can exist outside a brain. Once evidence is provided, that conclusion can be revised.
Boot wants to solve every logical problem with God. His reasoning mostly goes something like this: we have problems.. if you invoke a magical being, all problems are solved, therefore, God exists. He doesn't like problems and dilemmas. And in his mind, a simplistic answer that solves everything is better than admitting that he doesn't have an easy answer to very difficult questions. And this is his ONLY real evidence for the existence of God. He needs to have an "answer", so therefore, God.
This is a materialist question. The collapse of the wave function indicates that consciousness is fundamental. Apparent reality is just information. A 3D projection from an 8D crystal.
" - Dr. John Lennox" - yeah, he should have been a poet. He doesn't actually HAVE any evidence. It's all smoke and mirrors with Lennox, nice ones.. he talks nice.. and he has a friendly face... I like him.. full of blarney, though.
The preachers' tactic of raising the volume of the voice does not work with skeptics.
Deepak Chopra is known for raising his voice and for long periods too..🤣
Good point. On one hand, I can’t blame them for trying their hand at various techniques to manipulate the emotions of their “flock“, as even Hitler understood a great deal about how to effectively play upon the feelings of his followers through public speaking, but at the same time it does imply to me that the need to use those techniques - at all - could reveal that they know, and understand deep down that their arguments (and facts themselves) do not support the conclusion that their God exists.
@@B3ARCATand according to Dan that is a very meaningful life.
There is lots of life after death... Just none of it involves the person who died.
well, if they feel more secure to believe it , then it fine to me...as long they don't try to sell me their belief ! :)
There are plenty of examples of people trying to turn their mythological beliefs into legislation. We best oppose them all.
Go to your room! LOL
LOL
Cool statement!
Sorry Reverend it is not easy to play the christian game with one who beliefed in it and played it for dozen of years. Dan Barker rocks!
You sound stupid.
If God really wanted us to choose freely, why all the threats if we didn't choose the right way?
Really good question. I was reading Deuteronomy chapter 28 and 29 and gives you an insight on your question also all chapter 30
It has always confounded me how believers do not grasp the concept that if there truly were a god, why would that god be a jealous god? This god is supposedly all knowing and all powerful and essentially perfect. If one assumes that, then why would that god feel the need to be worshipped and punish those who do not. Or even create beings that are imperfect and/or would not follow his commands? And why doesn't he intervene when bad things are happening or about to happen? Or prevent it from happening. As I sit here typing, somewhere in the world multiple underage girls are being raped. Where is this god to stop that?
The only reason that the god of the bible is jealous is because god is a human construct and human beings are jealous and get angry, etc. The writers of these fables were human beings so they created a character that is reflective of human beings and who feels the emotions of human beings. How believers cannot grasp that I will never understand.
@@gmh471 My EXACT thoughts! Couldn't have said it better! This is what led me out of Christianity. I rather join "hell" than worshipping a god like this. It sickens me just thinking about it.
CAN WE ALL AT LEAST AGREE THAT THERE IS LIFE BEFORE DEATH ?
No and yes. Yes for yeah probably but no because I don't know nor do I even remember a slightest thing that happened to me the moment I was born, let alone say billions of years before my very birth or my very bubbly jubbly existence
Atheists can’t because they believe in fairytales.
@@matthewmanucci you mean, religious people believe in fairytales? Is that what you truly mean? Lets just put it blunt here, if the Bible was never written, no human would be talking about things that aren't real one bit, you only believe because of a book....... called the Bible. I know for a fact that nothing happens after brain death occurs, just eternal oblivion
@Bob Smith near death experience SCIENCE?? The only times it's been scientifically tested the floating souls haven't seen the messages left visible from above.
If they were indicative of afterlife then there's plenty of different afterlifes available, few if any that correspond with the streets of gold mentioned in the bible.
In reality of course the fact that it's more likely to be described like traditional ideas and scenes from movies can be easily explained and also goes to show how few "christians" read a bible!
@Bob Smith regardless if religious or atheist trying to predict how someone will proceed with a conversation is a dick move.
I notice you didn't answer the stuff about contradictory afterlifes between experiences, religions and religious book descriptions which I think would be important if determining an afterlife as knowing which one and how to get there would surely be the most useful result of this kind of study.
Also if those experiencing floating above their body never pay attention to anything else that could make it unfalsifiable unless the messages are placed on the person themselves after they were unconscious
Joe Boots, "That's why 'truth' has collapsed in our age." I think some of Dan's arguments are why 'truth' is becoming more recognized in our age.
What is truth?
2022: boys can be girls & girls can be boys
The Bible: he made them male & female.
Truth is unchanging because it’s from the unchanging, eternal, creator God.
Truth doesn’t come from man who changes with the times & currently denies basic biology.
Our world is on fire because we reject God.
@@sarahd5341 Ah, yes. The Babble. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@@phillipmoore9012 Nice dodge. You have no answer to this question so you call it "babble". Tell me, in a materialistic universe, where your thoughts and my thoughts are nothing more than random firings of neurons and chemical fizz in the meat machine we call a brain, where do you get truth? And how could you know it to be true?
The very second you attempt to answer the question you've forfeited your own position. I wont hold my breath that you'll understand that, though.
@@michaelmannucci8585 Just what I need. More delusional, meaningless "deep thought".
I really tried to watch the whole debate, but Joe is the type of religidiot who tries to redefine things that are already defined. He comes across as a very unhappy, mean spirited person, and actually embodies everything that is wrong with religion today. Kudos to Mr. Barker for putting up with him.
Another nice debate by Dan Barker, his book "Godless" is very good.
Joe Boot's entire argument was based upon personal feelings and beliefs which are impossible to verify as being valid in any shape or form. He consistently made presuppositions to support his personal beliefs but presented nothing to validate those presuppositions. He presented a collection of rehashed tired old arguments which have all been presented by theism for centuries, all of them have all been debunked so many times before it made his entire argument null and void.
Even Christians themselves don't want to die and leave this Earth which is full of suffering to go to God and leave happily eternally.
That's all Christians have. No real proof.
I read some of these comments and thought that maybe Boot did "win" the debate. What I'm finding after 10 minutes is that Boot is making all sorts of assumptions with no cogent argument. It's all emotional appeal and sound and fury signifying nothing. He is clearly afraid of death and who isn't sometimes. Some of us are just more honest and are not willing to believe fairytales without evidence as a defense against that fear.
I find it amazing that we have to debate whether zombies are real.
"It was more important for god to create you than to not create you".
How does that address the question of why did he create endless suffering of innocents?
It is very difficult to take a person seriously who has doubts about the theory of evolution (for which there is a stack of supporting evidence) but instead prefers to believe a Bronze Age book (for which there is zero supporting evidence). The more I listen to the religious try to make their case, the more I believe that the Internet is going to deal religion a massive blow in the next 50 years.
It's good that there are secular vs religious debates on the internet. Before there was an internet young people, in religious families, had no instruction except what they got from their parents and church. Now they can get a variety of viewpoints and decide for themselves what is true and what is fiction. 1 Thessalonians 5:21
So the religious argument all comes down to philosophy? No evidence, so just intellectual and linguistic conundrums?
+mrmanontherock Exactly.
+mrmanontherock who doesnt want evidence and thats like a gazillionth people or more..lol
So how would you prove the existence of logic?
Give me a break.
mrmanontherock
Is that how atheists reason?
Every time I listen to Religion vs Atheist debates I always find myself wondering just WTH was the Religious debater talking
about🤔!?!? Then when Dan, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss or some other well versed on the topic Atheist speaks Coherency, Logic, and Normalcy sets in and I get a clear and sound understanding of what’s being said.
Listening to Dan after the Religious guy was like being rescued from the Twilight Zone and brought back down to Earth.
The mental gymnastics and level of verbal obfuscation to which they go to try to defend primitive bronze age mythology is incredible.
I was once a Christian and the more I listen to people like Rev. Joe Boot. is the reason why Christianity. is it so full of BS. God has his so-called heaven, and God's personal torture chamber. Rev. Boot after life death is so damn sick.
I seriously doubt you were ever a Christian. Your lack of understanding, or wanting to bother to understand suggests to me that you were exposed to Christianity, probably went to church but didn't like the idea of having to live a certain way that countered your own will.
Soaptoaster Yeah, I don't like the idea of living a certain way that counters my will either. The god of the bible supports rape, slavery, genocide, misogyny, racism, and homophobia. All of those things are against my own will, so I discarded that horrible book. Dionysus on the other hand, is someone I would totally hang out with. Both gods have equal footing as far as credibility or evidence goes, though. :D
Again, I find this so interesting. All these red herring issues you have brought up show you really have not bothered to take 2 seconds to dig just a bit deeper and simply thrown up these weak objections and walk away. With the most minimal research, one would find out quickly the bible is in fact ANTI-slavery, never condoned rape, has no misogyny, racism or homophobia. What surprises me most is you speak of these things as if you have a moral outrage against these things as if there are evil and good in this world, like the world "ought" to be governed by certain things that are objectively right and wrong. But in the atheist/agnostic worldview, there is absolutely NO objective grounds for holding these views. They are simply YOUR own personal opinion and absolutely nothing more. But you cry out about this as though these are grave injustices that offend all of humanity. Do you see the self-contradicting argument you are making. You are sawing off the very branch you sit on. But you stated it clearly, you have your own will, and you want to do things YOUR way and that's it. This is the essence of the fall of humanity in a nutshell. Thanks for helping illustrate this so clearly. And for the record, picking slavery for example. This tired old argument that people heard somewhere and try to throw out like it has credibility has always been incorrect.
For the record this argument is wrong from the outset as it tries to equate “slavery” in the ancient nation of Israel with the African slavery of America and Europe, when the facts show that these two forms of slavery were nothing alike whatsoever. Slavery in ancient Israel was voluntary, not racist and done as a way for a man to provide for his family. If a person was in financial debt to another, the debt could be paid off by becoming a servant in the household of a wealthy landowner. Famines, droughts or marauders could bring financial ruin to a lesser off family and thus "slavery" allowed the family to have security and safety by “selling onseself” as a servant.. It was a purely financial arrangement. Once the debt was paid, the slave was free to go. The debt could even be paid by a “kinsman redeemer” ( a relative of the slave who had enough money)
Have a great day.
Haha. You know that you're morally bankrupt whenever you stand up for slavery… you really have no idea how ignorant you sound, do you?
And god very much did condone slavery and rape. I suggest reading the bible if you don't know this. Slavery was justified by the bible for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Well, these are not new questions. So the question really comes back to you, what do you do with the information that is provided to you? What if your answer is sufficiently replied to...then what? Do you shrug and say, well God doesn't exist anyway or do you say, well I do believe in God but now this aspect makes more sense, I'm interested to learn more. Ask yourself ultimately, why you're asking. Are yiou admitting that there may be inviolable moral laws? How can there be moral laws without a moral lawgiver? In other words, your question isn't about atheism or disbelief, but what kind of God does exist. In the meantime, here's a response to you to begin with: www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2009/06/did-god-commit-genocide-in-the-bible/
I hate it when people simply claim things as fact. Joe boot is argument from ignorance incarnate.
At the end of each of his little sentences, simply ask him to produce his claim. Keep these little shites accountable for what they are trying to get away.
TLDR: Joe makes stuff up.
Hey Dr. Joe - shouting doesn't make your position more sensible - It just makes you sounds desperate.
The churches habit of calling preachers "Reverend" clearly shows what they truly think of their "Flocks of Sheep".
Let's face facts:
There is little or nothing to revere about the preachers!
Can''t believe I'm finding this almost a year later after I missed this debate! Good lookin' out U.W.A.
I will save the viewer a lot of time: the Rev. Joe Boot's argument is this: "I believe there is life after death because I believe there is a god who has the attributes that I say he does." That is his "argument". Nothing but a statement of his religious belief. He believes what he believes. It is a waste of time to listen to Joe Boot.
He's utterly pathetic isn't he...
Boot gets schooled and doesn't know it. The logic of this Christian is particularly askew and that's saying something.
For many years now I have asked a simple question. It begins with the observation that hundreds of authors lived the broad vicinity of the Jesus as contemporaries. HUNDREDS!, I have looked up forty Roman’s who actually lived in Rome. FORTY! What about all those of other countries and cities. Hundreds of educated men who were both voluble writers of whose works are available today and incredibly interested in the world around them. Of whom we have actual tangible evidence of their existence. Not just testimonial evidence, second, third or fourth hand. Yet, and YET NO MENTION OF THE JESUS IS UTTERED! Not a single burp. Isn’t this at least curious. That is my question. Cheers Mike
Yes, we really appreciate his hard work. He had to fix a lot of sound problems that the tech crew did not notice :)
A living man telling me there is life after death is like a scientist in a lab saying experiment subjects don't suffer. They haven't been in the position of the sufferer and they cannot possibly know how the subjects feel.
If i weren't born, i wouldn't have to worry about this.
Exactly and we both won't have to worry once we're dead
Alec Daniel oh yes you will.
@@matthewmanucci oh no I won't, death is brain death, no electrical activity, means no consciousness......... probably anyways
Exactly, hence a reason for anti natalism
Oh man, the reverend's second go was just a facepalm after facepalm.
"Maybe god *IS* evil...." (The pastor pauses for several seconds. Never considered THAT option before, did ya, pastor?)
"Rev." Joe just got Booted!
prolucifer Barker just got Booted*
Boot seems pretty pissy during the question and answer period, but I can see why. He's defending his erroneous belief system because he must. Otherwise, he might have to admit that this is the only life we've got and that scares the shit out of him. He's also defending his livelihood, the money-grubbing charlatan.
Did anybody tell Mr. Boot and the questioners what the topic was?
"is there a destiny beyond this life"
- oh come on, how should I know? I don't THINK there is.. but I don't really know. AND neither do you. The main difference between you and I is that I don't PRETEND to know what I can't possibly know. That's arrogant and completely illogical. GET REAL.
If there is no meaning OF the universe, then any assignment of meaning with IN the universe is both fickle and arbitrary.
Man it would be difficult to debate this guy (Boot). In just ten minutes he has coined several phrases that are total BS. I don't even know where I would start with him.
This is the only life we can count on; why waste a second in contemplation of things that are not.
This was painful . Rev used the same dishonest tactic s as others apologists .
Life after death ... isn't that basically an oxymoron?
Atheism is an oxymoron.
@@mikerodgers7620there sure is life after everybody's death untill all lifeforms will become extinct! And it is preposterous to believe that only the species of big apes called the Homosapiens are able to survive their own death by going to an imaginary hell or heaven just because they developed a bigger brain and frontal lobe by the process called evolution! Absurdity squared!
This Joe Boot character is an absolute clown. He should have done more science & not as much religious studies then he wouldn't have so many stupid questions to ask.
Rev. Boot closes with, "Unless there is a soul there is no rationality." Rev. Boot's opening didn't seem to rational to me. Maybe there isn't a soul.
Dan Barker got a good kicking from Boot in this one...
When did that happen. Boot did lots of talking but I didn't hear much evidence of life after death
"No physicist or scientist can define what energy is, hence energy = God" - If that is not the exact description of the God of the gaps, I don't know what else can be. What Joe Boot doesn't realize (yet) is that he has opened the door for someone to come and explain what energy is (sometime in the future), which will then drive religious people to try and find something else that is yet to be explained to call God. 21st folks, and we are still having these type of discussions, some "smart race" we are.
Isaiah 45:7 says God created EVIL. He doesn't just allow it, he created it. Therefore, according to the author of the Isaiah, if God exists, he is responsible for everything Evil. That includes slavery, rape, genocide, misogyny, torture, Satan, etc.
If you can't create something from nothing, then if God created evil and humans that are sinful, it means that God has evil inside him and is sinful.
Not having sex is a sex position not golfing is a hobby not beliefing in the flying spaghettimonster is a belief.
"dont pile assumption upon assumption"
- I agree. But then they wouldn't have much of a religion.
Wow, the editor was right on making this video.
He did a nice job on the sound...
And the encoding to 1080p was just a bonus...
Do the right thing and bow down to you lord an savior... THE GREAT SQUID
FTHAGN!!😁🙌🏻
This should be like visiting his old grade school playground for Dan Barker. Now I shall sit back with my fresh coffee and enjoy this.
Barker was completely demolished but he (and apparently the atheists in the comment sections) are unable to comprehend it.
49:50
If humans evolved to be social creatures, it is an inherited trait for us to care about each other.
Since we are sentient and can think about complex concepts, we can think about and discuss what is in our best interest.
If we can agree on a goal (such as maximizing well being), we can discuss actions that we think will get us closer to that goal.
That doesn't mean we'll be correct every time.
But we will be able to learn from our mistakes and hopefully make better decisions in the future.
Joe Boot seems angry in the debate, as if he is ready to attack Dan Barker at any point.
I understand that the "theory" of gravity may also be proven wrong just as Joe thinks the "theory" of evolution has been. Evidence for evolution is overwhelming including many examples of intermediate fossils.
Dan barker - great job.
"dont do harm, do good." hitler thought he was doing good
- if you are going around killing a whole lot of people, its doing harm. Hitler was a very evil man. His "good" wasn't. Killing people usually isn't considered not doing harm. This is the real world. In the real world, most people can tell what constitutes harm. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to say, and people need to debate the relative merits of an action. Most SANE people, however, would not say Hitler was doing "good". GET REAL
Agree. Joe is brilliant and an extremely articulate communicator. It was almost sad watching Dan try to keep up with him but was unable to grasp what Joe was saying.
the funny thing is that neither of these two guys are dead so neither knows for sure.
It's funny how Rev. asks why not just misrepresent Dan's views and then he goes 10mins misrepresenting his views. :D
"I'm happy to hear what belief you hold to be true. what us our origin? thoughts, theories, or do you care? "
- what us our origin? . nobody knows,
- Thoughts? - well, a lot of my thoughts are actually my own. I think them in my brain.
- Theories? - well, the best theories are from science. I don't presume to know what I don't actually know.
- Morality? - that's pretty easy. Don't do harm, do good.
- objective right or wrong? - don't think there's an objective anything much. Especially morality
Why did Joe look upon Dan's gift of coffee with childlike suspicion? He examined it like he had never seen such a thing before and then tucked it away out of sight.
Science DID refute intelligent design, many times... And science doesn't need to disprove god, it's the other way around, if you say that god exist, YOU have to prove he exist !
Yes, I am an atheist. However, I don't want to argue indefinitely - particularly as you come across as a decent, rational person who is not constantly quoting passages from the Bible. It's the wild-eyed fundamentalists who drive me crazy. No, I don't believe that life has a meaning - apart from our main biological task of reproducing before we expire. However, as I'm sure you have heard stated before, each of us have to give meaning to our own lives.
OMG! Boot is an evolution denier. His argument is that Barker wasn't there x million years ago to observe it so it can't be true.
Genius!
I believe Boot did give Barker a definition of a spirit before 1:21:11, and yes this is a worldview issue. Barker will only accept a "material" definition for something as Boot says is "immaterial". Of course you won't accept the definition because according to his worldview, there is no immaterial.
"So, yes, I did in fact do what you accuse me of not doing. Why are you so mad?"
- id rather use the word "angry" instead of "mad". I'm only angry at religious people when they try to impose their ideas on others. Something they are extremely good at. I am still unconvinced that you searched for truth from "atheism to Buddhism". A, B and C.
You don't show a very good grasp of what atheism IS, so I hardly consider you made an objective search. Ive just heard too many theistic lies in TH-cam.
"intelligent design is self evident and one doesn't need to be a scientists to see the fingerprints of God."
- ohh that's right, how could I ever forget that ID is self EVIDENT. Your right, no use having evidence, it's already evident enough. Why would we ever want to use science? Whenever it comes to your beliefs, we should just refer to your wisdom. You say its self evident so that wraps it up for me. I now believe in ID.
There must be lots of self evident things you believe in, preach on.
Lovely debate 🤗🙏
"by posting here, are you not doing something similar?"
- By posting here I am voicing my opposition to theocracy. I don't care what nonsense you believe in. I won't enable you in your delusion that religious superstitions make any logical sense.
When you call atheism a world view, you show a remarkable lack of insight as to what atheism is. You rejected something you don't understand. And you don't understand science, either. So I can't trust your "research" at all.
Atheists: 1) "There is no God." 2) "I hate him."
If an atheist ever says that it'd be in the same context of saying they hate Voldemort, otherwise they wouldn't be an atheist
You have to wonder if these public speaking theists really believe what they are saying. Then he mentioned he has a family. What else can he do for a living to shelter, feed, and clothe them? Can you imagine when religion dies out? You think our unemployment rate is bad now? Holy crap (pun intended), all these child molesters would be jobless.
"There is no objective morality" is not a world view, it's the truth.
What is truth, isn't all truth relative just like you claim with morality? #incoherent
Soaptoaster To a different degree it is.
A ripe tomato is red, this is a truth that is observable, but still relative in a sense.
Being gay is not evil, this is a moral idea and so is harder to observe, even though to most people it is still quite obvious.
2+2 = 4 is objectively true, nothing relative about that. The only reason I included that is to add to your tomato example. Objective truths do exist, laws and logic and such. However we are talking about morality and moral relativism. What I find interesting is that to truly hold to this view (what you think is obvious) is that you have literally cease arguing with me because in the end, you are saying there is no 'objective' truth, right or wrong, moral or immoral. It's relative. What is right for you is not right for someone else. You use gay not being evil as an example. I say that if there is no truth or moral rightness, then you really shouldn't ever care to argue about being 'right' about any one particular moral view because ultimately, there is no ONE correct way. So, you're own argument falls on it's own sword. It's self-defeating.
Soaptoaster The point of my example is, that as we live our lives, we need to make up morals that seem logical for the betterment of society. Sometimes things change and therefor morals need to change too. In the past if there was a crazy killer, the only way to make sure your community is safe is to kiil him, that was a seemingly moral choice. Now we have the facilities to lock him up, re-educate him. In this changed situation, morals also change, killing him in this case is rather immoral.
In the end, all morals are just a consensus that people make together. There is never a 100% right answer to moral questions because morals are only in our heads, not by divine design, but by human design and compromise.
Soaptoaster
It is a fact that no objective morality can exist for a theist as his morality hinges on god. God is a subject and so it is gods subjective morality. Not to mention that one day god orders to murder people because he likes to or he does it himself and on the oher he says don´t murder, but only if it is not a disobedient children as then you have to murder it. This is the law of god.
"Since there is no purpose there is no design..Designed to acomplish what?"
- whenever they get stumped they say ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh god works in mysterious ways,
I am an atheist and have been so for decades. I follow no religion, I do not believe in a creator of the Universe.
I was in China in 2001 when I had a dream my grandmother had died. She was sitting on a white bench and told me that she had passed. She told me that she didn't want me to worry.
I called home and was lied to by my mother and girlfriend.
The following evening I had the same dream, but when I called home they lied to me again.
I suspected that something was wrong, so I pressed my girlfriend who broke down crying to tell me that my grandmother died the previous day.
When I got home two weeks later, I found out that my grandmother had died around 1pm.
I was told that the last thing she said before she passed was that she asked for me by name.
So what?
The Pastor is right. I will not debate, as I have many times, but people do not discuss, they demonstrate hate, as a Christian I will not.
Dan was not asking Joe to describe a god. He asked Joe to describe what a spirit is without saying what it isn't. The argument over definition was over how different religions define "god." God is one concept of a spirit but the word spirit has been applied to humans, angels, demons, nature, gods, etc. His question still stands. If I, as a person, am both physical and spiritual then describe what my "spirit" is. Dan should have corrected Joe and restated his question.
Driving to this debate, the pastor had a serious car accident and almost died. The audience had to wait for him. Why did his god did that to him, and to the audience?
Energy can be measured, it doesn't work as a cop out to the soul question
Digestion functions after death, growth functions after death. On his own assumptions there is "life" after death.
"I sense a lot of anger coming from you. Why?"
- maybe it's projection. I can't answer for your senses.
Joe defined and answered Dan barker about six times about the definition of spirit and he could not grasp what Joe was talking about. After awhile, you begin to feel bad for Joe, who's essentially playing chess with a guy who only knows how to play checkers, yet the guy who loves checkers gets frustrated at the chess player.
Hi Lily, would love to hear your thoughts on what caused you to adopt another system of faith like atheism? In the world of atheism and believing as you might, that our world came about as a spectacular accident, then there really is no truth per se, it is all arbitrary. So since there was no 'intentionality' as to why humans have consicousness or why we exist at all, what makes think there is any such thing as truth, love or kindness? Aren't these all relativistic concepts?Hope to hear from u.
No, but there is death after life.
Anyone ever got general anesthesia before an operation? It's not like sleep. Your conscious awareness is completely shut down; you have no sense even of time passing. Six hours passes by in a blink of an eye. This is a strong indicator that what we call consciousness is tied to the biochemical activities of the brain. If anesthetizing part of the brain shuts off consciousness completely, what then when the physical brain shuts down permanently (IE, death)? Seems logical that everything we call consciousness (the soul as it were) also gets wiped out permanently.
The idea that mind "just exists" is more parsimonious than the idea that mind emerges from the activities of non-conscious bits of matter that also "just exist". I think the idealists have it right - there is no reason to assume the existence of anything beyond mind. If mind is fundamental, then there is no reason to believe that mind ceases to exist with the death of the body. By Occam's Razor, the idea that consciousness continues beyond death is the most logical default position.
No, because for the mind to exist without the brain, you need a mechanism. Otherwise, you are appealing to magic. So what is the mechanism that makes a mind possible without a brain, and how do you know it’s parsimonious? You don’t really.
It’s cheating to say that God or brainless minds are parsimonious. Just because you can say those things in a small number of words doesn’t make them parsimonious. Any such God or mind would have to be extremely complicated. You posit nothing about their mechanisms, so you can say nothing about their parsimony, except this: for them to be true, you’d have to make more assumptions than for the alternative interpretation, and that’s the opposite of Occam’s razor.
You’re confusing minimal with parsimonious. Parsimony involves making as few assumptions as possible. A simple explanation requiring many new assumptions is not parsimonious (example new assumption: there are elements of the mind’s existence that are completely undetectable to us). I don’t have to assume that minds and brains are connected. I can see it on an MRI. You are asking me to make a new assumptions, so you are doing Occam’s razor wrong.
@@lebojay Outside of proposing an infinite chain of imaginary entities, all positions have what is known as an ontological primitive, which is simply that which exists without explanation. To say that mind "just exists" without explanation is no more magical than to say that a physical universe "just exists" without explanation.
If anything, the idea that mind magically pops into existence when non-conscious bits of matter reach a critical threshold of complexity in otherwise non-conscious systems is the appeal to magic.
The existence of subjective experience is the direct fact of existence. There is something it is like to be me, therefore subjective experience exists. This is beyond contestation. Thus, if all things can be explained categorically in terms of what we already know to exist (mentality), then that is obviously more parsimonious than an explanation that requires the assumption of a new category of stuff that can never be known to exist (the physical).
This is true for the same reason why explaining the magic trick of a magician in terms of a complicated series of hidden actions that obey the known laws of physics is more parsimonious than proposing actual magic. The proposition of a new force outside of what we already know to exist makes actual magic the less parsimonious position.
*_"You posit nothing about their mechanisms"_*
Idealism requires no such mechanisms. Only physical explanations for mind require complex physical mechanisms. Idealism has the reverse problem -- the so-called decomposition problem, which is addressed through the concept of dissociation.
*_"You’re confusing minimal with parsimonious. Parsimony involves making as few assumptions as possible."_*
No, I am not. In fact, it's the opposite! The mainstream physicalist must assume a new category of stuff that we do not know to exist (the physical). From there, they explain what we do know to exist (mentality) as a magically emergent property of complexity in their assumed "stuff". That is _actually_ less parsimonious than explaining all things in terms of the category that we already directly know to exist (mentality).
*_"I don’t have to assume that minds and brains are connected. I can see it on an MRI."_*
What you can see on an MRI no more favors the physicalist idea that mind pops into existence as a result of brain activity than it does the idealist position that your biology is the extrinsic appearance of your dissociated perspective in mind-at-large.
My goodness how many times do religious people have to be defeated before they learn?? I have seen endless debates and they end up looking so bad
Even if there are no meaning to what one has received , one can still say thank you , just thank you
I haven't made it to the end yet. I think I was pulled away and forgot to return. I'll try to get in the finale today!
Lol, Joe Boot left the coffee cup on stage after and now I have it. I never ended up getting the free coffee
Theisitic evolution is the god of the gap fitting in as chriatinas can no longer deny the evidence.
I nearly died laughing when the Reverend said that he believes that we live in a "moral universe".
I do not think that the most difficult question about life is if there is Life after death, but rather where was i before i was born?
Existence starts at conception.
Jordan Hartley That is exactly what I think too. Or maybe we existed just like some type of energy without any thoughts just waiting to be rebirth. I am just speculating, WE know nothing.
*****
I would submit that we DO know some things for certain by and through revelation from the God of the Bible who created all things. One of the things that is known for certain is that we begin our existence by the eternal decree of God at conception.
consider Psalm 139:13-16
"13
For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there were none of them."
Jesus the Creator and unique Son of God was the only Person who existed before His earthly existence because He is the Eternal, uncreated God who took on human flesh to live a perfect life and bear the punishment we deserve for our sins against God. (Romans 5:8)
Jordan Hartley Well that is what the bible says just like the Holy Quran states, but that is not evidence. We need real personal evidence not from what our parents or society taught us. All religions came from man's imagination. Imagination is not always an illusion but it comes from man's creative Mind or thoughts.
Jesus the Creator and unique Son of God was the only Person who existed before His earthly existence because He is the Eternal?
With all your respect the Man Jesus was not eternal, what was eternal was His "True Self" and we all have a "True Self" inside of us that is eternal and did not have a beginning. There's a lot of things that you do not know yet , so I will leave it right here just the way it is. The reason why I said that the most difficult question to ask is "Where was I before I was born? because this life is an illusion and who we are today is not our Real Self, because our real Self is Eternal. What is Real? Real is permanent, eternal, unchanging that is our Self. Our real Self its exactly how you described Jesus to be, but we are all of that too.
+Inner Being
First off,
I'd like to know how you know what the nature of man is and what the nature of reality is. In other words, how do you know what is real?
I noticed that you said originally that "I am just speculating, WE know nothing." But now you are asserting things as if you DO know something. How do you reconcile that?
Life after death.The endless virtual reality game.
Actually, taking a position or "view" whether it is backing or rejecting something, is a view. If you see the world as being an arbitrary collocation of atoms and this entire universe and our earth is an unintended accident, that is your VIEW of the world. Get it? That literally means, worldview. It's not complicated.if u still don't get it try this: Worldview: the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual. Atheism IS a worldview.
Dan Barker showcased his ignorance of basic philosophy well.
48:30
To be specific, Dan said the mind is a function of the brain.
We have no evidence that a mind can exist outside a brain.
So we can not conclude a mind can exist outside a brain.
Once evidence is provided, that conclusion can be revised.
This apologectic just got owned
Boot wants to solve every logical problem with God. His reasoning mostly goes something like this: we have problems.. if you invoke a magical being, all problems are solved, therefore, God exists.
He doesn't like problems and dilemmas. And in his mind, a simplistic answer that solves everything is better than admitting that he doesn't have an easy answer to very difficult questions. And this is his ONLY real evidence for the existence of God. He needs to have an "answer", so therefore, God.
This is a materialist question. The collapse of the wave function indicates that consciousness is fundamental. Apparent reality is just information. A 3D projection from an 8D crystal.
Source?
Now there's a stupid boot!
The title is as bad as it gets. By definition, there is no life after death. You may ask is there anything that can persist through death though.
" - Dr. John Lennox"
- yeah, he should have been a poet. He doesn't actually HAVE any evidence. It's all smoke and mirrors with Lennox, nice ones.. he talks nice.. and he has a friendly face... I like him.. full of blarney, though.