I must say that I consider myself a Christian but I am so beyond grateful for you posting these videos. It is important to me to be able to understand where other people come from. And that is what you do. You don't just say you believe something and then end it there. You have a real reason behind that and I completely respect that! Thanks.
@SuperMilton24 Did you grap a video with your smartphone of that earthquake? Did you take a picture of Jesus? Or did it happen in your mind, where it would be indestinguishable from things you dreamed up yourself, and where it would make perfect sense that the characters "knew you by name"?
"[Veritas is] trying to prove the existence of God while you're not trying to prove anything but that we can't know. [...] It is impossible to uproot that kind of non-position." Veritas could always succeed in proving the existence of God. That would do it.
You know, this is ridicious. Veritas is arguing for a position he "doesn't" hold? He's arguing for the existence of a non specific god? This sounds like cherry picking the best possible argument he can come up with.
Hello, I really enjoy your videos explaining your point of view. What are your thoughts on Hinduism, Buddhism, and New age beliefs? I'm interested to hear your response! Thanks!
Yay for being specific about definitions. I'll be talking about in that in my next video. It seems like a huge obstacle preventing people from being able to objectively talk about atheism is the very definitions of atheism. Or rather, the different definitions and connotations people have of what atheism means. Great points.
"So for the sake of DISCUSSION, how can describing yourself as having a lack of belief, be at all meaningful?" I can't believe you're still holding on to this strawman. Nobody is describing THEMSELVES as having a lack of belief. They are describing ATHEISM as a lack of belief. "And Scott, YOU referred to YOURSELF as a metaphysical naturalist, both to me privately and to Noah" Wow, you really didn't watch this video.
Excellent response. I saw his responce to you and interesting as it was I noted he mangled a few things. You sorted them out really well. From 2.35 to 3.14, that is my view exactly. Beautifully stated. You should make that short section into a separate video.
TB, sometimes you allmost make me wish I had a differing view than you just so I could argue with you, because your clarity is in argumentation is like poetry to listen to. Cudos and hurry up and make more videos allready! :)
Noah, AdHoc's point it well made. There's a big difference between making an argument *based* on semantics (leading to equivocation, obfuscation, strawmen, etc.) and making an argument to *expose* the semantics in a given dialogue, which is what I am doing.
@ Breckmin - It is neither a position of belief or non-belief, simply an acknowledgement of what one may actually claim to know. It's not fence sitting and it's not a cop out, it is the default position we find ourselves in when the proposition can not be empirically or rationally vindicated in favour of any given possibility.
Noah, The notion that nature is all there is, is a position I DO hold to. I hold to this position because it would be unreasonable to suppose supernatural phenomena exist, given the absence of evidence for it. It's not impossible, but I have no good reasons to think so. So I live my life assuming there aren't. I do not claim to *know* with certainty, or be able to *prove* that no such phenomena exist. Does this disqualify me from M. Naturalism as you understand it? Yes or No?
1a. Wow! What a mind. I really enjoyed this, Sir. Your capacity to carry on such a long chain of thought impresses me to the point of embarasment. The syllogism you ask atheists about is one I cannot answer as I am not aware of all theistic arguments. I would say all I've encountered fail, but I don't profess to have an encyclopedic knowledge in that regard. When it comes to intelligent design, my problem lies in the idea that how we function was intended. That doesn't even consider...
I am dubious. Also, the verse you quoted brings up an interesting point: Jesus told Satan precisely what you just told me, but from what I understand, Lucifer is still, well, kind of a Satanist. Does it take longer than 30 days to convince ex-archangels?
We're 6 days in, and I have to say, I think you were right. Last night I had a vision of Jesus Christ - at least, I think it was him. He came to me in the guise of the Greek goddess of chaos, Eris, and told me to fight against the forces of Greyface, but thanks to my American upbringing, I recognized it was just Jesus in a guise I could understand. I immediately devoted myself to Discordianism and began worshiping Jesus in the guise of Eris Did you make this happen? Did you send me that vision?
Other than the misspelling of the 2nd notion. I agree with your logical premises of me being an atheist. Nice videos man. Keep it up, ur videos are definitely enough to probably convince some of my friends i have been debating. They are great responses to a lot of the dumb arguments my friends always bring up. (teleological, ontological, etc). They have never used tag before, but i think i'll show them so maybe we can argue it. awesome vids though, keep it up.
Well, I was referring to a previous convo is all. In that convo, HE referred to himself as one, so its not like anyone is pinning that on him against his wishes.
I am an Atheist. The two point proposal is ridiculous. Despite the obvious lack of a positive assertion, non-belief, how does the failure of an argument made to support an idea necessitate the conclusion that such an idea is false? If you think this makes sense then please explain to me how many theistic arguments exist in total. If (1) "Theistic arguments fail" leads to the truism that (2) "no gods of any kind exist", then what is the terminal number for all possible theistic arguments?
agreed 100%. Now you need to address motive, agendas, and the lack of satisfaction that is put in a person's heart that causes them to sit around in a room all day and argue with born-again Christians. Where there is truth there is controversy.
@esca8652 If you're in a suicidal state of mind you're probably experiencing a very strong surge of emotions and in your mind you could have been pressing the knife REALLY hard, but subconsciously your body wasn't pressing at all... it doesn't make much sense to assume that there was divine intervention there, especially in place of more logical explanations. Really, what's more likely to happen? Divine intervention or your body's instinct for self preservation?
@AnotherMasterMind Essentially that belief in God is still "justified" or "warranted" even in the absence of any sufficient reason whatsoever, because theism is an inherently "properly basic" belief. Noah has a video on it, called "Belief without evidence is justified" or something like that. It's really, really, really stupid.
Hmm, from a theist perspective.. "gods creation" and "nature" would be interpreted co-equal. And.. I got a philosophical question for you, do you believe in a deterministic universe? Also, I am curious as to which cosmological theory you most closely align (big bang, open infinite, closed infinite, etc)?
Please - you've implied it in your previous comment. The best way to test if these 'assumptions' are indeed correct is to plot the data itself. There is no reason to believe we should see the distinct pattern solely due to randomness. In a murder trial if several lines of evidence accurately converge to point out a suspect would you just release him?
@benjmann2 - I don't see what your point is regarding the term atheist. TBS's definition is the same one understood by many atheists, born out of necessity in societies where a belief in God was presumed. How this is a waste of time I'm not really sure.
Scott, just a note on Plantinga's proper functionism and how it all works into this discussion: I think what you're getting at at one point in your video is that there's a difference between Noah's *showing* you that God exists and his *knowing* (or, although there is a difference, justifiably believing) that God exists. This is right. Just because Noah knows that God exists, assuming he does for the sake of argument, this doesn't mean he's shown to you or anyone else that he does. [Cont.]
I know, I was the same. It's like when you're deeply in love and cannot possibly imagine splitting up with someone. It seems unthinkable that with such a connection it could ever be broken. Almost absurd. Yet it happens, every single day. Why is this? Because the assumptions are wrong.and deluded, they need to be - you can't begin a marriage affirming statistically that it has a 50% chance of failing. Similarly you cannot be a believer and skeptical.
1) Repentance is a change of heart, a change of one's mind or way of thinking; you don't do the bad things you used to do anymore. I once used to love partying, drinking, lots of women, stealing, etc, but once I came to know JESUS the author & finisher of our faith; I came to learn His word, what He expects me to do & what NOT to do. Things I used to do I do no more, places I used to go I go no more. When you are in CHRIST, old things are passed away & behold all things become NEW. 2 Cor 5:17
I've read the book of Revelation several times while bored in church, and I can think of a few things I've yet to see from John's vision. For one thing, I'm pretty sure the chimera with scorpion tails from Rev 9 haven't shown up yet.
"Wow, theoretical bullshit is exactly what I think of this channel. Starting off the video with an insult, wow, how truly pathetic and arrogant." The fact that you don't see the sheer irony of this comment is amusing.
Some day, Noah will have a conversation. This conversation will be clear and concise. This conversation will contain no misunderstanding. This conversation will have neither participant getting mired in semantics. This will be a miracle. This will prove God. Some day...
Not on epistemical truth, it is simply a rejection of a proposition which cannot be supported, the likes of which are rejected in every part of human discourse, in every part of the world, every day - that this particular rejection is not allowed to occur in the same manner is a shocking inconsistency.
That's really not how I interpret the book. I still see it as him saying that he has not replaced the old laws. Yes Jesus supposively also went against those laws, which is a bit odd. But when has your god ever really consistently acted moral?
"have you read papers/books expounding on metaphysical naturalism?" If you have, maybe you could clarify the issue. Take the causal closure of physics. Is it sufficient that causal closure is a conclusion *about* one's ontology, made virtue of it containing only natural things? Or does the metaphysical naturalist have to make a separate commitment inside their ontology, a kind of negative ontology of things which aren't. Does one imply the other?
@MattAlexWatson A buddhist would say that your experience now is the delusion of the ego, and the dissolution of the ego is genuine experience. I did point out that the experience of this colossal altered state of mind is the "evidence", and I don't think that could be fully understood. Neuroscience isn't "fully" understood, therefore the experience as of now is necessary to glimpse what I'm talking about. If you want more evidence, however, try searching DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Strassman.
I am an Atheist in general regard to its meaning. I also think the requirement to categorize and/or make new/have many labels for these is a little ridiculous in terms of creating arguments which don't have much necessity to get one's point across. If a person does not believe in deities or chooses to not regard anything which does not have empirical evidence, then one can understand that person's position and can go on with something more interesting than labels.
@benjmann2 - 'lack of belief' - 'non-belief', they refer to the same thing, a clearly defined, unambigous position on the proposition of God. A commonly held belief, which, due to a lack of convincing evidence, is rejected by those unwilling to believe something on faith alone. I have never argued it to be anything more or less. The onus falls upon you prove the relevance of 'actions or behaviours' on the legitimate justification of beliefs, otherwise it will be rejected on the same grounds.
And don't forget that Matthew also had this little gem: Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. So not only did Jesus arise, but so did the Saints. So it was pretty much a Zombie movie.
Hmm... Using your terms I believe it would require multiple syllogisms to reach your conclusion. I'd go for 1)theistic arguments are uncompelling 2)uncompelling arguments give me no good reason to change my beliefs 3) therefore: theistic arguments give me no good reason to change my beliefs
FANTASTIC video TBS. I'm an atheist, and I may be an amateur, but that syllogism doesn't look sound to me. Nor is it spelled correctly :p Wouldn't it be better to frame it in terms of justifiable assumptions? Or reasonable positions to hold? The conclusion sounds like a rather 'absolute' truth claim.
There is only one mind I want and that is the mind of JESUS CHRIST, which is my mind to be clean through the words which JESUS CHRIST has spoken unto me. St John 15
I am NOT claiming that I never said that I was a Metaphysical Naturalist. What on earth are you talking about? But I have NEVER indicated, even remotely, that I understand Metaphysical Naturalism to mean that I claim to "know" that no gods exist. You ARE pulling THAT out of your arse. Yes, it's an ontology, because it's *about* what exists and what doesn't. That has NOTHING to do with what I claim to know with certainty and what I don't. (That's called epistemology, remember?)
"The in video question asked me if i could be described by two points that appeared in text on my screen." Except it didn't give you two points and ask if you agreed with them, it asked if you though a given argument composed of one premise and one conclusion was valid (that is, if the conclusion followed logically from the premise).
I was directing it at you. TBS points out the irony of insulting someone and then in the same breath attacking them for using insults. Your understanding amounts to little more than "I am rubber, you are glue!"
@Benjamnn2 - Yes, though it's worth pointing out that a whole range of 'sources' define atheism differently, as such many 'atheists' are no longer identifying themselves with the term, but others such as 'Metaphysical Naturalism', which TBS mentions. Again, actions based on non-belief say nothing about the rationality of the initial statement, and an assumption is no less epistemical than a belief, in fact, in termsof syntax they're literally interchangable.
@Breckmin - Until any one person can demonstrate that either all forms of God or Gods are logically impossible or that at least one form of God does certainly exist we all find ourselves unfavourably prey to the same epistemic uncertainty, in principle. While some people can claim to know, none can corroborate their assertions either for or against the position. Attacking such terminology is ultimately nothing more than obfuscation.
The analogy of relationships is very good. Some become bitter and resentful, apostates can be anti-religion and fervently oppose what they once were. Others look back to it like a high school crush and find it bemusing. Others learn from it, they know what mistakes to avoidand have no ill-feeling towards the ex. The paralells are quite accurate.
Yeah, I'm with Scott - somehow his position has been distorted. I watched V48's video; he says several time 'as a M.N. you claim that you don't BELIEVE in the supernatural'. It's all in that one word, no positive claims, no epistemics, just a view point predicated on a lack of convincing evidence. As an atheist myself, it's the same position I support as to make a positive claim against the existence of God is a fundamentaly unprovable one, which no well versed atheist would ever try to defend.
"Atheists remind the believer of their doubts. Believers cannot stand the discomfort of being reminded of their struggles with unreasonable & irrational concepts." It really depends on the believer. Those who have experience miracles of healing for instance have very little doubt about born-again Christianity being true..but rather sometimes they might doubt whether or not they are compliant. Also, it depends on the age and maturity of the individual believer. I am comfortable to discuss all
@Breckmin - There is no abiguity, either among lexicographers or arm chair philosophers as to the meaning of 'agnosticism'. It's etymology alone points to a clear definition that means 'to not know' or 'without knowledge'. It is the most common epistemical position on God, because it is rationally impossible to know for certain either way. Therefore, it is often a common ground for both theist and atheist positions, stalwart in their ideas, but admitting certain inexorable limits.
I've heard this maxim. What if, on the other hand, every time one does something, the result is different? Now let me clarify here. This question doesn't actually pertain to TBS's video. I'm asking in general. It just occurred to me to wonder this.
"Also how many times must it be said that C14 dating is NOT used to determine the age of the earth." This is incongruous since I never said that dating specific elements is somehow dating the age of the earth. Although I might enjoy debating all of the assumptions behind uranium-238, lead, zircon - meteorites and lunar samples-NOW WHERE have I technically disputed radiometric dating other than to note assumptions of uniformity. Just because I understand the objections does not mean I si
I don't think that syllogism is sound. It would need something like this to be valid: 1a) If arguments for something fail, none of that something of any kind can exist.
That's another problem. The being decided to be deceptive at best in leaving real evidence of his existence behind, and yet is going to eternally punish anyone who doesn't believe in him due to the lack of evidence. That's really messed up.
Let me make my point. We call it a mechanism because that is the best way to understand it. The laws of nature are ordered and apparently designed. If you deny a designer, you deny the design, and if you deny the design you deny the best way to understand reality.
The reason we "distinguish" the "trick" is because science has revealed it for us. After studying the body and the way that it works, we discovered it. And exactly what senses tell you that your mind is telling you your stomach is full even though its not? You smell your own empty stomach? You hear the hollowness? You see the emptyness inside? You put your hand in there and feel around? does a full stomach have a different "taste" then an empty one?
But that's just my point, there is absolutely no situation (not a single one) in which one would use the philosophical definition of "certain" except for a specific discussion about "the inability to be certain about anything". If every discussion about the existence of God is going to be mired with useless epistemological lecturing about the "nature of certainty" then any discussion about the existence of anything becomes pointless. (This is not directed at you of course, I'm just saying.)
My position as an atheist, adapting your dot points, are: 1. Theistic arguments fail; 2. My own investigations come up with nothing to support the existence of a god; 3. The world seems to function as science would predict, and does not indicate a god interfering/ being involved. 4. Therefore, it is quite unlikely that gods exist and I might as well act as though they don't until I see sufficient evidence for the existence of a specific god that can't be explained any other way.
@Veritas48 I think you are making the same mistake about "metaphysical naturalism" as you did earlier with regards to atheism. To be a metaphysical naturalist, one operates under the assumption that nothing supernatural exists. But I am not aware of any precedent that mandates that a person must be 100% certain about this assumption. That said, if Scott were to label himself as an agnostic, metaphysical naturalist, would that address your objection?
theDracolX, To say that the human eye was "designed" is begging the question, as it implies that it was consciously and deliberately planned with a specific purpose in mind (in the way we know a fuel pump was). The complexity and function of the human eye is better explained by the slow, cumulative process of Natural Selection.
This is the beauty of the Grace & Mercy of JESUS CHRIST: if U sin & truly repent from your heart GOD is faithful & just to forgive U of UR sins & cleanse U from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9 If u mess up real bad & ur truly sorry don't u want someone to forgive u and receive u back? Well that's what GOD does He forgives & receives u back into his loving arms. Being good is great but u need JESUS. JESUS says, "I am the Way, the Truth & the Life: no man comes to the Father but by ME." John 14:6
I would disagree with TBS on his argument from the problem of non-belief, in which he argues that the Christian God desires every human being to be saved, which is a false supposition. In the OT, God clearly desired to kill the Amalekites and the Jebusites etc. If TBS were arguing with a Reformed Christian, this wouldn't even come up, given that this is a non-issue within Reformed circle. Although God commands all to repent, God also decrees judgment upon several sinners in the Bible.
@sezjredeemed I am glad you are not depressed any more, I understand completely how you felt, I have been there. But my success story has nothing to do with god. I do have a soft heart for people with depression. I seem to be looking for the signs in other people all the time, because I can help. Alot of people do not even know they are suffering. Continued . . .
@SUPERMILTON: Why would Jesus show YOU, a Christian with very limited resources who can warn no more than a handful of American Christians and heathens, and not show anyone else? Why did Jesus NOT show it to any American Christian weathermen or Christian earthquakeologists, who have the power to warn everyone? Why did Jesus NOT say where it'll be? Does Jesus NOT want everyone to accept him as savior? Did Jesus show you this while asleep or awake? Why did Jesus, not God, show you?
You sure about that? According to your reasoning, trees don't believe in Santa Clause, therefore trees believe Santa Clause doesn't exist. ...Just because "not believing in X" and "believing X doesn't exist" have profound commonalities does not mean they mean exactly the same thing.
At any rate, studies into all the listed areas actually deny design, not infer it, so if we were to approach it with that assumption we'd find our presumptions disproved. This is the problem; theism always makes these vague attempts at levelling the playing field, sophistry that attempts to cojole us into the admission that all view points are valid - 'teach the controversy', 'we have differing world views', 'science doesn't know everything', 'it takes as much faith to be an atheist you know?'.
I think Noah would agree with this, but you'd have to ask him./For many good critiques of Plantinga's epistemology please see "Warrant in Contemporary Epistemology". Perhaps there are fallacies in Plantinga's work. But certainly his work is no trivial matter. His epistemological theory is considered to be one of the main systems on option./Versions of externalism (and Plantinga's theory is externalist) are most popular for almost all epistemologists these days - naturalists or Christian.
Well it's as simple as, if human beings were indeed designed to eat, sleep, travel, breathe, digest, and apprehend our surroundings through sensory perception... then our bodies are not designed optimally for those purposes. If you don't believe we were designed to do those things, then you should ignore this argument. But most theists DO believe that we were created for these things. Just read any "intelligent design" literature.
@ Benjmann2 - What else to atheism describe other than a lack of belief in God? The bone of contention tends to be the assumption that the term is not only a belief position, but an epistemical status denying the existence of God altogether, a claim that carries a burden of proof which cannot be met. Identified athiests realise this and are not trying to say 'there is no God', just that there isn't sufficient evidence to suppose such a thing is true.
I am an agnostic. I was merely trying to point out a flaw in your reasoning. That flaw being that you desired to see scientific proof for a transcendent and ineffible " entity" such as God. You can disbelief in theism if you desire. As I prior mention my intention was not to convert you to believe in God.
just because we can not quantify all of the various levels of information in the genome does NOT mean it is somehow not information. We don't need to quantify all of it in order to know that there IS information...especially when it can be defined at the sequence level. Telomere and centromere positioning and the 3 dimensional structure of the genome in interphase nuclei is yet another level of information (level three - the nuclear level). E.N. Trifonov believes there could be as many as 12 L
Slight quibble, "not believing in X" and "believing X doesn't exist" mean exactly the same thing. In neither case is one discounting the possibility of X's existence or claiming to know that X doesn't exist.
my view of religion is practically identical to yours, and I call myself an athiestic agnostic. Though I don't really know how effective or correct that term really is.
Propositions are deemed unreasonable if there's no evidence for them - why you would believe in something if there is no indication that such a thing may exist, either by logic or by tangible evidence. "Why do you believe in God?" "I have no reason, it is faith." "No reason: unreasonable." It's not a massive leap of understanding to say that belief in something without good reason is unreasonable.
He actually does claim that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, because he is able to demonstrate and support his point. But as he cannot do the same for all forms of God or Gods, he must remain agnostic.
@MattAlexWatson Okay, only this is not a "warm and fuzzy" feeling of the sort that Matt Dillahunty is well-versed in denouncing. What I'm referring to is a phenomenon in consciousness, a colossal altered state of consciousness, an in fact, higher state of consciousness, and NOTa vague or subtle feeling. Alan Watts called it "cosmic consciousness." Wiki that. The evidence is the experience, you see, and there's many ways to induce it, but Terence McKenna's methods seem to be the most efficient.
We understand partical physics, astrophysics, nuclear physics, string theory, and cosmology in mechanistic terms. In other words, we study them as if they were designed and ordered.
i reject them as i have yet to see a supernatural claim that does not require some sort of faith you might have the evidence for your claim and so it isreasonable for you to believe it but unless you can provide me with some way of knowing that what you claim exists how can i accept your conclusion all i have is faith and i cannot operate on that.
You, Sir, are a gift to humanity, and I am in awe of the lethal scythe of your logic. Never stop.
I must say that I consider myself a Christian but I am so beyond grateful for you posting these videos. It is important to me to be able to understand where other people come from. And that is what you do. You don't just say you believe something and then end it there. You have a real reason behind that and I completely respect that! Thanks.
@SuperMilton24 Did you grap a video with your smartphone of that earthquake? Did you take a picture of Jesus? Or did it happen in your mind, where it would be indestinguishable from things you dreamed up yourself, and where it would make perfect sense that the characters "knew you by name"?
i absolutely love you. You're one of the most impressive people ive ever seen. Wish there were more people like you that challenge people's beliefs.
"[Veritas is] trying to prove the existence of God while you're not trying to prove anything but that we can't know. [...] It is impossible to uproot that kind of non-position."
Veritas could always succeed in proving the existence of God. That would do it.
I almost want the God of the bible to be real just to see how the fuck he would rationally answer answers ANY of these questions.
I think that all the time xD
You know, this is ridicious. Veritas is arguing for a position he "doesn't" hold? He's arguing for the existence of a non specific god? This sounds like cherry picking the best possible argument he can come up with.
Hello, I really enjoy your videos explaining your point of view. What are your thoughts on Hinduism, Buddhism, and New age beliefs? I'm interested to hear your response! Thanks!
what video is this a video addressing ? can't find it..
Yay for being specific about definitions. I'll be talking about in that in my next video. It seems like a huge obstacle preventing people from being able to objectively talk about atheism is the very definitions of atheism. Or rather, the different definitions and connotations people have of what atheism means.
Great points.
It's been over 30 days (I gave it a few extra to be sure), and I haven't repented or accepted Jesus. So what was supposed to happen, again?
"So for the sake of DISCUSSION, how can describing yourself as having a lack of belief, be at all meaningful?"
I can't believe you're still holding on to this strawman.
Nobody is describing THEMSELVES as having a lack of belief. They are describing ATHEISM as a lack of belief.
"And Scott, YOU referred to YOURSELF as a metaphysical naturalist, both to me privately and to Noah"
Wow, you really didn't watch this video.
Excellent response. I saw his responce to you and interesting as it was I noted he mangled a few things. You sorted them out really well.
From 2.35 to 3.14, that is my view exactly. Beautifully stated. You should make that short section into a separate video.
TB, sometimes you allmost make me wish I had a differing view than you just so I could argue with you, because your clarity is in argumentation is like poetry to listen to. Cudos and hurry up and make more videos allready! :)
Noah,
AdHoc's point it well made. There's a big difference between making an argument *based* on semantics (leading to equivocation, obfuscation, strawmen, etc.) and making an argument to *expose* the semantics in a given dialogue, which is what I am doing.
I'm really interested to know. Do you outline your videos, or do you just talk about a topic? Either way, awesome job on your work, man.
@ Breckmin - It is neither a position of belief or non-belief, simply an acknowledgement of what one may actually claim to know. It's not fence sitting and it's not a cop out, it is the default position we find ourselves in when the proposition can not be empirically or rationally vindicated in favour of any given possibility.
Noah,
The notion that nature is all there is, is a position I DO hold to. I hold to this position because it would be unreasonable to suppose supernatural phenomena exist, given the absence of evidence for it. It's not impossible, but I have no good reasons to think so. So I live my life assuming there aren't. I do not claim to *know* with certainty, or be able to *prove* that no such phenomena exist.
Does this disqualify me from M. Naturalism as you understand it? Yes or No?
1a. Wow! What a mind. I really enjoyed this, Sir. Your capacity to carry on such a long chain of thought impresses me to the point of embarasment. The syllogism you ask atheists about is one I cannot answer as I am not aware of all theistic arguments. I would say all I've encountered fail, but I don't profess to have an encyclopedic knowledge in that regard. When it comes to intelligent design, my problem lies in the idea that how we function was intended. That doesn't even consider...
So, according to Rom 10:13, since I was once a Christian, I should be fine, right?
I am dubious. Also, the verse you quoted brings up an interesting point: Jesus told Satan precisely what you just told me, but from what I understand, Lucifer is still, well, kind of a Satanist. Does it take longer than 30 days to convince ex-archangels?
We're 6 days in, and I have to say, I think you were right. Last night I had a vision of Jesus Christ - at least, I think it was him. He came to me in the guise of the Greek goddess of chaos, Eris, and told me to fight against the forces of Greyface, but thanks to my American upbringing, I recognized it was just Jesus in a guise I could understand. I immediately devoted myself to Discordianism and began worshiping Jesus in the guise of Eris
Did you make this happen? Did you send me that vision?
Other than the misspelling of the 2nd notion. I agree with your logical premises of me being an atheist.
Nice videos man. Keep it up, ur videos are definitely enough to probably convince some of my friends i have been debating. They are great responses to a lot of the dumb arguments my friends always bring up. (teleological, ontological, etc). They have never used tag before, but i think i'll show them so maybe we can argue it.
awesome vids though, keep it up.
How does that apply to someone who 'serves' nothing/no one?
Well, I was referring to a previous convo is all.
In that convo, HE referred to himself as one, so its not like anyone is pinning that on him against his wishes.
I am an Atheist. The two point proposal is ridiculous. Despite the obvious lack of a positive assertion, non-belief,
how does the failure of an argument made to support an idea necessitate the conclusion that such an idea is false? If you think this makes sense then please explain to me how many theistic arguments exist in total. If (1) "Theistic arguments fail" leads to the truism that (2) "no gods of any kind exist", then what is the terminal number for all possible theistic arguments?
agreed 100%.
Now you need to address motive, agendas, and the lack of satisfaction that is put in a person's heart that causes them to sit around in a room all day and argue with born-again Christians.
Where there is truth there is controversy.
@esca8652
If you're in a suicidal state of mind you're probably experiencing a very strong surge of emotions and in your mind you could have been pressing the knife REALLY hard, but subconsciously your body wasn't pressing at all... it doesn't make much sense to assume that there was divine intervention there, especially in place of more logical explanations.
Really, what's more likely to happen? Divine intervention or your body's instinct for self preservation?
I would definitely like to see more debates on the existence of God and less debates about debating!
So Let everything that have breath, praise the name of the LORD JESUS CHRIST!
PSALM 150.
Just keep counting. For you shall worship the Lord thy GOD and HIM only you shall serve.
Matt 4:10
WOW, great response , good Dr., lol. saw you on tv the other day. i almost fell over. much love and respect.
@AnotherMasterMind Essentially that belief in God is still "justified" or "warranted" even in the absence of any sufficient reason whatsoever, because theism is an inherently "properly basic" belief. Noah has a video on it, called "Belief without evidence is justified" or something like that.
It's really, really, really stupid.
Hmm, from a theist perspective.. "gods creation" and "nature" would be interpreted co-equal.
And.. I got a philosophical question for you, do you believe in a deterministic universe?
Also, I am curious as to which cosmological theory you most closely align (big bang, open infinite, closed infinite, etc)?
"GOD's voice THUNDERS in marvelous ways; HE does great things beyond our understanding."
Job 37:5
Please - you've implied it in your previous comment.
The best way to test if these 'assumptions' are indeed correct is to plot the data itself. There is no reason to believe we should see the distinct pattern solely due to randomness.
In a murder trial if several lines of evidence accurately converge to point out a suspect would you just release him?
@benjmann2 - I don't see what your point is regarding the term atheist. TBS's definition is the same one understood by many atheists, born out of necessity in societies where a belief in God was presumed.
How this is a waste of time I'm not really sure.
Scott, just a note on Plantinga's proper functionism and how it all works into this discussion: I think what you're getting at at one point in your video is that there's a difference between Noah's *showing* you that God exists and his *knowing* (or, although there is a difference, justifiably believing) that God exists. This is right. Just because Noah knows that God exists, assuming he does for the sake of argument, this doesn't mean he's shown to you or anyone else that he does. [Cont.]
I know, I was the same. It's like when you're deeply in love and cannot possibly imagine splitting up with someone. It seems unthinkable that with such a connection it could ever be broken. Almost absurd. Yet it happens, every single day. Why is this? Because the assumptions are wrong.and deluded, they need to be - you can't begin a marriage affirming statistically that it has a 50% chance of failing. Similarly you cannot be a believer and skeptical.
1) Repentance is a change of heart, a change of one's mind or way of thinking; you don't do the bad things you used to do anymore. I once used to love partying, drinking, lots of women, stealing, etc, but once I came to know JESUS the author & finisher of our faith; I came to learn His word, what He expects me to do & what NOT to do. Things I used to do I do no more, places I used to go I go no more. When you are in CHRIST, old things are passed away & behold all things become NEW. 2 Cor 5:17
I've read the book of Revelation several times while bored in church, and I can think of a few things I've yet to see from John's vision. For one thing, I'm pretty sure the chimera with scorpion tails from Rev 9 haven't shown up yet.
I'm not a native enlish speaker, but isn't this "tin man"-Fallacy already known as rabulistic? If not, can you please describe, what you mean with it?
"Wow, theoretical bullshit is exactly what I think of this channel. Starting off the video with an insult, wow, how truly pathetic and arrogant."
The fact that you don't see the sheer irony of this comment is amusing.
Some day, Noah will have a conversation.
This conversation will be clear and concise. This conversation will contain no misunderstanding. This conversation will have neither participant getting mired in semantics.
This will be a miracle.
This will prove God.
Some day...
could i hear them?
Not on epistemical truth, it is simply a rejection of a proposition which cannot be supported, the likes of which are rejected in every part of human discourse, in every part of the world, every day - that this particular rejection is not allowed to occur in the same manner is a shocking inconsistency.
That's really not how I interpret the book. I still see it as him saying that he has not replaced the old laws.
Yes Jesus supposively also went against those laws, which is a bit odd. But when has your god ever really consistently acted moral?
"have you read papers/books expounding on metaphysical naturalism?"
If you have, maybe you could clarify the issue. Take the causal closure of physics.
Is it sufficient that causal closure is a conclusion *about* one's ontology, made virtue of it containing only natural things? Or does the metaphysical naturalist have to make a separate commitment inside their ontology, a kind of negative ontology of things which aren't.
Does one imply the other?
@MattAlexWatson A buddhist would say that your experience now is the delusion of the ego, and the dissolution of the ego is genuine experience. I did point out that the experience of this colossal altered state of mind is the "evidence", and I don't think that could be fully understood. Neuroscience isn't "fully" understood, therefore the experience as of now is necessary to glimpse what I'm talking about. If you want more evidence, however, try searching DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Strassman.
I am an Atheist in general regard to its meaning. I also think the requirement to categorize and/or make new/have many labels for these is a little ridiculous in terms of creating arguments which don't have much necessity to get one's point across. If a person does not believe in deities or chooses to not regard anything which does not have empirical evidence, then one can understand that person's position and can go on with something more interesting than labels.
@benjmann2 - 'lack of belief' - 'non-belief', they refer to the same thing, a clearly defined, unambigous position on the proposition of God. A commonly held belief, which, due to a lack of convincing evidence, is rejected by those unwilling to believe something on faith alone. I have never argued it to be anything more or less. The onus falls upon you prove the relevance of 'actions or behaviours' on the legitimate justification of beliefs, otherwise it will be rejected on the same grounds.
And don't forget that Matthew also had this little gem:
Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
So not only did Jesus arise, but so did the Saints. So it was pretty much a Zombie movie.
Hmm...
Using your terms I believe it would require multiple syllogisms to reach your conclusion. I'd go for
1)theistic arguments are uncompelling
2)uncompelling arguments give me no good reason to change my beliefs
3) therefore: theistic arguments give me no good reason to change my beliefs
FANTASTIC video TBS.
I'm an atheist, and I may be an amateur, but that syllogism doesn't look sound to me. Nor is it spelled correctly :p
Wouldn't it be better to frame it in terms of justifiable assumptions? Or reasonable positions to hold? The conclusion sounds like a rather 'absolute' truth claim.
There is only one mind I want and that is the mind of JESUS CHRIST, which is my mind to be clean through the words which JESUS CHRIST has spoken unto me.
St John 15
I am NOT claiming that I never said that I was a Metaphysical Naturalist. What on earth are you talking about?
But I have NEVER indicated, even remotely, that I understand Metaphysical Naturalism to mean that I claim to "know" that no gods exist.
You ARE pulling THAT out of your arse.
Yes, it's an ontology, because it's *about* what exists and what doesn't. That has NOTHING to do with what I claim to know with certainty and what I don't. (That's called epistemology, remember?)
"The in video question asked me if i could be described by two points that appeared in text on my screen."
Except it didn't give you two points and ask if you agreed with them, it asked if you though a given argument composed of one premise and one conclusion was valid (that is, if the conclusion followed logically from the premise).
I was directing it at you. TBS points out the irony of insulting someone and then in the same breath attacking them for using insults.
Your understanding amounts to little more than "I am rubber, you are glue!"
@Benjamnn2 - Yes, though it's worth pointing out that a whole range of 'sources' define atheism differently, as such many 'atheists' are no longer identifying themselves with the term, but others such as 'Metaphysical Naturalism', which TBS mentions.
Again, actions based on non-belief say nothing about the rationality of the initial statement, and an assumption is no less epistemical than a belief, in fact, in termsof syntax they're literally interchangable.
@Breckmin - Until any one person can demonstrate that either all forms of God or Gods are logically impossible or that at least one form of God does certainly exist we all find ourselves unfavourably prey to the same epistemic uncertainty, in principle. While some people can claim to know, none can corroborate their assertions either for or against the position. Attacking such terminology is ultimately nothing more than obfuscation.
The analogy of relationships is very good. Some become bitter and resentful, apostates can be anti-religion and fervently oppose what they once were. Others look back to it like a high school crush and find it bemusing. Others learn from it, they know what mistakes to avoidand have no ill-feeling towards the ex. The paralells are quite accurate.
Yeah, I'm with Scott - somehow his position has been distorted. I watched V48's video; he says several time 'as a M.N. you claim that you don't BELIEVE in the supernatural'. It's all in that one word, no positive claims, no epistemics, just a view point predicated on a lack of convincing evidence. As an atheist myself, it's the same position I support as to make a positive claim against the existence of God is a fundamentaly unprovable one, which no well versed atheist would ever try to defend.
"Atheists remind the believer of their doubts. Believers cannot stand the discomfort of being reminded of their struggles with unreasonable & irrational concepts."
It really depends on the believer. Those who have experience miracles of healing for instance have very little doubt about born-again Christianity being true..but rather sometimes they might doubt whether or not they are compliant.
Also, it depends on the age and maturity of the individual believer. I am comfortable to discuss all
@Breckmin - There is no abiguity, either among lexicographers or arm chair philosophers as to the meaning of 'agnosticism'. It's etymology alone points to a clear definition that means 'to not know' or 'without knowledge'. It is the most common epistemical position on God, because it is rationally impossible to know for certain either way. Therefore, it is often a common ground for both theist and atheist positions, stalwart in their ideas, but admitting certain inexorable limits.
I've heard this maxim. What if, on the other hand, every time one does something, the result is different?
Now let me clarify here. This question doesn't actually pertain to TBS's video. I'm asking in general. It just occurred to me to wonder this.
"Also how many times must it be said that C14 dating is NOT used to determine the age of the earth."
This is incongruous since I never said that dating specific elements is somehow dating the age of the earth.
Although I might enjoy debating all of the assumptions behind uranium-238, lead, zircon - meteorites and lunar samples-NOW WHERE have I technically disputed radiometric dating other than to note assumptions of uniformity. Just because I understand the objections does not mean I si
I don't think that syllogism is sound. It would need something like this to be valid:
1a) If arguments for something fail, none of that something of any kind can exist.
That's another problem.
The being decided to be deceptive at best in leaving real evidence of his existence behind, and yet is going to eternally punish anyone who doesn't believe in him due to the lack of evidence. That's really messed up.
Let me make my point. We call it a mechanism because that is the best way to understand it. The laws of nature are ordered and apparently designed. If you deny a designer, you deny the design, and if you deny the design you deny the best way to understand reality.
The reason we "distinguish" the "trick" is because science has revealed it for us. After studying the body and the way that it works, we discovered it. And exactly what senses tell you that your mind is telling you your stomach is full even though its not? You smell your own empty stomach? You hear the hollowness? You see the emptyness inside? You put your hand in there and feel around? does a full stomach have a different "taste" then an empty one?
gogogo!!!!!
this is my fav argument too!!!
But that's just my point, there is absolutely no situation (not a single one) in which one would use the philosophical definition of "certain" except for a specific discussion about "the inability to be certain about anything". If every discussion about the existence of God is going to be mired with useless epistemological lecturing about the "nature of certainty" then any discussion about the existence of anything becomes pointless. (This is not directed at you of course, I'm just saying.)
My position as an atheist, adapting your dot points, are:
1. Theistic arguments fail; 2. My own investigations come up with nothing to support the existence of a god; 3. The world seems to function as science would predict, and does not indicate a god interfering/ being involved. 4. Therefore, it is quite unlikely that gods exist and I might as well act as though they don't until I see sufficient evidence for the existence of a specific god that can't be explained any other way.
@Veritas48
I think you are making the same mistake about "metaphysical naturalism" as you did earlier with regards to atheism.
To be a metaphysical naturalist, one operates under the assumption that nothing supernatural exists. But I am not aware of any precedent that mandates that a person must be 100% certain about this assumption.
That said, if Scott were to label himself as an agnostic, metaphysical naturalist, would that address your objection?
theDracolX,
To say that the human eye was "designed" is begging the question, as it implies that it was consciously and deliberately planned with a specific purpose in mind (in the way we know a fuel pump was).
The complexity and function of the human eye is better explained by the slow, cumulative process of Natural Selection.
Why should I ASSUME there is a truth that can be found by my own faculties and within my own lifetime?
This is the beauty of the Grace & Mercy of JESUS CHRIST: if U sin & truly repent from your heart GOD is faithful & just to forgive U of UR sins & cleanse U from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9
If u mess up real bad & ur truly sorry don't u want someone to forgive u and receive u back? Well that's what GOD does He forgives & receives u back into his loving arms.
Being good is great but u need JESUS. JESUS says, "I am the Way, the Truth & the Life: no man comes to the Father but by ME." John 14:6
I would disagree with TBS on his argument from the problem of non-belief, in which he argues that the Christian God desires every human being to be saved, which is a false supposition. In the OT, God clearly desired to kill the Amalekites and the Jebusites etc.
If TBS were arguing with a Reformed Christian, this wouldn't even come up, given that this is a non-issue within Reformed circle. Although God commands all to repent, God also decrees judgment upon several sinners in the Bible.
@legodesi
Who "criticizes veritas for supposedly redefining theism in order to include Islam and Christianity"?
Are you referring to another video?
@sezjredeemed I am glad you are not depressed any more, I understand completely how you felt, I have been there. But my success story has nothing to do with god. I do have a soft heart for people with depression. I seem to be looking for the signs in other people all the time, because I can help. Alot of people do not even know they are suffering. Continued . . .
@SUPERMILTON:
Why would Jesus show YOU, a Christian with very limited resources who can warn no more than a handful of American Christians and heathens, and not show anyone else? Why did Jesus NOT show it to any American Christian weathermen or Christian earthquakeologists, who have the power to warn everyone? Why did Jesus NOT say where it'll be? Does Jesus NOT want everyone to accept him as savior? Did Jesus show you this while asleep or awake? Why did Jesus, not God, show you?
You sure about that?
According to your reasoning, trees don't believe in Santa Clause, therefore trees believe Santa Clause doesn't exist.
...Just because "not believing in X" and "believing X doesn't exist" have profound commonalities does not mean they mean exactly the same thing.
At any rate, studies into all the listed areas actually deny design, not infer it, so if we were to approach it with that assumption we'd find our presumptions disproved. This is the problem; theism always makes these vague attempts at levelling the playing field, sophistry that attempts to cojole us into the admission that all view points are valid - 'teach the controversy', 'we have differing world views', 'science doesn't know everything', 'it takes as much faith to be an atheist you know?'.
I think Noah would agree with this, but you'd have to ask him./For many good critiques of Plantinga's epistemology please see "Warrant in Contemporary Epistemology". Perhaps there are fallacies in Plantinga's work. But certainly his work is no trivial matter. His epistemological theory is considered to be one of the main systems on option./Versions of externalism (and Plantinga's theory is externalist) are most popular for almost all epistemologists these days - naturalists or Christian.
Well it's as simple as, if human beings were indeed designed to eat, sleep, travel, breathe, digest, and apprehend our surroundings through sensory perception... then our bodies are not designed optimally for those purposes.
If you don't believe we were designed to do those things, then you should ignore this argument. But most theists DO believe that we were created for these things. Just read any "intelligent design" literature.
@ Benjmann2 - What else to atheism describe other than a lack of belief in God? The bone of contention tends to be the assumption that the term is not only a belief position, but an epistemical status denying the existence of God altogether, a claim that carries a burden of proof which cannot be met.
Identified athiests realise this and are not trying to say 'there is no God', just that there isn't sufficient evidence to suppose such a thing is true.
Well..... 1 Timothy 2:4.
I am an agnostic. I was merely trying to point out a flaw in your reasoning. That flaw being that you desired to see scientific proof for a transcendent and ineffible " entity" such as God. You can disbelief in theism if you desire. As I prior mention my intention was not to convert you to believe in God.
just because we can not quantify all of the various levels of information in the genome does NOT mean it is somehow not information. We don't need to quantify all of it in order to know that there IS information...especially when it can be defined at the sequence level. Telomere and centromere positioning and the 3 dimensional structure of the genome in interphase nuclei is yet another level of information (level three - the nuclear level). E.N. Trifonov believes there could be as many as 12 L
wats the definition for catholics being hipocrits i want to know badly please reply
Slight quibble, "not believing in X" and "believing X doesn't exist" mean exactly the same thing. In neither case is one discounting the possibility of X's existence or claiming to know that X doesn't exist.
my view of religion is practically identical to yours, and I call myself an athiestic agnostic. Though I don't really know how effective or correct that term really is.
No, when you get to the end of you statement and add an E.N. which I'm guessing is short for end note.
Propositions are deemed unreasonable if there's no evidence for them - why you would believe in something if there is no indication that such a thing may exist, either by logic or by tangible evidence.
"Why do you believe in God?"
"I have no reason, it is faith."
"No reason: unreasonable."
It's not a massive leap of understanding to say that belief in something without good reason is unreasonable.
what is the so called "supernatural?"
Please be specific.
He actually does claim that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, because he is able to demonstrate and support his point. But as he cannot do the same for all forms of God or Gods, he must remain agnostic.
@MattAlexWatson Okay, only this is not a "warm and fuzzy" feeling of the sort that Matt Dillahunty is well-versed in denouncing. What I'm referring to is a phenomenon in consciousness, a colossal altered state of consciousness, an in fact, higher state of consciousness, and NOTa vague or subtle feeling. Alan Watts called it "cosmic consciousness." Wiki that. The evidence is the experience, you see, and there's many ways to induce it, but Terence McKenna's methods seem to be the most efficient.
We understand partical physics, astrophysics, nuclear physics, string theory, and cosmology in mechanistic terms. In other words, we study them as if they were designed and ordered.
He came back for MORE????
i reject them as i have yet to see a supernatural claim that does not require some sort of faith
you might have the evidence for your claim and so it isreasonable for you to believe it but unless you can provide me with some way of knowing that what you claim exists how can i accept your conclusion
all i have is faith and i cannot operate on that.