Stefan's atheism ?

[peterstan]

Although Stefan at times proclaims his atheism - as well as his anarchism - it may not be of the kind that is generally understood by this term. I venture to say that - as a public personality - he is not socially helpful by asserting such (quite aside that it is not logically tenable). Claiming to be an Aristotalian (vs a Platonian) at best puts him on a slippery slope - as it unfortunately did its originator; Aristotle never denied the existence of the gods, he just positioned them (illogically) into the background of one's consciousness whereas Plato made them upfront logically obligatory for all of life's recourse.

To reduce the precision of the Universe's matrix as either accidental or of secondary importance is not only illogical - it either is or it is not - it is sociologically totally irresponsible and thus may be arrived at under the mental influence of the dark forces (who are there to ever derail or obstruct humanity's evolution). Only an outright commitment to Spirit's (scientific and logical) primacy (e.g. as during the Ancient Egyptian empire) will allow the evolution of humanity to proceed rhythmically and harmoniously. Until such will have been restored, mankind will have to groan under the heavy load of self-delusion. That does not mean having to unquestioningly accept the equally spurious claims of the various official religions - let only the Truth of pure Logic be our guide. 

Otherwise we have to resort to the lengthy and complicated psychological investigations that Stefan is a master at - but that are exhaustively insufficient for all minds of a lesser capacity. Both the Buddha and the Christ would have shuddered - of course I realise, that Stefan most likely does not give credence to either their factual existence or their importance. 

[shirgall]

He digs deeply into his experience with atheism in The Art of the Argument. Since he overcame indoctrination to reach atheism through logic, it's different than others who came to atheism by being born into it and never indoctrinated, or those that came to it via rebellion against their parents. To some, like me, atheism is a lack of belief in any gods, and is no more special than a lack of belief in dragons, unicorns, or square circles. To others it is a rejection of all cultural values to the point of becoming a necessary element of post-modernism.

To spot the difference, note the difference between the people that feel the needs to join an organization of atheists that form a community versus those that are just tired of religion being crammed in their face all the time and just want to be left alone.

[ofd]

Quote

Only an outright commitment to Spirit's (scientific and logical) primacy (e.g. as during the Ancient Egyptian empire) will allow the evolution of humanity to proceed rhythmically and harmoniously.

Tell us more about the scientific and logical discoveries during the Ancient Egyptian empire (which dynasty?).

[Kohlrak]

On 9/24/2017 at 9:03 PM, shirgall said:

He digs deeply into his experience with atheism in The Art of the Argument. Since he overcame indoctrination to reach atheism through logic, it's different than others who came to atheism by being born into it and never indoctrinated, or those that came to it via rebellion against their parents. To some, like me, atheism is a lack of belief in any gods, and is no more special than a lack of belief in dragons, unicorns, or square circles. To others it is a rejection of all cultural values to the point of becoming a necessary element of post-modernism.

To spot the difference, note the difference between the people that feel the needs to join an organization of atheists that form a community versus those that are just tired of religion being crammed in their face all the time and just want to be left alone.

 

I'm terrible for this necropost, but i wouldn't be so sure on that. He definitely has reason to have a hostile rejection of christianity, but he's since admitted that (probably after the post i'm quoting here). I think what makes him different is that he sees that the complete cultural rejection is what leads to the problem that he has with christianity. Rather than christianity being evil, it's not enough, at least in his current stance. He admitted his bias, and, honestly, he seems reasonable enough to even be "converted back," should enough of his issues be addressed.

[barn]

So, there's the fact that the op has 3, three posts in total and by looking at the longevity of having been registered + this thread's creation DATE... it isn't an unfair assessment that the question is rather on the 'whatever' side for him/her. It certainly does seem so... kinda already diminishes the 'ask' to something faaaar minor...,but whatever.

An argument is an argument, is an argument, nothing more or less but an... you know...

So, I'm wondering... How's this NOT about 'venting' ?

Additionally,

Who am I to tell, that this person omitted the most valuable contribution of all, the 'what-have-I - gathered-responded(not really) - during this time-addition'? The part that is about comparing, you know... the bi-directional thingy called 'back and forth', the 'development part'?

... running out of 'pinches of salt'.

Barnsley

[Kohlrak]

51 minutes ago, barn said:

So, there's the fact that the op has 3, three posts in total and by looking at the longevity of having been registered + this thread's creation DATE... it isn't an unfair assessment that the question is rather on the 'whatever' side for him/her. It certainly does seem so... kinda already diminishes the 'ask' to something faaaar minor...,but whatever.

An argument is an argument, is an argument, nothing more or less but an... you know...

So, I'm wondering... How's this NOT about 'venting' ?

Additionally,

Who am I to tell, that this person omitted the most valuable contribution of all, the 'what-have-I - gathered-responded(not really) - during this time-addition'? The part that is about comparing, you know... the bi-directional thingy called 'back and forth', the 'development part'?

... running out of 'pinches of salt'.

Barnsley

 

You could be right, but what's it matter? If Hillary Clinton came out tomorrow saying that she legitimately lost the presidential run, does it really matter what her intentions were? We'd have to finally concede that she was telling the truth, for once. Truth and fact don't seem to be too consider with their motives. Then again, this whole post really is conjecture.

[barn]

18 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

You could be right,[...]

And I could be wrong, too. Never-mind, my aim was to demonstrate 'screenshot' vs. 'developmental arc' + The importance of who does/doesn't follow up ... never-mind(*2).

'Khillary'?! That'd have to be a 'miracle-on-demand'-ing thing...'M.o.D.-ing reality' type event... miniscule to none probability, me thinks.

18 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

this whole post really is conjecture.

Maybe the reason why I tend to not see so much the atheist in what Stefan Molyneux puts forward is because the philosophy aspect is faaar more abundant. (again, don't just 'snapshot' but observe the 'arc'... in my HUMBLE OPINION, mate!... this allcaps now makes it look silly, but nonetheless I do intend to be friendly, at the same time)

[Kohlrak]

27 minutes ago, barn said:

And I could be wrong, too. Never-mind, my aim was to demonstrate 'screenshot' vs. 'developmental arc' + The importance of who does/doesn't follow up ... never-mind(*2).

'Khillary'?! That'd have to be a 'miracle-on-demand'-ing thing...'M.o.D.-ing reality' type event... miniscule to none probability, me thinks.

Maybe the reason why I tend to not see so much the atheist in what Stefan Molyneux puts forward is because the philosophy aspect is faaar more abundant. (again, don't just 'snapshot' but observe the 'arc'... in my HUMBLE OPINION, mate!... this allcaps now makes it look silly, but nonetheless I do intend to be friendly, at the same time)

 

The atheist is there to be sure. He admits he wants to believe, so perhaps he's more a secularist than an atheist.

 

EDIT: To clarify, i mean that in the term that "atheism" could imply, rather than a lack of belief in God, but instead a more active disbelief.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Kohlrak
Clarity

[J.L.W]

29 minutes ago, barn said:

Maybe the reason why I tend to not see so much the atheist in what Stefan Molyneux puts forward is because the philosophy aspect is faaar more abundant. (again, don't just 'snapshot' but observe the 'arc'... in my HUMBLE OPINION, mate!... this allcaps now makes it look silly, but nonetheless I do intend to be friendly, at the same time)

Wow, you captured in words beautifully exactly what I was thinking. There is a kind of radiance you get from him that does not seem likely from someone that believes we are all super monkeys on a dead rock.

[Kohlrak]

7 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

Wow, you captured in words beautifully exactly what I was thinking. There is a kind of radiance you get from him that does not seem likely from someone that believes we are all super monkeys on a dead rock.

 

That's the thing, though, that confuses me about atheists. But, just because i expect someone to be a nihilist/hedonist in response (especially since most are, from what i've seen) doesn't mean that it's how it would always turn out. This is the very thing he said was the strongest argument that christians have, iirc.

[J.L.W]

2 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

That's the thing, though, that confuses me about atheists. But, just because i expect someone to be a nihilist/hedonist in response (especially since most are, from what i've seen) doesn't mean that it's how it would always turn out. This is the very thing he said was the strongest argument that christians have, iirc.

Yeah, I mean, most hard atheists are seriously the most depressing people I have ever met. I liked them though they are also funny in that they... laugh at themselves a bit. They literally get medical symptoms that no one understands like chronic sleep wadjamacallit as well.

I think he seriously does believe, perhaps/ very likely correctly, that out of all the mythologies you can believe out there atheism is the one that is most rational and I do think his work is grounded down to the real world that is an important part of his message.

I have a little inside information that a lot of the celebrity world and people in Stefans circle (by about one measure of separation) are very knowledgeable about certain aspects of our society that would somewhat disqualify hard atheism which is a part of why I believe he is not an atheist as well.

 

[barn]

Think of this:

Regardless if Stefan Molyneux has some atheistic arguments, he IS (... not just 'would be capable' , but is doing it... interviewees multiple times, proven, empirically...) reinforce virtues that are harmonious (because isolated, they are NAP compliant) with Christians, and alike. 'Sweet'

I do tend to think of it as 'bridging the gap', continuing 'The conversation' in which we all get crumbs of benefits, get to see preferable than other approaches of 'updating/perfecting'. Sweeet (*2)

[Kohlrak]

15 hours ago, J.L.W said:

Yeah, I mean, most hard atheists are seriously the most depressing people I have ever met. I liked them though they are also funny in that they... laugh at themselves a bit. They literally get medical symptoms that no one understands like chronic sleep wadjamacallit as well.

I think he seriously does believe, perhaps/ very likely correctly, that out of all the mythologies you can believe out there atheism is the one that is most rational and I do think his work is grounded down to the real world that is an important part of his message.

I have a little inside information that a lot of the celebrity world and people in Stefans circle (by about one measure of separation) are very knowledgeable about certain aspects of our society that would somewhat disqualify hard atheism which is a part of why I believe he is not an atheist as well.

 

Well no, he definitely has the secular standpoint. But, take a look at Jordan Peterson. Do you not see the parallels there, either? I have my own opinion on what exactly Stefan's problem with God really is in the end, as well as what could be said that could easily convert him. That said, i really don't think he's ready to have that conversation, or he'd ask his viewership already. He kinda already asked for someone to give him answers on multiple occasions, but this is a topic that seems best suited on a forum, rather than youtube comments section or even in a call: with a forum, we can come back later and continue the conversation at our own pace, not have a "well, you're not convincing" if you're just having a bad day and not at the top of your game. I've always found that online forums have the right format (although not always the right people) to have these types of conversations. To be honest, i think it'd be worth actually bringing up stefan's stated issues with God here and actually talking through them. I started a topic last year concerning one of this bigger ones (the irrationality of omnipotence with omniscience, which i attempted to disprove, but the conversation didn't really go far, which was partially my fault for my temper [where i kinda gave up and disappeared only to reappear again now]). He certainly wants to believe, but there's a few sticking point issues that he's having trouble getting past.  I'd gladly have the conversation, or help anyone prepare for that conversation, but right now he doesn't seem to be committed to having it. To be honest, right now he seems more useful to God as an atheist, which i've pointed out to him before: if he can, with secular principles, stand up for pretty much everything God stands for, then the only question is whether or not He exists, and people will have objective and secular reasoning enough to understand that this disbelief of hedonistic convenience doesn't simply go away because you can explain away God. And let's be honest, like abortion statistics verifying that it's mostly out of convenience, not rape or for the mother's health, most atheists probably use their rational arguments as a rationalization of their hedonism,  rather than being hedonists because they're rational.

 

14 hours ago, barn said:

Think of this:

Regardless if Stefan Molyneux has some atheistic arguments, he IS (... not just 'would be capable' , but is doing it... interviewees multiple times, proven, empirically...) reinforce virtues that are harmonious (because isolated, they are NAP compliant) with Christians, and alike. 'Sweet'

I do tend to think of it as 'bridging the gap', continuing 'The conversation' in which we all get crumbs of benefits, get to see preferable than other approaches of 'updating/perfecting'. Sweeet (*2)

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I do think he, and even Jordan Peterson, are doing a good job of making secular arguments for everything in Christianity, but I don't think it's out of a secret closeted faith. It is nice, though. My main objective with Stefan, since it's not really my place to "convert" him, is to get him to admit that belief in God is rational, contrary to what he said in the past, and not to do so for the sake of getting him to simply say it (kind of like how people have those fake apologies), but to the point where he can do a show on it, as an atheist, and admit that Christianity is not irrational after all, and actually make a proper case on why he was wrong about it being irrational. Right now, the strongest argument i've heard him say is that omniscience-omnipotence thing, which I argue is not necessarily irrational, but rather some of the attributes tied to omniscience is irrational (like knowing the future, which is impossible if there's free will since the future doesn't actually exist yet, then, but this flies counter to quantum physics, hence the conflict [if we can admit quantum physics is pseudoscience, it'll blow the conflict argument out of the water]).

[RichardY]

I think it would be funny if Stefan converted to Judaism, instead of Christianity. Probably would have people saying he's a Zionist infiltrator. 

The term Atheist doesn't wash for me; would be like saying Santa doesn't exist, when it's obvious he works for Coca Cola. Why not say Satanist instead? Moralist, sounds degrogatory. NAP Captain Sweden, UPBer wtf? Classical Liberal or Anarchist is more in acordance with religion being a personal affair.

Zechariah 14
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Indiana Jones Style.

[J.L.W]

I take issue with the first paragraph there. Stefan does not necessarily need to be 'cured' in order to find God. If that was what you took from what I wrote then you misinterpreted. The Judeo Christian version of God is insultingly simple. Anything that does exist of that magesty is not at all what is written in the bible. Also, the Buddhist conception of such things is that the 'all that is' is within the self. Perhaps Stefans preferred mythology.

What I was referring to is that if you look at an "atheist" known as Dave Cullen, in one of his videos one of them he references is Jordan Sather. Which surprised me he even knew of such a person. Perhaps it is a bit thin but I knew someone very close to someone in Stefans circle who knew about these things a little beyond what Jordan publicly talks about and I can't imagine such things would not have been discussed. There is something else which makes me wonder if these people know about this area.

If you pay attention to the knowledge and arguments in this new age sort of group, and the evidences therein. You would understand why I would say that knowledge of these things somewhat disqualifies atheism, at least of the Darwin paradigm.

[Kohlrak]

6 minutes ago, RichardY said:

I think it would be funny if Stefan converted to Judaism, instead of Christianity. Probably would have people saying he's a Zionist infiltrator. 

The term Atheist doesn't wash for me; would be like saying Santa doesn't exist, when it's obvious he works for Coca Cola. Why not say Satanist instead? Moralist, sounds degrogatory. NAP Captain Sweden, UPBer wtf? Classical Liberal or Anarchist is more in acordance with religion being a personal affair.

Zechariah 14
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Indiana Jones Style.

 

That would be hilarious. The zionist conspiracy theorists are terribly present in the youtube comments.

6 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

I take issue with the first paragraph there. Stefan does not necessarily need to be 'cured' in order to find God. If that was what you took from what I wrote then you misinterpreted. The Judeo Christian version of God is insultingly simple. Anything that does exist of that magesty is not at all what is written in the bible. Also, the Buddhist conception of such things is that the 'all that is' is within the self. Perhaps Stefans preferred mythology.

What I was referring to is that if you look at an "atheist" known as Dave Cullen, in one of his videos one of them he references is Jordan Sather. Which surprised me he even knew of such a person. Perhaps it is a bit thin but I knew someone very close to someone in Stefans circle who knew about these things a little beyond what Jordan publicly talks about and I can't imagine such things would not have been discussed. There is something else which makes me wonder if these people know about this area.

If you pay attention to the knowledge and arguments in this new age sort of group, and the evidences therein. You would understand why I would say that knowledge of these things somewhat disqualifies atheism, at least of the Darwin paradigm.

 

Don't get me wrong, buy issues i didn't meant mental issues, but rather he has very specific sticking points against religion. I define these as issues, but not mental issues. I would say that stefan does have a couple actual issues, but more or less points he's afraid to face. For example, just as omniscience and omnipotence can't exist if the future already exists, but free will is an issue if the future already exists, as well. We know he believes in free will, but we also know that he seems to be avoiding certain logical conflicts, which i completely understand given the context, and the fact that he's had issues that are, at least from an atheist or secularist point of view, much, much more important (if you don't believe in God, solving the God question should naturally be low priority in the face of the migrant crisis, for example, since you're already taking the stance that you'd be disproving God, rather than saving your own soul kind of thing [in that regard, his priorities are consistent with atheism, rather than closeted christianity]).

 

I'm curious what you know, but it's stefan's privacy we'd be violating, and it's his call whether or not he wants to be public about it.

[barn]

2 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

That's ok, let me try again...describing how/what I see happening.

If you are to get along in a society, certain principles must be aligned even if some preferences/beliefs are different. Those individual differences don't impede 'working/existing together' and therefore are lesser priority than the main 'pillars' of the group. It's preferable, logical to have therefore a focus on shared virtues, if not / without them, doesn't really matter anything else, there won't be 'conversation' or 'cross-pollination' of ideas.

2 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

I do think he, and even Jordan Peterson, are doing a good job of making secular arguments for everything in Christianity,

Yes, they're highlighting some ("everything" as you've worded it, is perhaps a bit too much) important aspects of religion, helping people remember some elements of our past.

2 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

but I don't think it's out of a secret closeted faith.

I agree. (Though, I'm a bit confused as to why you wrote that.)

2 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

My main objective with Stefan, since it's not really my place to "convert" him, is to get him to admit that belief in God is rational, contrary to what he said in the past, and not to do so for the sake of getting him to simply say it (kind of like how people have those fake apologies), but to the point where he can do a show on it, as an atheist, and admit that Christianity is not irrational after all, and actually make a proper case on why he was wrong about it being irrational.

I can't say anything meaningful here, other than:

If you think that's the best use of your time and resources... Go for it!

2 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

some of the attributes tied to omniscience is irrational (like knowing the future, which is impossible if there's free will since the future doesn't actually exist yet, then, but this flies counter to quantum physics, hence the conflict

Are you referring here to un-proven theories, not yet confirmed particles, things that we haven't/can't measure yet?

[J.L.W]

1 hour ago, Kohlrak said:

For example, just as omniscience and omnipotence can't exist if the future already exists, but free will is an issue if the future already exists, as well. We know he believes in free will, but we also know that he seems to be avoiding certain logical conflicts, which i completely understand given the context, and the fact that he's had issues that are, at least from an atheist or secularist point of view, much, much more important (if you don't believe in God, solving the God question should naturally be low priority in the face of the migrant crisis, for example, since you're already taking the stance that you'd be disproving God, rather than saving your own soul kind of thing [in that regard, his priorities are consistent with atheism, rather than closeted christianity]).

I'm curious what you know, but it's stefan's privacy we'd be violating, and it's his call whether or not he wants to be public about it.

Technically I re- thought what I had been saying about Stefans beliefs in that him having someone that knows about certain areas in his close group does not mean he definitely does because we can end up interacting with each other and not talking about certain things. (That is the person whose privacy I don't want to violate not Stefans)

But consider. David Wilcock, who you may have to look up, stated on his blog that he personally met Kylie Jenner and that she and celebrities in general know about him. David Wilcock has provided a scientific basis for free energy and various other science paradigms and talks about the day, coming soon, with groups allied against the deep state, that are intending to bring them down and usher in a new age of advanced technology and contact with ET races.

This is why Kanye is able to say this, he has back up, the people surrounding him and surrounding many other public figures know about this area. It is not a big leap to think Stefan and other individuals in the know... as he kind of is, will also know about this area.

THere are hints enough here and there, mentioning Bohemian Grove, books on incest etc. in his free books section, the only one not written by him.

[Kohlrak]

9 minutes ago, barn said:

I can't say anything meaningful here, other than:

If you think that's the best use of your time and resources... Go for it!

I absolutely do, if possible. The most important thing for Christians to do right now, in terms of "saving people" is to get rid of the common atheist mindset that somehow religion is irrational or insane. Honestly, for our culture, that is in our best interests as well. How is simply being part of the religion (or lack of) of the day somehow more enlightened, intelligent, whatever? I am Christian, and i do find myself quite sane and rational. I find it quite annoying that simply my belief in a higher power somehow suddenly invalidates my knowledge and opinions, even in other fields.

 

15 minutes ago, barn said:

Are you referring here to un-proven theories, not yet confirmed particles, things that we haven't/can't measure yet?

No, but those are a special concern that tends to come with it. I'm referring to the fact that since human invented math rules were created based on our universe, that we assume everything in math also applies to the universe, which in turn leads to those things. Time itself, despite being so well "understood," hasn't really been verified to exist. Causality has been, but this idea that the past and/or future exist independent of "now" has not been verified, yet we believe it without question, and it runs counter to other things (like free will) we take for granted, yet somehow we let these conflicting ideas coexist. We like to say that our universe is 3d, then we changed it to 4d, then it became 5d, and now it's Nd. It didn't take me long to find exception to this: if the universe is not infinite, there must not only be a center, but presumably there are also proper "axes" from which we should be measuring. Where are the X, Y, and Z axes properly at? Yet somehow we know exactly where time is. And then couple the fact that big bang cycle theory depends on X, Y, and Z not actually being infinite (and remember, the center would be the center of the universe, regardless of how infinite it would be in all directions if it were), because only Time spreads infinitely? But, wait, does time go backwards during "the big suck?" If so, or if not (doesn't really matter), how do we define the progression of cycles if they're causal but independent of time?

You see where the conflict comes into play? Time as an existent (as opposed to imagined) axis complicates a lot of matters if you take the time to think of it.

 

25 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

Technically I re- thought what I had been saying about Stefans beliefs in that him having someone that knows about certain areas in his close group does not mean he definitely does because we can end up interacting with each other and not talking about certain things. (That is the person whose privacy I don't want to violate not Stefans)

But consider. David Wilcock, who you may have to look up, stated on his blog that he personally met Kylie Jenner and that she and celebrities in general know about him. David Wilcock has provided a scientific basis for free energy and various other science paradigms and talks about the day, coming soon, with groups allied against the deep state, that are intending to bring them down and usher in a new age of advanced technology and contact with ET races.

This is why Kanye is able to say this, he has back up, the people surrounding him and surrounding many other public figures know about this area. It is not a big leap to think Stefan and other individuals in the know... as he kind of is, will also know about this area.

THere are hints enough here and there, mentioning Bohemian Grove, books on incest etc. in his free books section, the only one not written by him.

 

The day Stefan Molyneux and Tyler Glockner shake hands and come out as allies would be an interesting day indeed. Rather than the claims of associations, do you have any sort of empirical evidence of free energy, ET, etc?

[barn]

7 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

I absolutely do, if possible. The most important thing for Christians to do right now, in terms of "saving people" is to get rid of the common atheist mindset that somehow religion is irrational or insane. Honestly, for our culture, that is in our best interests as well. How is simply being part of the religion (or lack of) of the day somehow more enlightened, intelligent, whatever? I am Christian, and i do find myself quite sane and rational. I find it quite annoying that simply my belief in a higher power somehow suddenly invalidates my knowledge and opinions, even in other fields.

I see. Can't say I share your POV but I'm just trying to be honest and not claim to understand or be able to live it the same as you do.

11 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

No, but those are a special concern that tends to come with it. I'm referring to the fact that since human invented math rules were created based on our universe, that we assume everything in math also applies to the universe, which in turn leads to those things. Time itself, despite being so well "understood," hasn't really been verified to exist. Causality has been, but this idea that the past and/or future exist independent of "now" has not been verified, yet we believe it without question, and it runs counter to other things (like free will) we take for granted, yet somehow we let these conflicting ideas coexist. We like to say that our universe is 3d, then we changed it to 4d, then it became 5d, and now it's Nd. It didn't take me long to find exception to this: if the universe is not infinite, there must not only be a center, but presumably there are also proper "axes" from which we should be measuring. Where are the X, Y, and Z axes properly at? Yet somehow we know exactly where time is. And then couple the fact that big bang cycle theory depends on X, Y, and Z not actually being infinite (and remember, the center would be the center of the universe, regardless of how infinite it would be in all directions if it were), because only Time spreads infinitely? But, wait, does time go backwards during "the big suck?" If so, or if not (doesn't really matter), how do we define the progression of cycles if they're causal but independent of time?

You see where the conflict comes into play? Time as an existent (as opposed to imagined) axis complicates a lot of matters if you take the time to think of it.

Actually, time as a table or a chair does NOT exist(no need to verify). Same as the government, it doesn't exist neither IN THE PHYSICAL realm.

Sorry, but I have to say... There's a myriads of flawed assumptions here(objectively, scientifically, I could direct you to some sources in physics if you wished) not sure if you have verified the claims you are putting forward. I'm not saying you have to or that I'm 'diss-ing' everything you say from this point on, but there's strict set of steps one must follow in order to validate truth-claims. (in science, the scientific method)

Having said that, I don't think it's a sane idea to try to apply the scientific method to the metaphysical, e.g. 'the soul' or morality to name a couple. It's like quare shape, circular hole... cccan't.

Therefore, I suggest we keep the two separate. I mean, for the sake of constructivity.

[Kohlrak]

3 hours ago, barn said:

Actually, time as a table or a chair does NOT exist(no need to verify). Same as the government, it doesn't exist neither IN THE PHYSICAL realm.

Sorry, but I have to say... There's a myriads of flawed assumptions here(objectively, scientifically, I could direct you to some sources in physics if you wished) not sure if you have verified the claims you are putting forward. I'm not saying you have to or that I'm 'diss-ing' everything you say from this point on, but there's strict set of steps one must follow in order to validate truth-claims. (in science, the scientific method)

Having said that, I don't think it's a sane idea to try to apply the scientific method to the metaphysical, e.g. 'the soul' or morality to name a couple. It's like quare shape, circular hole... cccan't.

Therefore, I suggest we keep the two separate. I mean, for the sake of constructivity.

That which exists, exists. That which does not exist, does not exist. In terms of time vs government, "government" can refer to both as a concept as well as a group of people. Government as a concept still ultimately refers to a physical manifestation. Time is argued to physically manifest itself, but we have not actually verified this. If you have sources that say otherwise, please direct me to these. I'm more concerned about truth, not what's convenient to believe or not believe, or winning some online argument, or whatever.

As for the metaphysical, this goes back to the same thing. Things either exist or they do not. Morality does not necessarily exist, which I would argue is the great challenge that stefan has tried to tackle with UPB, to which he does a great job. But just like how we take time for granted, alot must be taken for granted with UPB to believe it, such as free will. And, to some degree, I agree that one cannot prove that we have it with the scientific method at the moment. If time exists, and time were traversable, then we would know that free will does not exist since the future is already written. We could logically deduce this. The problem with time is, we keep asking for proof that it does not, since the existence of time is taken for granted, but that is null hypothesis.

But the beautiful thing about the metaphysical is that even things that do not exist can have an effect in the universe, simply because we facilitate the existence. Law does not exist, but people who act upon others based on common agreements and concepts do indeed exist. This is what's great about humans: metaphysical things, which do not exist, affect our world through the existent human. However, by understanding the human and his limitations, one can see that the metaphysical does not exist. But what exists and what is just metaphysics is indeed an important debate to have. We as humans, since metaphysics "exist" as far as we're concerned, have a hard time separating the real physical from the intangible concepts. If God exists, He is a matter of reality and or nature, not strictly some metaphysical entity, which is why we continue to demand proof of Him. Why give time or anything else a pass, for that matter?

[barn]

6 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

That which exists, exists. That which does not exist, does not exist. In terms of time vs government, "government" can refer to both as a concept as well as a group of people. Government as a concept still ultimately refers to a physical manifestation. Time is argued to physically manifest itself, but we have not actually verified this. If you have sources that say otherwise, please direct me to these. I'm more concerned about truth, not what's convenient to believe or not believe, or winning some online argument, or whatever.

Well, ok. Let's see...

0. argument (to re-iterate quickly: I had likened 'time' as a concept to 'government' as a concept, since neither of them exists in the physical world in the same way as a solid object, a 'chair' or a 'table' would, they are abstractions.)

1. Q1 Does a unicorn (no ref. intended) exist the same way as a horse?

2. Q2 Can 'government' refer to inanimate objects like buildings, infrastructure too?

3. Q3 When you say "Time is argued to physically manifest itself," - what does that mean? (I haven't heard time materialising physically, if that's what you are suggesting...)

4. Q4 "That which exists...[...]" = Is it fair to say that this is a tautology?

... I'm curious as to what you thought, maybe the remaining parts afterwards.

[Kohlrak]

19 minutes ago, barn said:

Well, ok. Let's see...

0. argument (to re-iterate quickly: I had likened 'time' as a concept to 'government' as a concept, since neither of them exists in the physical world in the same way as a solid object, a 'chair' or a 'table' would, they are abstractions.)

1. Q1 Does a unicorn (no ref. intended) exist the same way as a horse?

2. Q2 Can 'government' refer to inanimate objects like buildings, infrastructure too?

3. Q3 When you say "Time is argued to physically manifest itself," - what does that mean? (I haven't heard time materialising physically, if that's what you are suggesting...)

4. Q4 "That which exists...[...]" = Is it fair to say that this is a tautology?

... I'm curious as to what you thought, maybe the remaining parts afterwards.

To address 0, that is the big thing at the end of the day. We apply time both as if it were a concept but also as if it actually has physical presence. I consider this to be the major issue of today's reasoning: that we have trouble separating the physical from the metaphysical.

 

Q1: For a unicorn to exist, we would have to apply the same rules that we would a horse. As such, I have seen no evidence that unicorns exist. Sure, they could, or perhaps they may have, but the same could be said of a flying teapot in space.

 

Q2: Government is a loaded word, really. It refers to both the concept, as well as the physical manifestation of that concept brought forth by humans. So, the short answer is "yes."

 

Q3: It has been argued that time actually does have physical properties, as well as being manipulated by physical properties (gravity and so forth). Look into how people refer to time and connections to "black holes" and "worm holes," for example. In these discussions, time is indeed being applied as if it were more than simply a human concept.

 

Q4: Yes. Perhaps i shouldn't be typing like this, but the past few days have been rough, to say the least. However, if something self-evident does not appear to be taken as self-evident, sometimes it needs to be restated. On one hand, it can be seen as rude, but on another it can easily save alot of time, effort, and so forth. Forgive me if it was not actually necessary.

[barn]

Just now, Kohlrak said:

To address 0, that is the big thing at the end of the day. We apply time both as if it were a concept but also as if it actually has physical presence. I consider this to be the major issue of today's reasoning: that we have trouble separating the physical from the metaphysical.

Sorry?! Are you saying that YOU are having problem seeing time only as a concept? That, it is more and according to you can take physical form?

6 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Q1: For a unicorn to exist, we would have to apply the same rules that we would a horse. As such, I have seen no evidence that unicorns exist. Sure, they could, or perhaps they may have, but the same could be said of a flying teapot in space.

You didn't answer my question. That's ok, just letting you know I asked something else.

7 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Q2: Government is a loaded word, really. It refers to both the concept, as well as the physical manifestation of that concept brought forth by humans. So, the short answer is "yes."

A definition that is dependent on the perceiver isn't a 'good' definition by objective standards.

Similarly, if we enabled the mixing of objective standards with relative and subjective points of views, we wouldn't be able to communicate even. i.e. - no established meaning of words, complete chaos.

To say that the concept of 'government' exists the same way as a 'chair', diminishes objectivity, it makes for a more subjectively handled world, all things can become relativistic. Not good.

14 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Q3: It has been argued that time actually does have physical properties, as well as being manipulated by physical properties (gravity and so forth). Look into how people refer to time and connections to "black holes" and "worm holes," for example. In these discussions, time is indeed being applied as if it were more than simply a human concept.

Never heard of time manifesting physical properties, I highly doubt it to be possible. I could be still wrong, though. Would you be so kind and share with me your source/reference, please?

17 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Q4: Yes. Perhaps i shouldn't be typing like this, but the past few days have been rough, to say the least. However, if something self-evident does not appear to be taken as self-evident, sometimes it needs to be restated. On one hand, it can be seen as rude, but on another it can easily save alot of time, effort, and so forth.

I'm fairly certain, you were explaining/giving me an excuse. I wasn't angry, perhaps a bit annoyed, thought I'd clarify.

Please, don't use tautology as it doesn't transmit any argument and is wasting both of our times. What would be perhaps better, if I could see a case made for how you know what you claim to know and what it'd take to falsify it. A standard of proof in short.

[barn]

Sorry... a bit of funsies... can't get it out of my head... one of my favourite 'standard of proof - spoof'

Monty Python - Witch trial

[Kohlrak]

2 hours ago, barn said:

Sorry?! Are you saying that YOU are having problem seeing time only as a concept? That, it is more and according to you can take physical form?

No, I have no problem seeing time only as a concept. What i'm stating is that it seems to be an issue and a sticking point for most people. I have trouble getting people past that sticking point. Not everyone, of course, but almost every quantum physicist i've dealt with (unfortunately, mostly online either directly on forums or via "scientific articles") seems to get hung up on this, as it seems to be an axiom that time exists outside of simply being concept.

 

And this goes back to the omnipotent and omniscient conundrum: if time exists, God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient, since He would either be unable to change the future, or the future can be changed and therefore he doesn't know. If time is only a concept, the future is not a subset of knowledge that can be expected of someone/something omniscient, therefore the duality becomes possible.

 

2 hours ago, barn said:

You didn't answer my question. That's ok, just letting you know I asked something else.

i figured the indirect answer would suffice. I cannot say that unicorns most definitely do not exist, but we're dealing with null hypothesis at that point. If someone has a reason to believe in their existence, then they're being rational. Perhaps they saw an actual unicorn? I would also expect them to rule out drugs and other things for their sighting as well.

 

2 hours ago, barn said:

A definition that is dependent on the perceiver isn't a 'good' definition by objective standards.

Similarly, if we enabled the mixing of objective standards with relative and subjective points of views, we wouldn't be able to communicate even. i.e. - no established meaning of words, complete chaos.

To say that the concept of 'government' exists the same way as a 'chair', diminishes objectivity, it makes for a more subjectively handled world, all things can become relativistic. Not good.

 

Good point: as with the Screwtape Letters, it is good enough to get the Christian to have faith, belief, etc to the cross, rather than what the cross represents, if you want to destroy the Christian and/or his faith.

 

2 hours ago, barn said:

Never heard of time manifesting physical properties, I highly doubt it to be possible. I could be still wrong, though. Would you be so kind and share with me your source/reference, please?

 

Just a quick google. If time can be manipulated, then it has physical properties. Things get even more entertaining when you research "big bang." I think some people argue that there's a point where time doessn't exist, but afterwards it does exist, but i could be wrong, since i'm going on memory. Try jumping through that logic, once.

 

2 hours ago, barn said:

Please, don't use tautology as it doesn't transmit any argument and is wasting both of our times. What would be perhaps better, if I could see a case made for how you know what you claim to know and what it'd take to falsify it. A standard of proof in short.

 

The danger of that is turning around and making an argument from authority. While not guaranteed, it's easy to fall into that trap. In the right context, though, that doesn't happen. In the case of the existence of government, i'm not sure it would be appropriate. In terms of time, I couldn't really can't propose one: that'd be the job of someone who wishes to prove that time exists, right?

[Kohlrak]

2 hours ago, barn said:

Sorry... a bit of funsies... can't get it out of my head... one of my favourite 'standard of proof - spoof'

Monty Python - Witch trial

I feel this a bit more relevant: this skit exemplifies what i feel about the majority of quantum physics as a field of science. And "climate change" as manmade. And a whole host of other things. Too much back patting.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Kohlrak
more examples

[neeeel]

16 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

I absolutely do, if possible. The most important thing for Christians to do right now, in terms of "saving people" is to get rid of the common atheist mindset that somehow religion is irrational or insane.

 

The way to get rid of the "atheist mindset" that religion is irrational, is to give rational proof of the existence of god. There is none. Even if you did have proof of the existence of god, there is absolutely no way to get from there, to a belief in Christianity and the bible.

 

[barn]

14 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

i figured the indirect answer would suffice.

Why wouldn't you answer a binary question with a binary response, escapes me.

17 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

I cannot say that unicorns most definitely do not exist, but we're dealing with null hypothesis at that point. If someone has a reason to believe in their existence, then they're being rational. Perhaps they saw an actual unicorn? I would also expect them to rule out drugs and other things for their sighting as well.

That's ok, nevertheless. Indirect answers provide information too, while they're about other things, can shine a light on chosen attitude in speaking of a topic.

Still, you haven't responded to(I'll have to let it go, it seems you don't want to respond on it. No problem.):

17 hours ago, barn said:

"exist the same way"

Which would have been/is foundational establishing the difference between the mechanisms of concepts and things that which exist in the physical world.

However, you did speak about:

° Avoiding to say if unicorns are real or not (I haven't asked)

° How's believing in unicorns may be irrational (didn't ask neither)

° What would make them believe such a thing (neither this)

° You would hope they ruled out drugs when concluding things (nor this)

At this stage, I'm wondering whether if it's worth continuing because simple queries don't net constructive answers, objectively.

17 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

. We apply time both as if it were a concept but also as if it actually has physical presence. I consider this to be the major issue of today's reasoning: that we have trouble separating the physical from the metaphysical.

1. "We" - that'd include more than just you

2. "physical presence" - a concept is without a physical presence, that's why it's just an abstraction an idea.

16 hours ago, barn said:

Are you saying that YOU are having problem seeing time only as a concept? That, it is more and according to you can take physical form?

You're speaking about something else.

14 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

No, I have no problem seeing time only as a concept.

Great. But that still doesn't make it clear whether you are saying if time is a concept or if it is with a physical form too. It just mean, you claim to be able to see it as a concept, not that you actually do.

14 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Good point: as with the Screwtape Letters, it is good enough to get the Christian to have faith, belief, etc to the cross, rather than what the cross represents, if you want to destroy the Christian and/or his faith.

Well, I was rather pointing out what is the reason why I see 'being on the fence' (indefinitely) when asked something directly a slippery slope, furthermore why it seemed to me...

17 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Q2: Government is a loaded word, really. It refers to both the concept, as well as the physical manifestation of that concept brought forth by humans. So, the short answer is "yes."

You are joining (trying) the two types of existence... not good. No clear separation, it's relativistic.

Abstract entities created by individuals have no (none at all) ability to act, claim ownership or do anything without the individuals' aid. 'Governments' do not exist in reality, do nothing.

The individuals in control of concepts/abstractions do. It's the individuals that act, create / do whatever they want with concepts upon the agreed rules & physical limitations.

Same with time as a concept. It's content is dependent on the creators' definition but take the creator away and so does the concept too, vanishes like it never was. You can't do that to a chair or a table. Can't disprove the existence of a physically existing object, no matter however you twist definitions around it'll be there, the only thing you can achieve is to convince your senses to ignore/avoid acknowledgement of reality in the physical world. Not good.

14 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Just a quick google. If time can be manipulated, then it has physical properties. Things get even more entertaining when you research "big bang." I think some people argue that there's a point where time doessn't exist, but afterwards it does exist, but i could be wrong, since i'm going on memory. Try jumping through that logic, once.

That's different. I mean, you linked a long debate, so I can't be sure what is that you are putting forward. Do you agree with everything/everyone there?

Also, do you think of (SR, STR) immediately when someone asks you for the current time, the time of the day, time spent, time to spare? (That would be crazy in my opinion.)

14 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

The danger of that is turning around and making an argument from authority. While not guaranteed, it's easy to fall into that trap. In the right context, though, that doesn't happen. In the case of the existence of government, i'm not sure it would be appropriate.

I haven't a clue why you are saying this, after I had pointed out that when you use tautology, that adds no argument and is therefore a waste of time & and when you gave an excuse with a probable explanation(there), it doesn't change the fact that it was/is 'not an argument'...Still remains unchallenged.

14 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

In terms of time, I couldn't really can't propose one: that'd be the job of someone who wishes to prove that time exists, right?

Don't understand what are you referring to. ("propose one") To propose what?

Hey, why not join in the ask yourself?

13 hours ago, MMD said:

That sure is a whole bunch of words! You're welcome to call into the show and ask Stefan whatever questions about his "proclamation" of Atheism - email [email protected].

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by barn
grrrmer

[J.L.W]

4 hours ago, neeeel said:

The way to get rid of the "atheist mindset" that religion is irrational, is to give rational proof of the existence of god. There is none. Even if you did have proof of the existence of god, there is absolutely no way to get from there, to a belief in Christianity and the bible.

 

What about giving proof that Darwinism, the whole skeleton thing, is not correct? Which is something I actually believe. There are no skeletons that make the case. There is no Ape, 1/4 ape, 1/2 ape, 3/4 ape, human. It is nowhere. There should be hundreds of thousands of such skeletons if such a story were true!

There are other scientific proofs such as the fact that if you breed animals in a laboratory they do not become different animals. A lizard bred a hundred times doesn't suddenly become an alligator or fish. Why haven't foxes evolved?

As would be the more interesting call in to Stefan. 

[neeeel]

2 hours ago, J.L.W said:

What about giving proof that Darwinism, the whole skeleton thing, is not correct? Which is something I actually believe. There are no skeletons that make the case. There is no Ape, 1/4 ape, 1/2 ape, 3/4 ape, human. It is nowhere. There should be hundreds of thousands of such skeletons if such a story were true!

There are other scientific proofs such as the fact that if you breed animals in a laboratory they do not become different animals. A lizard bred a hundred times doesn't suddenly become an alligator or fish. Why haven't foxes evolved?

As would be the more interesting call in to Stefan. 

This has been debunked many many times.

 

firstly, of course there is no ape, 1/4 ape, etc, thats not how evolution works.its incremental change over time, you cannot point to an instant in time where something changed from "ape" to "1/4 ape".  if you look at either end of time , ie ape and human, they appear very different, but there is no instant at which one changed to the other, there is no moment where an ape gave birth to a human, etc.

Secondly, it takes many more than 100 generations to create a new species. The fact that you talk about "a lizard suddenly becoming an alligator or fish" shows you have no clue what evolution says, and are battling away at your own strawman.

 

Thirdly, as I understand it, it is quite rare for a full fossil to be formed, so it make perfect sense that there wouldnt be hundred of thousands of such skeletons.

 

fourthly, foxes have evolved, are evolving right now, as is every single other species on the planet, including humans. Evolution is an on going process , as environmental conditions, and competition between species, change.

 

Evolution, change over time, is as pretty much a fact as anything can be. It is the best explanation we have for what we see today, and various different branches of science all arrive at the same conclusion. If you have evidence to show its wrong ( what you have written in this post is absolutely not evidence that its wrong), please bring it, and you could be next years nobel prize winner.

[ofd]

Quote

Which is something I actually believe.

If you are too dumb to type in 'list of transitional fossils' and to find pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils why should we pay any attention to what you believe?

 

Quote

There should be hundreds of thousands of such skeletons if such a story were true!

You are on to something, because there are thousands of skeletons of transitional fossils!

[RichardY]

I remember once when I was backpacking in Canada seeing a fossilzed skeleton of a horse at the Calgary horse show, apparently they became extinct in North America but were reintroduced.. Went with a fundamentalist christian at the time. Weird how the fossils are outright denied. I mean A) Why would God be testing you in such a way B) How much bleeding time would it take to manufacture a conspiracy like that, not going to happen. or C) The world is more than 6,000 years old. I think if C..... would be like taking a sledgehammer to the skull, total breakdown of their reality.

[Kohlrak]

10 hours ago, barn said:

Why wouldn't you answer a binary question with a binary response, escapes me.

That's ok, nevertheless. Indirect answers provide information too, while they're about other things, can shine a light on chosen attitude in speaking of a topic.

Still, you haven't responded to(I'll have to let it go, it seems you don't want to respond on it. No problem.):

Which would have been/is foundational establishing the difference between the mechanisms of concepts and things that which exist in the physical world.

However, you did speak about:

° Avoiding to say if unicorns are real or not (I haven't asked)

° How's believing in unicorns may be irrational (didn't ask neither)

° What would make them believe such a thing (neither this)

° You would hope they ruled out drugs when concluding things (nor this)

At this stage, I'm wondering whether if it's worth continuing because simple queries don't net constructive answers, objectively.

 

Forgive me, but every time I engage an atheist on this topic, they tend to be hostile and also try to throw catch-22 questions at me. That question fits the profile, so it seems far more appropriate to give a non-binary answer, to avoid going down the rabbit hole. If i say unicorns exist the same way as a horse, i'm suggesting that unicorns exist. If I say that unicorns do not exist the same way as a horse, I would be expected to explain how a horse is fundamentally different from a unicorn, that even if a unicorn did exist, why it would require a different standard of proof. If you were more interested in generating a standard of proof, it would've been far safer to ask about any object or creature right off the bat.

 

10 hours ago, barn said:

1. "We" - that'd include more than just you

2. "physical presence" - a concept is without a physical presence, that's why it's just an abstraction an idea.

You're speaking about something else.

Great. But that still doesn't make it clear whether you are saying if time is a concept or if it is with a physical form too. It just mean, you claim to be able to see it as a concept, not that you actually do.

 

 

When this particular branch of discussion started, was it not clear that the objective was to show that since God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent if time exists, that to be rational I must either sacrifice God's Omniscience, God's omnipotence, or time? I'm consistently suggesting that we have not proved the physical existance of time, yet people (presumably people whom i don't agree with, given the context) are referring to time as if it is manipulable. I'm therefore calling out that we have a standard for God that we don't even have for time.

 

11 hours ago, barn said:

Great. But that still doesn't make it clear whether you are saying if time is a concept or if it is with a physical form too. It just mean, you claim to be able to see it as a concept, not that you actually do.

Well, I was rather pointing out what is the reason why I see 'being on the fence' (indefinitely) when asked something directly a slippery slope, furthermore why it seemed to me...

You are joining (trying) the two types of existence... not good. No clear separation, it's relativistic.

Abstract entities created by individuals have no (none at all) ability to act, claim ownership or do anything without the individuals' aid. 'Governments' do not exist in reality, do nothing.

The individuals in control of concepts/abstractions do. It's the individuals that act, create / do whatever they want with concepts upon the agreed rules & physical limitations.

Same with time as a concept. It's content is dependent on the creators' definition but take the creator away and so does the concept too, vanishes like it never was. You can't do that to a chair or a table. Can't disprove the existence of a physically existing object, no matter however you twist definitions around it'll be there, the only thing you can achieve is to convince your senses to ignore/avoid acknowledgement of reality in the physical world. Not good.

 

Fair enough, i'll concede that point. Government, like all concepts, cannot exist. Same thing of the church: a church is not the church building, but the belief of the people who are there.

 

11 hours ago, barn said:

That's different. I mean, you linked a long debate, so I can't be sure what is that you are putting forward. Do you agree with everything/everyone there?

Also, do you think of (SR, STR) immediately when someone asks you for the current time, the time of the day, time spent, time to spare? (That would be crazy in my opinion.)

 

The point is to show evidence that people do see time as manipulable and thus having of physical properties: existing beyond mere concept. Was that not what was requested? To show that people not only see time outside of being mere concept, and also that this is considered normal? No, i didn't take the time to analyze the arguments beyond the purpose of showing that there are people who believe time is manipulable, therefore existing beyond mere concept.

 

But, no, I don't think of SR and STR. When space-time relativity is used to suggest that time exists as more than just a concept, I question it's validity. Separation between two objects is demonstrable. Separation between two times is not: since we cannot show both momentary existences (unless there's a method I'm unaware of).

 

11 hours ago, barn said:

Don't understand what are you referring to. ("propose one") To propose what?

Hey, why not join in the ask yourself?

 

 

A standard of proof of time, especially existing beyond mere concept.

 

12 hours ago, neeeel said:

The way to get rid of the "atheist mindset" that religion is irrational, is to give rational proof of the existence of god. There is none. Even if you did have proof of the existence of god, there is absolutely no way to get from there, to a belief in Christianity and the bible.

 

 

So to be rational, evidence doesn't suffice, but instead proof must be present? What proof do you have that space exists? Do you believe in whales? What proof do you have of whales. I never met a whale, myself, and i only have evidence (videos showing them) that they exist, not proof. So, i assume either you have proof for whales (and other things), or you apply different standards to God than you do certain things on earth that you already believe. Or, perhaps, it's rational to believe in other things without proof, but not God, simply because you believe in those other things but not God? I don't get it. Please explain.

 

8 hours ago, J.L.W said:

What about giving proof that Darwinism, the whole skeleton thing, is not correct? Which is something I actually believe. There are no skeletons that make the case. There is no Ape, 1/4 ape, 1/2 ape, 3/4 ape, human. It is nowhere. There should be hundreds of thousands of such skeletons if such a story were true!

There are other scientific proofs such as the fact that if you breed animals in a laboratory they do not become different animals. A lizard bred a hundred times doesn't suddenly become an alligator or fish. Why haven't foxes evolved?

As would be the more interesting call in to Stefan. 

 

Darwinism, evolution, etc are also concepts. That which does exist is DNA, and we've demonstrated that DNA is a mechanism for which living organisms decide shape and other properties. Evolution is the reasonable belief that changes in DNA over time will ultimately result in stages that can be clearly defined, even if the intermediate stages cannot be. The issue isn't with evolution that we can't define what some would call the "in between stages." For example, We have Leopards, savanna cats, and house cats. Clearly these species formed from similar ancestors, just as, say, a midget can spawn from the same ancestors as a tall person. It is the fault of not having clear enough definitions that we can't identify the transitions, not a fault of the concept of evolution.

[neeeel]

32 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

 

 

Quote

 

So to be rational, evidence doesn't suffice, but instead proof must be present? What proof do you have that space exists? Do you believe in whales? What proof do you have of whales. I never met a whale, myself, and i only have evidence (videos showing them) that they exist, not proof. So, i assume either you have proof for whales (and other things), or you apply different standards to God than you do certain things on earth that you already believe.

What? Evidence, and proof are pretty much synonymous. they can vary in exactly what they mean, eg a mathematical proof, but are often interchangeable.

What proof do I have that space exists? Not sure what you mean by space? Do you mean where the planets and stars are? I can look out into the night and see the stars and planets. Sight, sound, taste , touch and smell is proof that something exists( it could be a hallucination, sure, but all of your senses and knowledge build to a coherent understanding of the world).

 

Same with whales. I have seen pictures and videos of whales. I have seen other fish, and dolphins, it doesnt seem a stretch to believe that bigger fish exist. I can, if I want, go and see a whale in a zoo, or pay to go on a boat and see a whale. If I didnt believe in whales, I would also have to believe that there is a huge conspiracy by nearly every other human being to pretend that whales exist, to fake pictures, movies, and robotic whales to put in zoos and seas. It seems very unlikely.

 

It seems like you think you have "gotcha'd" me because I accept some things without proof, and not others. You are incorrect. Whales are consistent with everything I know about the world. The possibility that its a hoax is incredibly small, in my opinion. There is physical evidence of whales. Are you seriously saying theres no evidence that whales exist?

 

theres also the point that, if I am wrong about whales, its not a huge deal. It doesnt change my life in any way. If I believe in a (Christian) god, it affects my life hugely, in how I think and act. So, I can accept that whales exist, without being too bothered about it, any lack of evidence doesnt have an effect. If I accept god without evidence, there is a huge effect on my life. Delusion about whales has next to no effect. Delusion about god has a huge effect.

Quote

Or, perhaps, it's rational to believe in other things without proof, but not God, simply because you believe in those other things but not God? I don't get it. Please explain.

 

What evidence is there that god exists? So far , anything I have come across is ludicrous, inconclusive, or doesnt hold up rationally.