infinit888
Daniel Dennett professor of philosophy at Tufts University explains why religion receives so much undeserved respect by people that don’t necessarily believe in God but believe in belief in God.
The full lecture Daniel Dennett held at the AAI 07 conference can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyyRAE7PDvw
Source
God Ble… er, praise be to rationality, logic, Daniel Dennett, Richard Hawkins and infinit888.
Thank you for a fabulous video series.
"Thank you for a fabulous video series."
You're welcome. Glad you liked it.
"i bet god looks kinda like dennett."
If 'god' exists and if you have a pretty juvenile understanding of 'god' I think you could say that.
"kinda ironic he denies our lord"
For that there can be something to 'deny' we would need evidence that this something exists.
"always pulling these things at me."
Always? Have we met before?
"With yer non-god things which is obviously wrong according to the truth." – Those are just words… not evidence.
"so if you contradict the right truth then you are wrong, necessarily," – A =/= ¬A, I see you have learned your lesson in logic, however the premise A (god in this case) needs to be supported by evidence and you've failed to make that case.
Try again.
I bet Dennett is god.
"god is necessaily something that exists"
Wow it took you 5 months just to regurgitate almost the same point again so don't be surprised if I slightly change my answer too:
"however the premise A (god being something that necessarily exists) needs to be proven in the first place and you've failed to make that case."
"since that which none greater can be thought is something that exists" – The limit of your imagination is proof for gods existance?
Epic FAIL
"god is something that exists necessarily because god is the best and we cant think of him being the absolute best without existing."
I'm sorry what does that even mean 'god is the best'? I mean superman to me is the 'best' superhero I can conceive of therefore he exists? Are you kidding me?
Also that argument is a presuppositional argument and therefore hopelessly circular. You haven't proven anything to exist.
Further existance is NOT a property to begin with.
As I said Epic FAIL.
"anything that is true of something is a property"
Looks like someone desperately needs to read up on Kants Critique of Pure Reason.
Alone defining god as something that exists is a tautology. You didn't prove anything you've just asserted that a god exists and if he'd exist he'd have to exists by necessity.
Can you say circular?
"appealing to kant doesnt make you right"
I'm not 'appealing' to Kant in any way shape or form. I want you to read Kants refutation of the ontological argument and specifically why existance isn't a property. I'm not here to educate you and give you a summary of his work.
Existance is not a perfection. A rock that exists is in no way 'more perfect' than a rock that doesn't.
The argument isn't sound. It begs the question by assuming what it purports to prove. That's a fallacy.
Very interesting video. It really makes me think. I'm starting to questing my own beliefs and what I thought I understood.
To play devils advocate, I would say the religious person finds massive comfort in belief.
Why yes of course – but to me that's just one more reason to be suspicious about it. Humans are biased towards comforting beliefs.
Absolutely.