Howdy friends,
It has been a while, but glad to see this community still thriving. I fully expect some hate for this, but I released a video with a claim on evidence and God. I'm reaching out because I would love to know what you fine men and women think. I have a feeling you will either really like it, or really hate it, and my hope is to connect on things we can agree with.
In this video I don’t prove God’s existence (nor will I ever), but I do make a claim which I don’t think anyone can deny, and I even think Atheists might agree with. Overall I’m not trying to convert anyone here, just trying to stress test my thinking. And who knows? Maybe we even become friends. Much love to all of you. Thanks!
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? I'm not torturing myself with YouTube videos of religious apologetics. Just post the best evidence you have.
Good question Sheldon, and I don't blame you for not wanting to get caught up in another apologetics conversation. The short answer is I cannot provide objective evidence for a deity.
the longer answer is this video isn't really about that anyways.
Actually the point of the video is about finding truth without evidence (or at least finding a stopping point with evidence). Before this sounds like I'm trying to flank us with an argument about proving God's existence without evidence, I'm not. I don't attempt to prove anything, except what indisputable truth is. I make a claim about God at the end, but it is a claim that I imagine you might agree with. Just a guess, though.
Thanks for the response!
@CallOut: "The short answer is I cannot provide objective evidence for a deity."
Well, that's refreshing. Your video does nothing to point to truth without evidence. Sorry. You are very confused about the relationship of Concepts to those things they represent.
Thank you for your honesty, but I never believe claims for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated, no matter how clever the arguments presented may be.
Otherwise one would have to lend credence to all sorts of nonsense.
One can not find a definitive truth without evidence.
That pretty much ends the point and the conversation.
The video was better than I expected. I largely agree with it; although the information provided is extremely trivial.
@CallOut
I'll send you a private message of a funny related story in a few minutes.
Thank you! I'm sure this site is tired of getting Christians making it their crown jewel mission to convert Atheists. I'm trying to differentiate myself. I am genuine when I say I want truth, and I think Atheists are oftentimes more honest about this than Christians are. Thanks for the response!
I concur with Nyarlathotep. The information provided is pretty much true, but trivial. You're just using definitions and aspects that break those definitions to conclude that something cannot exist that conflicts with its definition. Sort of like an existential semantics. Only in some very particular cases, in which we have very clear definitions does this bring you to any worthwhile conclusions. For example proving that someone's version of God cannot logically exist, given their ascription of attributes.
In other words, it's mostly just word games, not anything earth-shattering. Take your example of two baseball teams praying to God and both asking to "win." This could be entirely possible based on how we decide to define "win." If we define "winning" as "not losing," then both teams tying the game suddenly meets the criteria. And now the God that can grant BOTH prayers actually can exist.
Does this prove anything? Not in the slightest. To get there you have to get to evidence/objects/essences that are much more fundamental, and a lot less provisional. As an example of something fundamental - the attributes of the element gold. They simply "are" and do not rely on anyone's definitions of anything. Gold is what it is, and reacts with our universe in the ways that it reacts. As far as we are concerned, this is about as fundamental and demonstrable as you can get. God just doesn't provide us anything so fundamental about Himself to inspect.
Thanks for the response! Very good points. You aren't the first to say this is trivial, so perhaps I make another video on that later.
I do want to highlight what you are saying about definition. It is true that we can easily argue definition, however I would suggest that regardless of how we try to communicate a concept, the concept remains unchanged and true. I think even if our definitions are debatable, the concept is not.
One comment I received on the video is we can define a triangle, but we can’t define God. I don’t dispute this, but I also find it immaterial to the concepts. Regardless of what our definition of God is, even if wildly different, that God cannot commit a logical fallacy.
Would you disagree that concepts supersede definition in this way?
@CallOut: You don't have a concept without a definition. I have clearly pointed that out. How do you have a triangle without 3 sides, If you have no definition, everything is a triangle. As soon as you recognize 3 sides, it exists. It becomes a concept when you name it.
How does a concept supersede a definition? WooWoo bullshit concepts tend not to have definitions that cannot stand against critical inquiry. As such, they tend to be utterly and completely useless.
THE ENTIRE REASON YOU CAN NOT PROVE YOUR "GOD CONCEPT" IS THAT YOU HAVE NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE FOR IT. This is fundamentally different that the concept of a triangle. What you are doing is uttering the word "God" but you have absolutely no understanding of the concept "God." Just like most of the theists that visit the site. IN SHORT: You have no concept and no idea at all what you are talking about without defining the WORD you are trying to call a CONCEPT.
It would be as if I made up a word, "Bogustilter" You ask me what it is and I tell you, "It's just a concept." NO! It is not a concept. It is nothing at all but some letters pushed together to resemble something called a word.
CONCEPTD: an abstract idea; a general notion. "structuralism is a difficult concept"
synonyms: idea, notion, conception, abstraction, conceptualization; More
You are asserting you can have the concept of a triangle without ever noticing any of its qualities. Sides, angels, etc.... This is simply wrong. Triangles were noticed prior to becoming a concept, but the concept is "TRIANGLE" prior to that it was simply "I don't know." You don't get to call it a "concept" when you have no idea what it is. HENCE THE PROBLEM WITH THE GOD CONCEPT. And the reason you can not define or defend what you are talking about when it comes to this God idea.
What you are asserting is "God is a concept." Then when asked "What do you mean?" You say, "I don't know and I can't prove it." This makes no sense at all.
@Callout
"One comment I received on the video is we can define a triangle, but we can’t define God. I don’t dispute this, but I also find it immaterial to the concepts. Regardless of what our definition of God is, even if wildly different, that God cannot commit a logical fallacy."
We can discuss triangles logically because they have been defined, we have all witnessed them, they exist. But you are attempting to slip in the "god" concept and expect anyone to accept it as easily as a triangle?
Please offer your personal definition of your personal god, then prove it exists. Otherwise, you are a waste of server cycles.
@ CallOut
I usually do not watch videos but this one was interesting. Not earth shattering but worth the time.
I liked his description where he gave the bookends of the argument.
1. Those who require no evidence. A dead end.
2. Those who always require more evidence. An infinite loop.
I appreciate it! I'm really surprised I'm not getting much hate for this (at least not yet). I was really nervous posting, but am happy to see genuine discussion!
@Jo
"Those who always require more evidence. An infinite loop."
That is because the theist who makes the god claim is unable to back up their assertions. When they get called out, they lose, every time.
Well that's 10 minutes I'll never get back.... *shakes fist* damn you....
@callout : Isn't calling something "indistbutable" about a vacuous claim the same as calling it unfalsifiable?
So... proving something with irrefutable evidence is just as mindless as saying we can't prove something at all? I'm not following. Unless you are saying my claim about evidence is incorrect?
@CallOut: Yes, we can not prove things to the nth degree. What we do is allocate belief in response to the level and quality of the evidence provided. This is why most atheists will not make the outright claim that "No God's Exist." Granted, all the evidence is in their favor. Millions of failed Gods. 6000 years of failed apologetics. Prayer study fails. Lying preachers. Wishy Washy religions that constantly change their dogma. Outright contradictions. No clear definitions for anything, CONCEPTS that can not stand up to any kind of critical inquiry.
No one has ever asked for irrefutable evidence. Any evidence at all that can begin to move us forward would be fine. What we have is next to nothing.
YOUR CLAIM ABOUT EVIDENCE IS CERTAINLY INCORRECT.
Very true.The OP has spent a lot of time and dialogue discussing evidence, but has not presented any. Talking about evidence is not submitting evidence.
In fact, isn't the entire conversation by the OP just a lot of nothing?
CallOut: If evidence is irrefutable then there is no way to falsify it.
Self promotion much?
Good to see you again Mr. Old man! I remember having good chats with you about a year ago. Yes it is self promotion, but ultimately sincere about wanting to avoid living in my own echo chamber.
@CallOut: I guess your guarantee was useless, what do we win?
1. You will not show Atheism is wrong. At least there may be hope for you. Atheism makes no claims. Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. So you might be off to a good start. (1:12)
2. Begin by eliminating evidence. HA HA HA HA HA HA ,,,,,, Can't wait to see where we go from here. We find those planets you were speaking of earlier based on evidence, shifts in light, gravity shifts, and predictable patterns (All Evidence). We would never find them without ti. But for the sake of argument, lets get rid of all evidence. (By the way - the earth is not round. I know this because I have researched it. It is even less round when you look just at the land mass without the water.)
3. You can live your life happily without testing every moronic claim that comes down the pike. "Excellent" Spoken like a true atheist. Whether or not the earth is round does not really matter to your daily existence. In fact, you have no good reason to believe the earth is round until someone presents you with the facts and evidence. We are exactly on the same page here. If you ever wanted to you could test the evidence yourself. (Ummmmm.... NO! You couldn't. Remember point #2? We have thrown out all evidence. There is no evidence any more. Let's at least try to remain consistent. ) It no longer matters if evidence is subject to consensus, we have thrown it out.
(I will throw in a little caveat here. Consensus is gained through experimentation, measurement, repetition, review and predictability. Without evidence, there would be no way to have consensus, unless of course we were simply accepting religious Woo Woo claims without facts and evidence. But let us continue.)
4. Being reasonable is not always right. Makes perfect sense. That is why we rely on evidence. BUT! We have thrown evidence out. So, we actually have no way to be reasonable any more. We have no evidence.
Why do you go back to evidence??? We have thrown it out. Isn't that our consensus?
5. OKAY - We need evidence for the ball in the hand, it can not be self evident. BUT - some things are self evident. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ....... How do you know without verification in the form of experimentation, measurement, repetition, review and predictability. I have worked in a psych ward. I know the sorts of things people assume are self evident without verification. Are you one of those people???
6. A 4 sided triangle is by "definition / evidence" not possible. If it has four sides, it falls into the category of one of the 4 sided objects, Quadrilateral - Parallelograms, Rhombuses and Kites, Rectangles and Squares. How do you know it has 4 sides and is different from a 3 sided object without looking at it and counting the sides. Calling it a Square does not make it so. You need "evidence." Citing it to be different than a triangle, is fine as long as you can demonstrate that difference with evidence. OOPS! We have thrown out evidence. Well then, you can say any damn thing you like about objects regardless of how many (can they have sides without evidence?) sides they have and you are of course correct. We have no way to evaluate your claim. Squares and triangles are exactly the same, only the names are different. (HORSESHIT! By the way.) The evidence does not become arbitrary. There is no object with three sides without counting the sides (evidence). Without noticing sides (evidence). "NO EVIDENCE NEEDED" - A MORONIC CLAIM.
7. All you need do is look at the "Concept" of what a triangle is. "CONCEPT: A triangle is a shape (EVIDENCE), or a specific part of two dimensional space. It has three straight sides (EVIDENCE) and three vertices (EVIDENCE). The three angles of a triangle always add up to 180° (EVIDENCE) (180 degrees). It is the polygon (EVIDENCE) with the least possible number of sides." Calling it a concept and pretending to ignore the evidence is absolute BULLSHIT. Without the evidence the concept would not exist.
8. SIMPLY SHOW ME A TRIANGLE WITH 4 SIDES: (EASY) We simply do as you say and throw out all the evidence. Everything becomes a triangle without facts and evidence supporting the claim. I am a triangle, you are a triangle, this site is a triangle, and these letters are all triangles too. There is no "concept" of triangle without a way to define the concept.
9. Your "Concession" is graciously accepted.
10: HOW DO YOU GET TO KNOWING SOMETHING INDISPUTABLE FROM HERE? YOU MEAN IF WE CAN NOT SEE IT, MEASURE IT, PREDICT IT, THEN IT IS INDISPUTABLE. ARE YOU CONFUSING INDISPUTABLE WITH NON-VERIFIABLE? HOW IS SOMETHING INDISPUTABLE WITHOUT BEING VERIFIED?
11. Okay - Somehow we jumped to God. I have no idea how we got here. At this point, unlike the triangle, God has not been defined, so we really have no idea at all what you are referring to as god. Still, your claim is
"WE CAN PROVE ASPECTS OF GOD (NOT DEFINED) WITH INDISPUTABLE ACCURACY." How will you do that without evidence or actually defining the god you are referring to?
12. WE CAN PROVE CONCEPTS OF GOD THAT ARE INDISPUTABLE: (Not like concepts of triangle I hope. )
13: God (Not yet defined) can not let two baseball teams who both pray to win, win. So, we have our first bit of empirical evidence for god. He is logically consistent and has limits to his power. So --- "If we believe in a god who can do anything, we believe in a god who fundamentally can not exist." I FULLY AGREE WITH THE SECOND PART OF THIS. However; is God is fundamentally limited to logical consistency, is it really God? Why call it god if it is not all powerful. Why not just a really powerful guy? Possibly an alien? Of course we would have no evidence for any claim we made so would it really matter?
14. HUH? I THOUGHT YOU WERE A THEIST? You just supported the Atheist position. Besides being a bit confused on the idea of Concepts and how they relate to things that actually exist, your video is completely innocuous. It has nothing to do with god and not a lot to do with Atheism. As far as I can tell, most atheists are in complete agreement with you. An all powerful, omniscient, probably can't exist for the simple fact that we really have no evidence for such a god AND the CONCEPT has never been clearly defined.
You are very confused about the link between "concepts" and that which the "concepts" represent.
A metal triangle used for a traffic sign. It is a 3 dimensional object and has 5 sides. The front, back, and 3 edges.
A triangle drawn on white paper with black felt tip pen has 6 sides if we argue that the outer edges are sides and the inner edges are the other sides. How can we prove that it is not a smaller white triangle placed on top of a larger black triangle?
The mind wobbles.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@chimp3 - Great point - And probably why we need to DEFINE CONCEPTS. But the triangle drawn with a felt tipped pen could generally be seen through the paper if we flip it over, so for all your sides and edges, would they not all, also have, a top side and a bottom side? It's a really good thing "CONCEPTS" are clearly defined, else-wise we really would not know what in the hell was being talked about.
Agreed, but look! I am disputing something indisputable. (I have been divorced twice, I can argue about anything.)
A person can not hold a three sided triangle in their hands because a three sided triangle is a two dimensional abstract concept which exists only as a concept.
@chimp3: AHEMMMM! I'm so confused.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@cognistic: The ink is made of matter, therefore your above triangle is three dimensional.
@Chimp 3: It was invisible, non-corporal ink. I just added the color so you could see it.
Pages