Theoretical Bullshit
Zach says that atheism cannot account for laws of logic, but Christianity can.
…Let’s see if that’s true.
Follow me on Twitter at:
http://twitter.com/#!/CliftonsNotes .
Theoretical Bullshit
Zach says that atheism cannot account for laws of logic, but Christianity can.
…Let’s see if that’s true.
Follow me on Twitter at:
http://twitter.com/#!/CliftonsNotes .
Comments are closed.
Check out the YT'er philhellenes. His video "This Remarkable Thing" might be a good starting point in answer to your question.
scott, stick to what you do well, acting. leave the thinking to those who do that well. others.
Fuck off troll.
Troll.
you just proved my point. thanks.
That is a non sequitur. My calling you a troll does not affect his ability to think.
nobody ever said spontaneously, thats a strawman. abiogenisis is a scientific hypothesis, its not a theory but its certainly not unscientific and it doesn't defy cell theory or biogenesis. and even if you were right thats still not evidence of a god, you need to prove god exists, not simply disprove an alternative. and it doesn't matter that scientists with our limited recourses haven't been able to create life, the strongest man alive can't crush cole into diamonds, understand my point.
You know your stuff. Well done.
I really like this video. Again, Theoretical Bullshit came through with yet another concise intelligent video. And even better, he left room for comments! I just watched the response video to this video and it's completely idiotic. Not only that, but he didn't even have enough gumption to leave comments open. IMO, he's just an example of another theist who is willing to give criticism, but doesn't want to receive any. Not that this is only the trait of a theist, ANYONE who does this is in the wrong. It just fascinates me that anyone who worships Jesus, who spoke so strongly against hypocrites, could bring themselves to be such a blatant hypocrite.
I would LOVE to watch a god try to create a tree and make a stapler instead.
Theists believe God exists because that is the most rational (and logical) explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to have an explanation of the explanation for that to be the correct solution.. TBS is right in that we can't answer many of the"why" questions about God.but that is really irrelevant to whether or not God exists. To say that logic is simply a precondition to existence is begging the question. Why is it pre-conditional?
This video explanation was lazy and terrible. Why does he constantly conflate "randomness" with just-so reality. I perceive a scrawny Straw Man. He is equivocating. This user is somewhat of an inadvertent entertainer to me. I remember years ago when he tried to suggest that morality according to it's actual notion, which is an objective notion, was really a subjective originating notion of human beings as belonged to the category of moral realism. All the while he was attacking others for believing otherwise, just before he too came around to accept that technically morality can only exist as an objective notion to humanity within moral realism, and that the so-called "subjective" morality is really tantamount to saying that morality is really an illusion. How I wish these impressionable atheists would not get their "learning" from these laymen YouTube atheists who often don't know any better.
One thing I'm confused about is the argument about the Big Bang. I always hear, "You can't make something out of nothing! GOD DID IT!" but… where did God get the materials to do this? If he got them from his Heaven, then doesn't that mean Belinda Carlisle was right all along and "Heaven is a place on Earth"? 😛 I'm being partly seriously.
i'm willing to bet a months salary that he can't answer any of the three questions
ANY TAKERS ?
I never really understood how something like logic would necessitate having to be accounted for in the first place. If that makes sense. Could someone explain that to me?
I would clarify that even further:
1. The laws of logic are describing the inherent properties of reality.
2. They are self-attesting, denying them is self-refuting.
3. Same goes for their invariability.
TAG is for theists who aren't willing to put any effort into their arguments and instead fall back on fallacies.
Why does God exist?
"God" is a word that has different meanings for different people. Let us just say for the sake of argument that "God" and "Truth" are synonyms. Let's add "Reality" to the list of synonyms. Let's also add "Law" to that list. Now, do we really think we can answer that question? Logic is based on the idea that there is a truth to be arrived at. But we don't ask why.
Why does God have the traits it has?
There are no other "traits" for it to have. Reality has to be real. Truth has to be true. Law has to be Law.
Why is God's will effective?
Because there is no opposition to it. Reality is real, Naturally, by definition, nothing else is, in fact there is nothing else. There is but one Reality, one Truth, one Law. In other words, one Will. How could it possibly NOT be effective?
You equivocate on your definition of God when you ask "why God must exist?" Define any existing changing being then you'll see why "God" must exists.
Existence cannot be separated from Being of some sort…
Once you reach God ontologically as an explanation to the finite(Being) universe we inhabit in, it is therefore a category mistake seems to me to keep searching God in non personal ways or methods. A personal relationship follows from there on since God is a living person and He alone can answer your infinite existential needs. But if you start asking God about the why's of his existence then you are no longer an atheist since you have entered into a personal relationship with your creator.
"my ways are not your ways"………… " i am that I am". – God. …class dimissed.
So logic…is arbitrary.
Great video, Scott
Who fine tuned their god. Them……… Paul
Christians think that religion has a lock on "why", just as science has a lock on "how". So why can't they answer why their god exists?
yeah! What he said.
E-PLURIBUS-UNUM
The first question TB poses, "Why does God exist instead of not existing?" is a category error. An uncaused, eternal being just exists. God is. He said to Moses, "I am that I am." God is a necessary being. Necessary beings exist in all possible worlds. To ask "why a necessary being exists" is a nonsensical question.
We cannot account for why God's will is effective? Seriously? That is patently false and 2,000 years of historical theology demonstrate it is patently false.
God needs no reason or cause. Uncaused as he is, causality is not something that can be predicated about God in any way shape or form.
It is also a category mistake to say that "God is preceded by nothing." The reason is that there was never a state, no possible world in which God could have "not existed." Someone needs to work on their logic and their metaphysic…desperately.
If God is a necessary being, then it is completely out of bounds to use hypotheticals or conditionals where his existence is concerned. Straw Man TB…Straw Man. You build them all the time.
TB keeps saying that God is the way He is for no reason or cause. He is terribly confused.
To accuse God of having random qualities is again, a category mistake. TB wants to say that "only this sort of God that he is imagining in his mind could exist" and then he sets off to knock over "that god." But make NO mistake about it, TB hasn't even talked about the Christian God. In fact, I know of no religion that claims that the sort of god he is describing, exists. Not one. His god is a ghost of his own construction, a projection created for one reason: so that his weak intellectual argument can refute it. Congrats TB, you have refuted a god that no one claims to believe exists. Nice Job.
The laws of logic are not contingent. They are necessary truths. A necessary truth is by definition NOT contingent. But they are thoughts, intentional thoughts. And if that is true, then they can only exist in a mind because only minds produce thoughts. And if laws of logic are necessary truths, this means they exist in all possible worlds. And the only mind that exists in all possible worlds is the mind of God.
Laws of logic are for us to understand the universe? Laws of logic are preconditions of existence? Laws of logic cannot exist apart from the existence of a mind. It seems then that existence is a necessary precondition of laws of logic.
We have created the laws of logic? Essentially, we have created the preconditions of existence? But don't we have to exist in order to create these laws? So if existence exists before the laws are created, then how can the laws be preconditions of existence if their existence depends on existence?
They just are? It just is?
HELLO TB, one does not have to account for the why of the existence of an uncaused, self-contained, independent being. This is a category mistake. Wow!
This twit is comparing abstract laws of logic which are thoughts of the divine mind with the concrete uncaused being of God. APPLES and ORANGES.
There are four categories of competence we teach in HR. 1) The unconscious competent; 2) The conscious competent; 3) the conscious incompetent; and 4) the unconscious incompetent. Congrats to TB. He is a classic example of the philosophically and logically unconscious incompetent. And what makes it so ironic is his obviously HIGH opinion of his own intellect. In fact, you will have to search long and hard to find someone who thinks more highly of himself than this guy. And the irony is, he clearly has no clue where logic and philosophy are concerned. At best, he is a good speaker. And that is being kind.
To the atheists who are "impressed" with TB, you should read up on logic. The "why" question implies causality in God. Now, this is a reductio ad absurdum because it implies something of God that is false: that God is caused. A reductio ad absurdum is based on the law of logic that says "whatever implies that which is false is itself false." I will continue to meander through TB's stuff and show just how uninformed and really bad his arguments against Christianity really are. If this man is your "hero atheist" you are in trouble.
+Ed Dingess "Now, this is a reductio ad absurdum because it implies something of God that is false: that God is caused."
He informs you over and over and OVER again that all christians are forced to conclude that God exists for no reason and WITH NO CAUSE and you completely ignore that and state that his argument presupposes a cause? Bravo!
"The laws of logic are not contingent."
Yes they are. They are contingent on the way the universe behaves.
"They are necessary truths."
And the reason they are necessarily true is because our observation of the universe.. (Not God. He's not involved in this.) ..demonstrates that the universe doesn't behave any other way. That's just the way that existence behaves, much like you're forced to conclude with your God. He just doesn't behave any other way.
"An uncaused, eternal being just exists."
That's not the point. His argument is…. "Ok. Your God exists for no reason and with no cause. In light of that, WHY does he exist instead of not existing, WHY does he have the traits he has instead of others…ect" …to which your only response is "He just does!" , which means you've accounted for nothing. You've just given exactly the same response that you found unacceptable when atheists gave it about the universe. This is why you've answered nothing. You've just engaged in pointless word games which is basically all you have and i'm sure sound convincing to you, because the only other argument you have is "Praaaaaise Jeeeeesus!!"
Where are you now ?..?
That was a thing of beauty! Thank you.
A series of very good points here.
Not only does this argument work well for the laws of logic it also destroys the Christians claim that the universe and life could not be the product of sheer chance.
If god was not created by anything or anyone, then his existence (if he exists), is just by sheer chance.
It is just sheer chance that he exists, instead of doesn't exist.
Which would mean the universe and life (even if created by god) would still exist by sheer chance, because the being necessary to create the universe and life (god) himself only exists by sheer chance.
It´s always refreshing and encouraging to see people on YouTube talking reasonably and with knowledge like you do here. Very well done!
They are not pre-conditions of God or random and uncaused, God is the standard for all contingencies.
Just FYI, your channel has inspired a playlist called "Atheist Napalm"…