This guy is Special Pleading and using catch words all over the place. Nor has he identified his god out of the thousands that have been put forth by humanity thorough the ages (although we all know it is the Christian god...)
+Michael Dobson He identified "the teachings of Jesus Christ" as his reason to believe, so it's Christian or Mormon. Which specific flavor of these religions he adhers to we cannot say and it does not really matter. His ramblings about his reason were not really giving any compelling reason at all to believe anything. So it's most likely once more the widespread "i believe because i want to believe". also Kalam is used by WLC to "prove" the christian god, so except for the very rare Muslim switching it to Allah you'll generally find only Christians using this "argument" for their purposes...
One of the most powerful, challenging questions that they (and particularly Tracie) asks. It's an extremely simple question, but seems to be the most difficult one of all for them to answer, especially as it makes them have to go back and actually have to consider and articulate why, rather than operating on cruise-control within their own mind. I love it when she won't let them tap-dance around that question, usually rambling about _what_ they believe, not _why_, and keeps bringing them back to it.
They can't even get thru their own arguments without tripping up 20 times, and this is supposed to convince someone else? Obviously only those who aren't too concerned with logical reasoned thinking.
It really doesn't matter. I'm an atheist and I'm entirely on the side of the atheists in this debate, but suggesting that one should be bound to argue exclusively the argument or arguments which convinced oneself is wholly disingenuous. There's no reason given in the debate for this rationale, and there is certainly no reason one couldn't discover better arguments for something one believes AFTER he/she has already been convinced. Honestly, this is stupid...
SiriusMined First of all your premise is ridiculous. Who's to say that the argument wasn't persuasive? If one isn't persuaded by an argument for something because they already happen to believe what that argument supports, it's not that they find the argument unpersuasive. Do you not see how laughable this is? I was an atheist before I ever read Sam Harris. Should I completely disregard his arguments because they aren't what originally persuaded me to be an atheist? Even though Sam's arguments aren't what originally made me an atheist, I can say with complete confidence that his arguments are better than the ones which persuaded me. I mean, seriously... This is dumb...
Miranda Arocho "I was an atheist before I ever read Sam Harris. Should I completely disregard his arguments because they aren't what originally persuaded me to be an atheist? " Only if you think that the argument WOULD have persuaded you if you had been a believer. I don't think you get what I've been saying
'So bottom line Michael....what was it that convinced you the specific christian God actually exists?' 'Because I just went with it.' OK so you have no actual justification for your belief, thanks for callin bye.
davids11131113 Yeah, but at the very least he admits it. Most of the others just tapdance around that answer, which is probably how the vast majority of believers came to believing.
It really says something for a christian's problem solving skills that they can't find a single problem with a totally flawed argument. This is more than just a problem of extreme ignorance, this is a mental problem.
A core tenet of their worldview is that believing in something that has no evidence to support it (ie. blind faith) is a _virtue_. No wonder they have problems with critical thinking.
"Mine was, uh, through my own, uh, personal leap of faith, uh, and I was compelled by the....uh.....the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, um, I had a curiosity, and I went with it, and when I went with it, I um, ya know, I became uh enlightened into his uh, into his, um, uh...." It would be hard for you to find more words that said less than the above. Can you imagine if you asked a doctor why he thought a particular treatment plan was the proper one, and he led off with that?????
Charles Glidden fro those of you who only read one book. jesus first appereance was around 3500BC he appeared as a young lad with a magic wand healing people ( you can visit the site wher this statue is. He then took on the look of what I can only describe as a person who cant make their mind wether their man or woiman , he hada feminine look and small breasts, this was done on purpose bye ther catholics to try to con women into their faith. then he appeared as adope smoking hippie which has stuck ever since because religion knows change him now and the game for control is over. Is that fucking basic enough for you
Osaie, Jesus has now morphed into a young Brad Pitt or Justin Bieber, attractive to young Americans and Europeans of both sexes. When I saw a photo of Jesus in the house of a neighbor, I thought for a second that I did not recall Brad Pitt playing Jesus in a movie, and I certainly knew Justin Bieber never played the role of Jesus. But millennials apparently want Jesus to look like he is a member of a boy band, and mega-churches know how to listen to their millennial flocks.
Locutus D'Borg .... milennials have some of those lowest rates of religiosity of any generation. Did you have a stroke while writing this comment or something? It's possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
It's amazing the word games, sophistry, hoop-jumping and slippery language theists present to try and justify their beliefs. It reeks of complete desperation.
Can you imagine this dumb fuck is so confident of this babble that he calls up a talk show to describe in detail what this god thing does and thinks and how ''he'' acts
"how can i call myself "i"" if all there are only physical laws?" the same way you call a cloud "a cloud", a dog "a dog" and a book "a book" The thing you reference to the body that your brain is in is what you call "i"
4:54 paraphrased "I was curious...I went with it...I became enlightened as to his...I usually share this more in the form of a story so it's hard to put it in to uhhhhh" .....words? ...classic
Maybe a good question to the theist is "Why do you WANT to believe in a god?" - because, obviously the theist "wants" to believe because that's really the only way to "believe" what's completely not evident.
What's hilarious is that Russell and Tracie are granting this fool several of his wrong assertions and his arguments STILL don't work. Sometimes I play this game just to see to what extreme a particular apologetic argument is fractally wrong.
9:30 And of course, the appalling backlash of a cornered theist. The naturalistic fallacy, taking things to crazy extremes, and attempting to guilt and bully the other party into submission. This is why religion has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS required violence to spread its influence to cultures that didn't already include it.
0:05 Tracie: "Are you saying there was a time when existence didn't exist?" Michael: "No. I'm not saying that. That would be absurd." -- So now let me get back to me arguing in favor of an Eternal Immaterial Wizard Mind that created the Universe...
He argues from "The experience that I have..." My experience only ever showed things CHANGING, not starting. A birth is a change to something that already existed. A molecule is made of atoms that already existed. Even the first stuff in the big bang probably came about as a change from something else. All experience shows CHANGE. No start.
I like the caller, he externalizes his thought process, doesn't seem dogmatic and the exchange is pleasant; he seems like he is considering what the panel is saying.
***** Christians have what they feel is a good reason to believe. But thank you for making my point that he is seeking and seemed open minded as to self criticism. This is a good thing, not a bad thing as other commenters would suggest. At least he has opened a door and rather than criticizing, he should be encouraged to stay on that path.
I see all the criticism you're getting but I tend to agree with you. Compared to other callers this guy does actually have a little bit of logical thinking - and it genuinely seems like there is some sort of conflict in his mind when presented with the flaws of his arguments. None is going to be convinced over a call to a broadcast show however this kind of conversation is something he'll likely reflect upon afterwards.
They missed their opportunity. When he was lamenting the implications that "if minds are just physical, then what am I?" they should have latched onto that opportunity to get him to see the reason he chose to believe in a non physical thing. To get him to realize, he is rejecting the idea that he is 'just' a physical brain because he doesn't like it, he doesn't want it to be true, he's uncomfortable with the idea of it. None of that are reasons for it being untrue. It's like if police tell you your child has died, you might not want to believe it, but if you choose not to believe it because you dismay at the idea, that's called denial. It can happen to anyone. The sooner this quite intelligent caller realises his brain is in denial, the sooner he can move on and grow as a person. (p.s. Being a physical thing ain't so bad really ;)
At 4:40 after Tracie asked what was the reason for his believes, the caller's tone totally changed. Because he was having to actually think and say things that he hasn't really thought about. And it wasn't things that he just heard and was just simply regurgitating them, like all of his other points.
It's so funny watching this again after watching one of Theramin Trees latest videos. After a long time off youtube, he came back (YaY!) with a video about theists and how they live in _stories_ and parables and analogies and testimonies etc etc etc. And what happens here? Tracy asks for the specific thing that had him convinced that a god exists ... and he goed straight to telling the _story_ about how he converted. It's so funny to see! You should definately go watch Theramin Tree's newest if you enjoyed this. :P
It's hard to believe in a "non-physically anchored" mind (aka "soul") when you've read a little bit about split brain patients. The surviving left-hemisphere and right-hemisphere lead independent existences (albeit diminished ones) and have no way to communicate with each other internally. So at best the "soul" could only be receiving from the brain, and therefore if a "soul" exists it isn't what's running the show, the brain is. In which case, it isn't really a "soul" by the usual definition!
The discussion about mind/brain duality is quite telling. If the brain is just physics, and chemistry, then I don't see how a mind can come about, so there must be something non-physical to the mind. *Argument from personal incredulity, which pretty much sums up everything about this caller!*
Please ease up on the sound when you put your logo up at the end. The video itself is not that loud so we have to turn our speakers up to hear properly and at the end it's a race to the volume button to prevent our sub woofers and speakers from shaking the house down.
I noticed that the caller, in trying to prove that mind was not a product of the physical brain, and thus bolster his claim that a God exists, asked the hosts if they had ever "seen" a mind. My response would be to ask the caller, Have you ever seen a God ?
The only way a mind can manifest itself is through some physical form. You can't have a mind without a physical body. Otherwise, how would you know that is there?
The part about intentionality was just another example of theist's magical thinking. I wish they had asked him to explain how the soul works, and why it can be any more :intentional" than a brain. Is a soul energy? In that case, it and it's interactions and thought processes are still governed by natural laws.
George Fafa Do I know it for sure - well, yeah I guess I sorta do but there are some nuances to the answer and heres a pretty random resource highlighting some of it
Arguments of any kind are conducted using concepts. A valid argument has one and only one outcome. It produces another concept. For example, there is a mathematical argument that produces the concept of negative numbers. People think that arguments can be used to prove things that are not concepts, for example, that an argument can be constructed that proves apples exist. But we know this is not possible. You cannot prove apples exist, just using arguments. Likewise, you cannot prove a god exists, just using arguments. Give it up.
At 6:22 the hosts could have taken the "comparing apples vs oranges" objection and direct it against the 1st premise of Kalam. Generalizing our (or rather, old-fashioned Aristotielian) naive notions of causality about physical constituents of the Universe towards the Universe as a whole is a non-sequitur. The last 100 years of mathematical logic starting from Russell's paradox are a pretty good example of the perils of the composition fallacy, and cosmological arguments like Kalam are inundated with them.
The guy is just quoting William Lane Craig, he has not really "studied" the argument very well. But I guese he wouldn't have been doing it much better if had because the argument's conclusion doesn't follow the premises.
I don't know why opponents of Kalam let people forwarding it get past the first premise. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Really? As far as we know, everything in the universe is a rearrangement of things that existed within the Singularity (the beginning of the Big Bang). When we say a tree or a star or a child or anything "begins to exist," we are just singling out a point at which 'stuff' (for lack of a better word) that already existed reformed into something we recognize as a tree or a star or a child or whatever. But really, those things all began to exist in the Singularity or before (if there is such a thing). So we've never actually observed or have any evidence of a 'cause' for anything to exist, making premise one a baseless assertion.
This guy is thinking like Karl Pilkington: that there's his mind which is in his brain, but there's another mind without a brain outside his head telling his real brain what to think! lol
have you seen a "motion"? there is not physical entity known as a "motion" motion is just what we call the difference in location of a physical object! that is the same with mind! it is just we call the operation of a brain!!!
Sure I have seen at work the forces that create the phenomenon that some label motion. It is more about kinetic energy than a string of non-related different geo-temporal locations
Tracie: "why can't matter/energy always be changing?" answer: The second law of thermodynamics. Entropy. Tracie: "Why can't we have a timeless 'nature' not subject to infinite regress?" answer: Because we don't. "Nature" is temporal(temporary)
Joe Stier *The second law of thermodynamics. Entropy.* Quantum uncertainty requires that entropy is always to some degree changing, even in the heat death of the universe ( maximum entropy ) quantum fluctuations will , even if only temporarily, alter the universal "value" of entropy. It fizzes, though statistically (over time) appears as the "linear" downward spiral to its maximum. That Tracy asks "why cant..." , just shows that she , as she states, is not a physicist. That matter/energy 'is' always changing in the universe is demonstrably true, and would also be the case if quantum uncertainty is present pre-universe. *Because we don't. "Nature" is temporal(temporary)* Making an appeal to the state of the universe now, that is manifesting time, as a rebuff of a period( pre-universe) currently hypothesized as lacking this characteristic is futile. Lacking time , means that something that is existing in that state experiences eternity or nothing( depending how you interpret the infinity). Without a beginning infinite regress is irrelevant. Its the same reason god is argued to be eternal, to avoid infinite regress. If you accept eternal existing entities then it would be special pleading to require that god could be the only possible such entity.
tdsdave*"Making an appeal to the state of the universe now, that is manifesting time, as a rebuff of a period( pre-universe) currently hypothesized as lacking this characteristic is futile."* Really? How so? *"Lacking time , means that something that is existing in that state experiences eternity or nothing( depending how you interpret the infinity).* While it's true that there is room for a couple different interpretations of 'eternity', to say the universe is contingent on a physical actual eternal "pre-universe" is a logical absurdity. If I had a pair of eternal socks that have always existed how could they go through the process of getting dirty? Eternal is a timeless existence. It's non temporal. How can a materially pre existing universe cause our universe to exists? *"Without a beginning infinite regress is irrelevant."* True. But if the "pre-verse" was timeless how could it cause our universe? *"Its the same reason god is argued to be eternal, to avoid infinite regress.*" God is stated in the bible as being eternal as part of his nature. *"If you accept eternal existing entities then it would be special pleading to require that god could be the only possible such entity."* God isn't a materially existing entity. He doesn't have a physical existence so he doesn't take up space therefore doesn't require space to exist. God is a conscious entity with no physical existence that requires space or time to exist.
Joe Stier It seems to me that metaphysics has been hijacked by theologians over the past few thousands of years. There isn't anything supernatural inherent about metaphysics as metaphysics is a study of the natural world which we can experience. So, if a metaphysical argument leads to "Non-Material" things, that suggests Non-Existence, not God. It is simply a matter of already having a 'god belief' and not noticing the failure of the hypothesis in the real world. Over the past several centuries we've actually developed the means to test a metaphysical proposition. Yes, it's called science. Eliminating biases is a huge part of that in order to achieve accurate knowledge about the universe. In that, it is incorrect to say that something is possible if you don't actually know if it is possible. In other words, the theologian has all their work still ahead of them to even begin arguing for the existence of God if God is supernatural. We'd need at least one example of something supernatural to know if the existence of the supernatural is possible. Otherwise, God just appears to be a 'god of the gaps' explanation or just a bold assertion by believers. To illustrate this bias about the existence of something which we have no reason to believe is possible, lets look at a current possibility. Extraterrestrial life. Is it possible that life exists anywhere else in the universe; even intelligent life? Yes. We can say yes even though we can't possibly go and observe it. Why? Because we have at least one example. Us. Does that makes sense to you? Can we say that Leprechauns might exist somewhere in the universe? No. We'd need at least one example to know they exist then we could reasonably say that they might exist elsewhere. Now for entropy. Entropy exists as an epiphenomenon within states of matter/energy, not the existence of matter/energy itself. Your argument is something like if the universe were infinite in time then the entropy we use to measure it would have reached a maximum an infinite time ago. You don't even need that argument because we have knowledge of an initial singularity which gives us a state of context and an arrow of time. Was there an maximal state of entropy at the BB singularity or a minimal state? We'd obviously say minimal because that is how we measure it. What about other singularities such as black holes? Is that entropy in reverse? And what if there are larger forces to account for entropy at all, such as with dark energy and the ever accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. Again, entropy is an epiphenomenon which we can measure and gives us clues to even deeper fundamental forces. And again, we're not guessing the explanation is God. At best, an argument from entropy gets you to another force or phenomenon of already existing energy/matter not of the existence energy/matter itself.
*_"We'd need at least one example of something supernatural to know if the existence of the supernatural is possible"_* How about a person creating a car. That's a supernatural cause.
Hahaha, it's fucking hilarious when he goes into what originally convinced him to believe. Especially when he completely fails to sound as noble and churchy as he wants to.
If the mind exists apart from the physical brain, then how can damage to the brain fundamentally change a person’s thoughts and personality? Lobotomies and even simple alcohol affect the mind of a person and those are physical things.
Tracie I have bad news. Your toaster IS broken, something caused your toaster to break, therefore Gus the Invisible Cosmic Space Hippo broke your toaster.
If she was so smart, she would be able to explain the reason for the existence of the "universe"......and she can't. That she enjoys "torturing" others and exposing the fact that they share the same level of "ignorance" she does, does not make her smart...... Nor does it place her in a category that would be the "equivalent" of someone attempting to make an "honest contribution" to the "debate".....since there is no actual "debate" taking place. There are words to describe this.....smart is NOT one of them.
@Michael Hope Yeah I guess....but the Kalam doesn't require a defense and an intelligent atheist should know that, and there don't seem to be any of those. Do you have evidence that the "universe" has always existed? Entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics suggest otherwise......so you are stuck with the Kalam and this leads you to a probability argument regarding the "cause", and if you refuse to engage, then you simply find yourself in a circular "there is no evidence for" and "theists" ( or any other metaphysical belief system ) producing all manner of evidence for which "science" has no explanation. ( and they will keep doing it and repeating it, and one can not help but consider that when one is dealing with the inept, as in this case, there is a clear element of sadism involved and it is taking place in an atheist "safe space" which produces responses like yours as if they were "an argument". ) At present, what is known regarding the universe is less that 5% of what needs to be known and this is a long way from proving "anything" regarding what caused it......so there is no debate nor will it produce a resolution, since no one is actually confronting the correct question or questions. Of course, if one can make a living at it, this understanding is probably sufficient reason to avoid any actual resolution......but the math doesn't really work, because for every atheist that is making money, there are many more "mystics" that are making considerably more, and ultimately the question is: is there a point to it all? The best evidence based science can manage is either no or we don't know and that is and will remain for most, "unsatisfying". So like I said, the Kalam is not much of an argument and it certainly doesn't prove anything, one way or another.....but it doesn't require a defense, because all it does is redirect the question to the probability argument noted. What caused the universe and does it have a purpose? If I am a moron, as you say....I am a rather unique one, since I am perfectly capable of taking on all the "mystics" and their german scientists, and all the "atheists" and their german scientists and making complete fools of both.....and I have no desire or need to torture the inept, of either side to do so. But thank you for sharing whatever is was you were attempting to share.
@Michael Hope I agree that you seem to possess very little intelligence and a gift for word salad that would rival Jordan Peterson, so much so, that I can't make any sense of that incoherent sentence....so I shall keep this simple for you.....the evidence and the laws of thermodynamics do not support an eternally existing universe, so the Kalam is valid and you have to deal with it. No defense is required. I have no idea what "negative" you think is being stated here, because it is a figment of your imagination...and the question remains: What caused the universe and does it have a purpose? Your response is the insulting one, and you, like Stacy refuse to address it.....and you will just keep repeating it, because you are incapable of dealing with that has been stated...probably because you you have no idea what has been stated, while assuming that you do. The "mystics" have handed you a gift, and you have no clue what to do with it......which is sad, because YOU aren't getting paid for your "willful ignorance".....but feel free to carry on demonstrating that.
@@Lordidude You can read? Just curious but did you count the words used in the 14 minutes of this video? What was the result of that exchange? Also, just curious again, but how many words would it take for you to explain how a human contribution of 3% to CO2 annually results in increased warming to a person who doesn't understand the difference between, linear, geometric and exponential effects?
Tracie has much more poise and restraint of her emotions than matt, that's why a favor her =j He's slightly more articulate but I bet his Arestraint has been damaging to those truly confused. It has to be a form of intellect or a skill to have her level of poise. He seems better set for smashing apologists, even more-ugh!-presuppositional apologists -_@ ughhhh!
Well nobody's perfect, I like Matt but I agree that some people would do better to try researching things more before asking. Well, in general, but twice as that before asking him, specifically. :P He's sometimes... short tempered, but then again, you might be after - how many years is this they are doing this and listen to the same arguments over, and over, and over again? Even though I don't like how Matt... goes a bit overboard sometimes, it is rarely ever more insulting than good natured theist totally ignoring his points and continuing on his argument like nothing happened, repeating the same bs like the sole act of repeating it makes it true. ;)
Late to the party but what an dishonest person this was Couldn't even admit that he's a Christian because of his upbringing and now he's struggling to justify his own beliefs.
The caller says "we could have millions of gods..." We DO HAVE millions of gods. Everyone who believes in a god makes up his own god from his personal views, experiences and wishes. For example the Jesus of Mark is very different from the Jesus of Luke and the Jesus of Paul. In any Christian church for example the people look up at the man on the cross and everyone has a different picture of him. It is the same situation like in our families. You look differently at your brother than your parents do. We usually make up our gods to our liking.
![PURPEECH - นี่ฉันเองคนที่... (It's me) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NuhHd0hOOg8/mqdefault.jpg)
Tracie Harris - What caused YOU to believe in a god?
Caller - "I, um, a, ah, er...."
Well said, sir.
+Michael Dobson Guess it kind of hurts to say "my parents indoctrinated me".
+Obscene Vegetable Matter First rule of being indoctrinated is not to talk about being indoctrinated ;-)
This guy is Special Pleading and using catch words all over the place. Nor has he identified his god out of the thousands that have been put forth by humanity thorough the ages (although we all know it is the Christian god...)
+Michael Dobson
He identified "the teachings of Jesus Christ" as his reason to believe, so it's Christian or Mormon.
Which specific flavor of these religions he adhers to we cannot say and it does not really matter. His ramblings about his reason were not really giving any compelling reason at all to believe anything. So it's most likely once more the widespread "i believe because i want to believe".
also Kalam is used by WLC to "prove" the christian god, so except for the very rare Muslim switching it to Allah you'll generally find only Christians using this "argument" for their purposes...
One of the most powerful, challenging questions that they (and particularly Tracie) asks. It's an extremely simple question, but seems to be the most difficult one of all for them to answer, especially as it makes them have to go back and actually have to consider and articulate why, rather than operating on cruise-control within their own mind. I love it when she won't let them tap-dance around that question, usually rambling about _what_ they believe, not _why_, and keeps bringing them back to it.
I love the way Tracie just smashed his position. If the Kalaam isn't why he believes that means he has something BETTER... but he doesn't.
I am in utter awe from how deeply can some people bullshit themselves.
Tracie is so eloquent, her grasp of the human mind is delightful to listen to
Holy shit. Fuck that loud-ass music at the end.
I love when theist use arguments as compelling by which they themselves were not convinced.
They can't even get thru their own arguments without tripping up 20 times, and this is supposed to convince someone else? Obviously only those who aren't too concerned with logical reasoned thinking.
It really doesn't matter. I'm an atheist and I'm entirely on the side of the atheists in this debate, but suggesting that one should be bound to argue exclusively the argument or arguments which convinced oneself is wholly disingenuous. There's no reason given in the debate for this rationale, and there is certainly no reason one couldn't discover better arguments for something one believes AFTER he/she has already been convinced. Honestly, this is stupid...
Miranda Arocho If those arguments were not persuasive to themselves, it's wholly ridiculous to expect others to be persuaded.
SiriusMined First of all your premise is ridiculous. Who's to say that the argument wasn't persuasive? If one isn't persuaded by an argument for something because they already happen to believe what that argument supports, it's not that they find the argument unpersuasive. Do you not see how laughable this is?
I was an atheist before I ever read Sam Harris. Should I completely disregard his arguments because they aren't what originally persuaded me to be an atheist? Even though Sam's arguments aren't what originally made me an atheist, I can say with complete confidence that his arguments are better than the ones which persuaded me.
I mean, seriously... This is dumb...
Miranda Arocho "I was an atheist before I ever read Sam Harris. Should I completely disregard his arguments because they aren't what originally persuaded me to be an atheist? "
Only if you think that the argument WOULD have persuaded you if you had been a believer.
I don't think you get what I've been saying
Kalam is a calamity in logical circles.
'So bottom line Michael....what was it that convinced you the specific christian God actually exists?'
'Because I just went with it.'
OK so you have no actual justification for your belief, thanks for callin bye.
davids11131113 Yeah, but at the very least he admits it. Most of the others just tapdance around that answer, which is probably how the vast majority of believers came to believing.
Tracie: I want to apologize to physicists. Caller: oh it’s ok! Dude if you’re a physicist, then I’m JJ Watt.
It never ceases to amaze me how arrogantly ignorant so many theists are...
I don't think "existence" is an entity.
Right in the faith.
It really says something for a christian's problem solving skills that they can't find a single problem with a totally flawed argument. This is more than just a problem of extreme ignorance, this is a mental problem.
'faith' is nothing but an emotion.
A core tenet of their worldview is that believing in something that has no evidence to support it (ie. blind faith) is a _virtue_. No wonder they have problems with critical thinking.
Bill Mayes You are wrong. Faith is simply a mindset, not an emotion.
JeffersonDinedAlone Faith is a stupid and foolish mindset.
+JeffersonDinedAlone
Not if he (ab)uses the old definition "it's just another word for trust"... trust IS an emotion.
what a waste of 30 minutes of air time
ARRRRRGH!!!!
VERY LOUD TECHNO SOUNDS, THANKS FOR MAKING MY EARS HURT!!!
"Mine was, uh, through my own, uh, personal leap of faith, uh, and I was compelled by the....uh.....the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, um, I had a curiosity, and I went with it, and when I went with it, I um, ya know, I became uh enlightened into his uh, into his, um, uh...."
It would be hard for you to find more words that said less than the above. Can you imagine if you asked a doctor why he thought a particular treatment plan was the proper one, and he led off with that?????
jesus of nazarith never existed, jesus made its first appearance 3,500 years before he materialised fro the Christians.
????
Charles Glidden fro those of you who only read one book.
jesus first appereance was around 3500BC he appeared as a young lad with a magic wand healing people ( you can visit the site wher this statue is.
He then took on the look of what I can only describe as a person who cant make their mind wether their man or woiman , he hada feminine look and small breasts, this was done on purpose bye ther catholics to try to con women into their faith.
then he appeared as adope smoking hippie which has stuck ever since because religion knows change him now and the game for control is over.
Is that fucking basic enough for you
Osaie, Jesus has now morphed into a young Brad Pitt or Justin Bieber, attractive to young Americans and Europeans of both sexes.
When I saw a photo of Jesus in the house of a neighbor, I thought for a second that I did not recall Brad Pitt playing Jesus in a movie, and I certainly knew Justin Bieber never played the role of Jesus. But millennials apparently want Jesus to look like he is a member of a boy band, and mega-churches know how to listen to their millennial flocks.
Locutus D'Borg .... milennials have some of those lowest rates of religiosity of any generation. Did you have a stroke while writing this comment or something? It's possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read
It's amazing the word games, sophistry, hoop-jumping and slippery language theists present to try and justify their beliefs. It reeks of complete desperation.
Can you imagine this dumb fuck is so confident of this babble that he calls up a talk show to describe in detail what this god thing does and thinks and how ''he'' acts
It is complete desperation. Like cockroaches, theism runs from the light of truth. That sort of belief cannot exist with the truth.
"how can i call myself "i"" if all there are only physical laws?"
the same way you call a cloud "a cloud", a dog "a dog" and a book "a book" The thing you reference to the body that your brain is in is what you call "i"
4:54 paraphrased "I was curious...I went with it...I became enlightened as to his...I usually share this more in the form of a story so it's hard to put it in to uhhhhh" .....words? ...classic
This poor crazy guy just frantically talking himself around in circles. 'My justification for belief in 'god' is that it's 'properly basic'....WTF?
Maybe a good question to the theist is "Why do you WANT to believe in a god?" - because, obviously the theist "wants" to believe because that's really the only way to "believe" what's completely not evident.
Tracie on fire as always.
2:55 Caller invokes argument from ignorance, yes?
This sounds like an argument I had with a 7 year old. This caller needs serious MEDICATION.
give every apologist an nobel prize
"Consciousness Explained" Daniel C. Dennett
What's hilarious is that Russell and Tracie are granting this fool several of his wrong assertions and his arguments STILL don't work. Sometimes I play this game just to see to what extreme a particular apologetic argument is fractally wrong.
Ms. Tracy was on the correct track as with my comment below.
RIP headphone user
We had time before this marathon call started, but now we've wasted a lot of it.
6:48 I think I'm in love with Tracy Harris
Good episode.
"I usually share this in the form of a story..."
Yup. Arguments are a lot harder. Lol.
9:30 And of course, the appalling backlash of a cornered theist. The naturalistic fallacy, taking things to crazy extremes, and attempting to guilt and bully the other party into submission. This is why religion has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS required violence to spread its influence to cultures that didn't already include it.
Great episode. Love Tracie's mind.
Get Rid of the Loud music at the start
or at least match its volume
0:05 Tracie: "Are you saying there was a time when existence didn't exist?"
Michael: "No. I'm not saying that. That would be absurd."
-- So now let me get back to me arguing in favor of an
Eternal Immaterial Wizard Mind that created the Universe...
I hate that often they don't seem to understand speakerphones.
Tracy might just be the smartest person I've ever come across.
He argues from "The experience that I have..." My experience only ever showed things CHANGING, not starting. A birth is a change to something that already existed. A molecule is made of atoms that already existed. Even the first stuff in the big bang probably came about as a change from something else. All experience shows CHANGE. No start.
"my own personal leap of faith"
YUP. That's what I thought. No argument.
I like the caller, he externalizes his thought process, doesn't seem dogmatic and the exchange is pleasant; he seems like he is considering what the panel is saying.
really, it sounds to me he can't back up his bs
laapache1 Which goes to show we all extract different conclusions from reality, assuming you and I are the universe of those doing the extraction.
ur kidding his extractions are weak and full of holes as they pointed out and he started to go circular
***** Christians have what they feel is a good reason to believe. But thank you for making my point that he is seeking and seemed open minded as to self criticism. This is a good thing, not a bad thing as other commenters would suggest. At least he has opened a door and rather than criticizing, he should be encouraged to stay on that path.
I see all the criticism you're getting but I tend to agree with you. Compared to other callers this guy does actually have a little bit of logical thinking - and it genuinely seems like there is some sort of conflict in his mind when presented with the flaws of his arguments. None is going to be convinced over a call to a broadcast show however this kind of conversation is something he'll likely reflect upon afterwards.
Please youtube "Karl Pilkington, the Onion, and the Problem of Free Will" and this is essentially what this guy is saying.
He was almost smart. Like I appreciate him at least trying.
I love Tracie...
A very abrupt ending. I hope his I still exists.
They missed their opportunity. When he was lamenting the implications that "if minds are just physical, then what am I?" they should have latched onto that opportunity to get him to see the reason he chose to believe in a non physical thing. To get him to realize, he is rejecting the idea that he is 'just' a physical brain because he doesn't like it, he doesn't want it to be true, he's uncomfortable with the idea of it. None of that are reasons for it being untrue. It's like if police tell you your child has died, you might not want to believe it, but if you choose not to believe it because you dismay at the idea, that's called denial. It can happen to anyone. The sooner this quite intelligent caller realises his brain is in denial, the sooner he can move on and grow as a person. (p.s. Being a physical thing ain't so bad really ;)
At 4:40 after Tracie asked what was the reason for his believes, the caller's tone totally changed. Because he was having to actually think and say things that he hasn't really thought about. And it wasn't things that he just heard and was just simply regurgitating them, like all of his other points.
Good observation. You could hear that he was frightened because he realised he has no idea why he even believed it.
It's so funny watching this again after watching one of Theramin Trees latest videos. After a long time off youtube, he came back (YaY!) with a video about theists and how they live in _stories_ and parables and analogies and testimonies etc etc etc. And what happens here? Tracy asks for the specific thing that had him convinced that a god exists ... and he goed straight to telling the _story_ about how he converted. It's so funny to see! You should definately go watch Theramin Tree's newest if you enjoyed this. :P
*As far as we can reason timelessness is as inconceivable as nothingness is. Both are wings of the same bird.*
It's hard to believe in a "non-physically anchored" mind (aka "soul") when you've read a little bit about split brain patients. The surviving left-hemisphere and right-hemisphere lead independent existences (albeit diminished ones) and have no way to communicate with each other internally.
So at best the "soul" could only be receiving from the brain, and therefore if a "soul" exists it isn't what's running the show, the brain is. In which case, it isn't really a "soul" by the usual definition!
The discussion about mind/brain duality is quite telling. If the brain is just physics, and chemistry, then I don't see how a mind can come about, so there must be something non-physical to the mind. *Argument from personal incredulity, which pretty much sums up everything about this caller!*
He just hung up on him lol...
That closing music is crazy annoying
sometimes the"i"changes with brain damage,which wouldnt happen if the mind were separate from the brain.
Please ease up on the sound when you put your logo up at the end. The video itself is not that loud so we have to turn our speakers up to hear properly and at the end it's a race to the volume button to prevent our sub woofers and speakers from shaking the house down.
7 years later I agree lol
I noticed that the caller, in trying to prove that mind was not a product of the physical brain, and thus bolster his claim that a God exists, asked the hosts if they had ever "seen" a mind. My response would be to ask the caller, Have you ever seen a God ?
Or if the god wasn't physical how could it have a brain ?
I love that once they ask "why do you believe in a god" he has zero rational basis what so ever with his explanation.
The only way a mind can manifest itself is through some physical form. You can't have a mind without a physical body. Otherwise, how would you know that is there?
Funny, they have a problem with infinity going into the pass BUT they have no problem with infinity going into the future.
Make that loud ass music at the end go away!
She's sharp!
I thought he sound like the other caller Shane who claims that child rapists are not all at fault and that their victims are just as guilty too.
The part about intentionality was just another example of theist's magical thinking. I wish they had asked him to explain how the soul works, and why it can be any more :intentional" than a brain. Is a soul energy? In that case, it and it's interactions and thought processes are still governed by natural laws.
MY brain aches when hearing the callers stupidity...that definitely happens INSIDE my skull, and I think it is IN my brain! :-)
actually the brain itself can't ache.
whynottalklikeapirat and you know this to be true?
George Fafa
Well ...
www.brainline.org/content/2012/07/can-the-brain-itself-feel-pain.html
whynottalklikeapirat well what?
George Fafa
Do I know it for sure - well, yeah I guess I sorta do but there are some nuances to the answer and heres a pretty random resource highlighting some of it
Arguments of any kind are conducted using concepts. A valid argument has one and only one outcome. It produces another concept. For example, there is a mathematical argument that produces the concept of negative numbers. People think that arguments can be used to prove things that are not concepts, for example, that an argument can be constructed that proves apples exist. But we know this is not possible. You cannot prove apples exist, just using arguments. Likewise, you cannot prove a god exists, just using arguments. Give it up.
Oh, my, dualism!!!
Damn Tracie went in on him. Poor guy lmao. I love her.
At 6:22 the hosts could have taken the "comparing apples vs oranges" objection and direct it against the 1st premise of Kalam. Generalizing our (or rather, old-fashioned Aristotielian) naive notions of causality about physical constituents of the Universe towards the Universe as a whole is a non-sequitur. The last 100 years of mathematical logic starting from Russell's paradox are a pretty good example of the perils of the composition fallacy, and cosmological arguments like Kalam are inundated with them.
Try to count how many times the word "exists" is used...
The guy is just quoting William Lane Craig, he has not really "studied" the argument very well. But I guese he wouldn't have been doing it much better if had because the argument's conclusion doesn't follow the premises.
I don't know why opponents of Kalam let people forwarding it get past the first premise.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
Really? As far as we know, everything in the universe is a rearrangement of things that existed within the Singularity (the beginning of the Big Bang). When we say a tree or a star or a child or anything "begins to exist," we are just singling out a point at which 'stuff' (for lack of a better word) that already existed reformed into something we recognize as a tree or a star or a child or whatever. But really, those things all began to exist in the Singularity or before (if there is such a thing). So we've never actually observed or have any evidence of a 'cause' for anything to exist, making premise one a baseless assertion.
This guy is thinking like Karl Pilkington: that there's his mind which is in his brain, but there's another mind without a brain outside his head telling his real brain what to think! lol
have you seen a "motion"?
there is not physical entity known as a "motion"
motion is just what we call the difference in location of a physical object!
that is the same with mind! it is just we call the operation of a brain!!!
Sure I have seen at work the forces that create the phenomenon that some label motion. It is more about kinetic energy than a string of non-related different geo-temporal locations
Another Kalam-ity.
Tracie: "why can't matter/energy always be changing?"
answer: The second law of thermodynamics. Entropy.
Tracie: "Why can't we have a timeless 'nature' not subject to infinite regress?"
answer: Because we don't. "Nature" is temporal(temporary)
and entropy is the reason why matter/energy can't always be changing.
Joe Stier
*The second law of thermodynamics. Entropy.*
Quantum uncertainty requires that entropy is always to some degree changing, even in the heat death of the universe ( maximum entropy ) quantum fluctuations will , even if only temporarily, alter the universal "value" of entropy. It fizzes, though statistically (over time) appears as the "linear" downward spiral to its maximum. That Tracy asks "why cant..." , just shows that she , as she states, is not a physicist. That matter/energy 'is' always changing in the universe is demonstrably true, and would also be the case if quantum uncertainty is present pre-universe.
*Because we don't. "Nature" is temporal(temporary)*
Making an appeal to the state of the universe now, that is manifesting time, as a rebuff of a period( pre-universe) currently hypothesized as lacking this characteristic is futile. Lacking time , means that something that is existing in that state experiences eternity or nothing( depending how you interpret the infinity). Without a beginning infinite regress is irrelevant. Its the same reason god is argued to be eternal, to avoid infinite regress. If you accept eternal existing entities then it would be special pleading to require that god could be the only possible such entity.
tdsdave*"Making an appeal to the state of the universe now, that is manifesting time, as a rebuff of a period( pre-universe) currently hypothesized as lacking this characteristic is futile."*
Really? How so?
*"Lacking time , means that something that is existing in that state experiences eternity or nothing( depending how you interpret the infinity).*
While it's true that there is room for a couple different interpretations of 'eternity', to say the universe is contingent on a physical actual eternal "pre-universe" is a logical absurdity.
If I had a pair of eternal socks that have always existed how could they go through the process of getting dirty? Eternal is a timeless existence. It's non temporal. How can a materially pre existing universe cause our universe to exists?
*"Without a beginning infinite regress is irrelevant."*
True. But if the "pre-verse" was timeless how could it cause our universe?
*"Its the same reason god is argued to be eternal, to avoid infinite regress.*"
God is stated in the bible as being eternal as part of his nature.
*"If you accept eternal existing entities then it would be special pleading to require that god could be the only possible such entity."*
God isn't a materially existing entity. He doesn't have a physical existence so he doesn't take up space therefore doesn't require space to exist. God is a conscious entity with no physical existence that requires space or time to exist.
Joe Stier
It seems to me that metaphysics has been hijacked by theologians over the past few thousands of years.
There isn't anything supernatural inherent about metaphysics as metaphysics is a study of the natural world which we can experience. So, if a metaphysical argument leads to "Non-Material" things, that suggests Non-Existence, not God. It is simply a matter of already having a 'god belief' and not noticing the failure of the hypothesis in the real world.
Over the past several centuries we've actually developed the means to test a metaphysical proposition. Yes, it's called science. Eliminating biases is a huge part of that in order to achieve accurate knowledge about the universe. In that, it is incorrect to say that something is possible if you don't actually know if it is possible. In other words, the theologian has all their work still ahead of them to even begin arguing for the existence of God if God is supernatural. We'd need at least one example of something supernatural to know if the existence of the supernatural is possible. Otherwise, God just appears to be a 'god of the gaps' explanation or just a bold assertion by believers.
To illustrate this bias about the existence of something which we have no reason to believe is possible, lets look at a current possibility. Extraterrestrial life. Is it possible that life exists anywhere else in the universe; even intelligent life? Yes. We can say yes even though we can't possibly go and observe it. Why? Because we have at least one example. Us. Does that makes sense to you? Can we say that Leprechauns might exist somewhere in the universe? No. We'd need at least one example to know they exist then we could reasonably say that they might exist elsewhere.
Now for entropy. Entropy exists as an epiphenomenon within states of matter/energy, not the existence of matter/energy itself. Your argument is something like if the universe were infinite in time then the entropy we use to measure it would have reached a maximum an infinite time ago. You don't even need that argument because we have knowledge of an initial singularity which gives us a state of context and an arrow of time.
Was there an maximal state of entropy at the BB singularity or a minimal state? We'd obviously say minimal because that is how we measure it. What about other singularities such as black holes? Is that entropy in reverse? And what if there are larger forces to account for entropy at all, such as with dark energy and the ever accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. Again, entropy is an epiphenomenon which we can measure and gives us clues to even deeper fundamental forces. And again, we're not guessing the explanation is God. At best, an argument from entropy gets you to another force or phenomenon of already existing energy/matter not of the existence energy/matter itself.
*_"We'd need at least one example of something supernatural to know if the existence of the supernatural is possible"_*
How about a person creating a car. That's a supernatural cause.
I just have to say this: there is definitely SOMETHING about Tracy. And that something is way better than any god.
The energy that is the universe has always existed in some form. What this form was before its current form, we dont know.
Just see how perfectly my god fits into this gap, almost as if it were designed for it.
If gods can't take the trouble to make their existence known without doubt, why even bother with them?
Hahaha, it's fucking hilarious when he goes into what originally convinced him to believe. Especially when he completely fails to sound as noble and churchy as he wants to.
He just 'went with it'....therefore his God beliefs are totaly justified LOL.
He wants to say he actually spoke to jesus but he knows how stupid it sounds.
Wow... the mind has nothing to do with the brain.... That guys mind is gone...
If the mind exists apart from the physical brain, then how can damage to the brain fundamentally change a person’s thoughts and personality?
Lobotomies and even simple alcohol affect the mind of a person and those are physical things.
My objection to this concept is that i think it leads individuals to conclude that Nature must be god.
So after all of that, he was convinced of god because feelz.
Direct evidence that Tracie exists...I sure wouldn't mind!!!
Totally true. Way easier to listen to than the other hosts, and way more articulate.
You cant argue with baloney
Did I just witness a game of wack-a-mole, theist-style?
Tracie I have bad news. Your toaster IS broken, something caused your toaster to break, therefore Gus the Invisible Cosmic Space Hippo broke your toaster.
Bloody Gus again ;P
f%#* you Gus I liked that toaster!
leon harris
He does not care. Just doesn't.
Lol mind blown
Tracy is so smart. I wish I could say something as nice about the caller.
If she was so smart, she would be able to explain the reason for the existence of
the "universe"......and she can't.
That she enjoys "torturing" others and exposing the fact that they share the same level of
"ignorance" she does, does not make her smart......
Nor does it place her in a category that would be the "equivalent" of someone attempting
to make an "honest contribution" to the "debate".....since there is no actual "debate" taking
place.
There are words to describe this.....smart is NOT one of them.
@Michael Hope Yeah I guess....but the Kalam doesn't require a defense and an intelligent
atheist should know that, and there don't seem to be any of those.
Do you have evidence that the "universe" has always existed? Entropy and the Laws of
Thermodynamics suggest otherwise......so you are stuck with the Kalam and this leads you
to a probability argument regarding the "cause", and if you refuse to engage, then you simply find
yourself in a circular "there is no evidence for" and "theists" ( or any other metaphysical belief
system ) producing all manner of evidence for which "science" has no explanation. ( and
they will keep doing it and repeating it, and one can not help but consider that when one is
dealing with the inept, as in this case, there is a clear element of sadism involved and it is taking
place in an atheist "safe space" which produces responses like yours as if they were "an argument". )
At present, what is known regarding the universe is less that 5% of what needs to be known
and this is a long way from proving "anything" regarding what caused it......so there is no
debate nor will it produce a resolution, since no one is actually confronting the correct question
or questions.
Of course, if one can make a living at it, this understanding is probably sufficient reason to avoid
any actual resolution......but the math doesn't really work, because for every atheist that is making
money, there are many more "mystics" that are making considerably more, and ultimately the question
is: is there a point to it all? The best evidence based science can manage is either no or we don't
know and that is and will remain for most, "unsatisfying".
So like I said, the Kalam is not much of an argument and it certainly doesn't prove anything, one
way or another.....but it doesn't require a defense, because all it does is redirect the question to
the probability argument noted. What caused the universe and does it have a purpose?
If I am a moron, as you say....I am a rather unique one, since I am perfectly capable of taking
on all the "mystics" and their german scientists, and all the "atheists" and their german scientists
and making complete fools of both.....and I have no desire or need to torture the inept, of either
side to do so.
But thank you for sharing whatever is was you were attempting to share.
@Michael Hope I agree that you seem to possess very little intelligence and a gift for word salad that would rival
Jordan Peterson, so much so, that I can't make any sense of that incoherent sentence....so I shall keep
this simple for you.....the evidence and the laws of thermodynamics do not support an eternally existing
universe, so the Kalam is valid and you have to deal with it. No defense is required.
I have no idea what "negative" you think is being stated here, because it is a figment of your imagination...and
the question remains: What caused the universe and does it have a purpose?
Your response is the insulting one, and you, like Stacy refuse to address it.....and you will just keep
repeating it, because you are incapable of dealing with that has been stated...probably because you
you have no idea what has been stated, while assuming that you do.
The "mystics" have handed you a gift, and you have no clue what to do with it......which is sad,
because YOU aren't getting paid for your "willful ignorance".....but feel free to carry on demonstrating
that.
@@jgalt308I have never read so many words that have ended with a simple argument from ignorance.
@@Lordidude You can read? Just curious but did you count the words used
in the 14 minutes of this video? What was the result of that exchange?
Also, just curious again, but how many words would it take for you to explain
how a human contribution of 3% to CO2 annually results in increased warming
to a person who doesn't understand the difference between, linear, geometric
and exponential effects?
Tracie: If existence is a necessity, why a god is necessary to bring existence onto existence? LOL
Tracie has much more poise and restraint of her emotions than matt, that's why a favor her =j
He's slightly more articulate but I bet his Arestraint has been damaging to those truly confused. It has to be a form of intellect or a skill to have her level of poise. He seems better set for smashing apologists, even more-ugh!-presuppositional apologists -_@ ughhhh!
Well nobody's perfect, I like Matt but I agree that some people would do better to try researching things more before asking. Well, in general, but twice as that before asking him, specifically. :P
He's sometimes... short tempered, but then again, you might be after - how many years is this they are doing this and listen to the same arguments over, and over, and over again?
Even though I don't like how Matt... goes a bit overboard sometimes, it is rarely ever more insulting than good natured theist totally ignoring his points and continuing on his argument like nothing happened, repeating the same bs like the sole act of repeating it makes it true. ;)
The caller is a mind without a brain; I guess that makes him a god.
god, like drugs , can really screw up a mind.
Use with extreme care.
Also do not use heavy machinery while believing this sh*t.
Late to the party but what an dishonest person this was
Couldn't even admit that he's a Christian because of his upbringing and now he's struggling to justify his own beliefs.
The caller says "we could have millions of gods..." We DO HAVE millions of gods. Everyone who believes in a god makes up his own god from his personal views, experiences and wishes. For example the Jesus of Mark is very different from the Jesus of Luke and the Jesus of Paul. In any Christian church for example the people look up at the man on the cross and everyone has a different picture of him. It is the same situation like in our families. You look differently at your brother than your parents do. We usually make up our gods to our liking.
fucked up my grammar pretty badly trying to correct first sentence. The only reason to believe this to be real&true is....
You've had me waiting a month for this explanation, T. I'm beginning to think you aren't going to offer one on their behalf ....
+David Burroughs haha lol
That seems like a primary isuue! (Haha) .....reaction to excellent valid point....."blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah, blah"