Відео

All our meetings are in the evening

@@RatioChristiNCSU It sounds like a mixed audience with many sceptics

The camera was not in a great position, and we had construction noise outside. Apologies.

He lost the argument during objection 2-4 when he said other religions cant all have air tight apologetics. He never looked into other religions and admitted you dont have to look into other religions. It proved the point of the original video, everyone think their religion is the one true religion.

Genesis 6:4 __The Nephilim__ were upon the earth in those days __and also afterward__ when the sons of God went into the daughters of humankind, and they bore children to them.

@@cccalhoun What of it, friend?

Hi Nathan. You are correct to make these types of distinctions. There are some naturalists that believe in objective morality which poses a problem for them because then they need to say that there is a non-material existence where morals exist. If we were to prioritize what version of naturalism to challenge it would be scientism first.

@@curtishrischuk4635 Thanks. I think it would be helpful to have a name for the two types of naturalism, because they in my view are different. This would allow atheist-materialists to maintein their belief in science while (hopefully) dispensing with scientism. Otherwise, I think there is either a false framing or false dichotomy. Using langage to make the distinction---and perhaps even visuals---might make such a shift smoother. Unfortunately, it does at a small layer of complexity. But after all the quantum mechanics I've just read, I'm guessing many could understand that distinction. It's always a judgement call with a given public audience, I would imagine. I realize the need and desire to keep it simple is significant for the sake of clarity.

Thanks for commenting! I kinda agree, and kinda disagree with you. Let me explain. I do agree that it does help to know a bit more about other religions...I admit that I was oversimplifying in the video. A more full story is that I do know enough about (most) other (major) religions of the world that I know they have fatal flaws that disqualify them. My purpose in the video was to respond to what (I think) most people mean when they ask if I've checked out all other religions in the world: that I have to have as much knowledge about ALL other religions as I do about Christianity. I don't need that much knowledge to know something is severely lacking. There is also the implicit assumption there that all other religions are equally true, which I also reject on the basis of an even cursory knowledge of most other religions. I do disagree with your chicken analogy. To make the analogy line up better with the religions argument, it would be closer to saying, "it would be stupid to say 'chicken is the only food I love' but that the only thing you eat everyday and never try anything else." Because I could know that I love chicken, even if I do never eat anything else. But the main problem with the chicken analogy is that it's about preferences, not objective truth. In contrast, the question of religion is a truth claim about objective truth, not about preferences. It's not like I have to try other religions to see if I also like them, but instead the question is whether Christ rose from the dead. If, like the chicken example, Christ could rise from the dead (thereby validating Christianity), AND AT THE SAME TIME Norse mythology could also be true, then yes, Christianity would be just one among many religions that were true. But it's not like the chicken example, because we are talking about objective truth claims rather than questions of preference. And this is why, like I said above, it is good to know at least a little something about other religions. I know, for example, that pretty much all other major religions of the world are contradictory to Christianity. So if Christ has risen, then that by itself proves most other religions false. One more thing about the scientist approach: I am a scientist. And I can attest that my approach is like a scientist would approach it. And the scientist in me says that if all the evidence is pointing to one answer, I do not need to investigate all the other alternatives that have far less evidence in their favor. (Except to the extent that I have to know that the other alternatives don't have very much evidence; this was the simplification I was admitting in the first paragraph.) Also, as part of the scientific approach, I am ready and willing to live with some unanswered questions and loose ends, as all scientists do (because all scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws have loose ends). So yes, there are some open questions in Christianity. But the evidence is far more in favor than against. Thanks again!

You say all evidence is pointing to one answer, what are those evidence? Christianity doesn't have more evidence than any other religion claiming they are the ONE religion. My chicken anology is about knowledge, if you don't know any better you can't proclaim anything, you can't just default to therefore GOD, that a ignorance phallacy. Yes you can know that you love chicken but if you never try anything else, you would never know that you may love (any food) 10 times more and your love for chicken would become less interesting.

Hi Siyano, sorry for the slow reply. I am slow about these things in general, but I've been out of town for a couple weeks with limited internet access. This video is not generally about the evidence for God, it is simply an analysis of poor arguments put forth in the "Dear Believer..." video. So this is not necessarily the proper place for a discussion of the evidence for a creator God in general, and for the God of the bible in particular. However, to answer your question briefly, here are some lines of argument that argue for the existence of God: 1. The Kalaam 2. The Leibnizian argument 3. The moral argument 4. The ontological argument 5. The fine-tuning argument 6. The argument from reason I am sure you are familiar with some of these arguments, so I would not be surprised if you rejected them, given what it seems your personal stance is on the God question. However, I contend these arguments are sound and well supported. If you'd like to discuss the merits of any of them in particular, let me know. And here are some that argue for the existence of the God of the Bible: 1. The evidence for the resurrection 2. The eyewitness testimony nature of the gospels 3. The undesigned coincidences argument 4. The fulfillment of biblical prophecy 5. The archaeological attestation of the bible So you see, it is simply untrue that, as you say, "Christianity doesn't have more evidence than any other religion claiming they are the ONE religion." And again, maybe you've heard of some of these as well, but they are well supported. Furthermore, these arguments act as a cumulative case. Any one by itself may be weak (although some are by themselves very strong), but added together, the argument is very persuasive, I think. Let me know if you'd like to discuss any one particular thing further. I'd rather focus on one thing at a time, though.

Chris, what exactly do you think was "illogical and full of semantics"? I obviously disagree with you about that, but if you can convince me that I have a weak point in the argument, I am open to changing it to make it stronger.

Neil, by the way, could you edit this response to get the lines and strikeouts out? It looks weird and it's hard to read. Just asking for a common courtesy, and it might get more people to read and agree with your comment.

Hi Tanjil, three things about your comment. First, I understand your concern. This is a difficult epistemological question about whether we can have any confidence in drawing a conclusion like that. On the other hand, there are plenty of (well-educated, responsible, non-deceptive, non-audacious, non-fraudulent) philosophers who agree that it is possible to draw such conclusions. Second, could you be more forthcoming about where in the video I made such claims? I admit I don't remember everything that was said in the video, but I am pretty sure I didn't make any such "proclamations." Third, given that, the irony is that you are actually being the one to make audaciously strong claims, if you don't mind my saying so. You don't even know what my arguments in favor of theism or Christianity are, yet you are sure that I "CANNOT establish that a supernatural being is a reasonable hypothesis," that I have "NO idea if this is the God [of] the Bible," etc. Hmm...now I don't mind your putting forth your opinion, but how could you know this about me if you don't even know what my arguments are? The video you're commenting on is only aimed at showing that some "popular" atheist arguments are fallacious, and does nothing to give any positive argument of Christianity. Yet solely from your comment, one might get the impression that I presented something like the Kalam, or fine-tuning argument, in this video. My point is that I would love to have a reasoned, courteous, dispassionate discussion about our differences if you are willing to do so. We could start with, specifically, what in the video do you take issue with? If I am remembering incorrectly and I really do make such statements in the video, would you mind pointing out the time marker (approximately)? That would help me tremendously. If you are just ranting about any video posted by a Christian organization, then maybe either move on, or you could post a comment with a specific area you'd like to discuss? It would help if your comment didn't sound so angry. Thanks, and looking forward to your response!

Ratio Christi lets start at the beginning. You state that science can only explore the material world. And therefore science is "limited" to the natural world. You also use the ridiculous analogy about a metal detector to find wood. Pray tell - if scientific methods cannot find any indication of anything outside of the material world, by what reason do you claim to know that there is one? Yes my rant was generalized. I tend to get extremely angry at people asserting that they have special knowledge of a realm that cannot be substantiated. This video is an example of apologetics and doesn't promote any type of Epistemology.

Tanjil, thanks for responding so quickly, and with such a specific criticism. I have to admit it's hard for me to respond well to a general criticism, because the question of the existence of God is so big and complex, a lot of times it's hard to know where to start. I'd also like to say that we should probably both admit that we're not going to change the other person's mind here (as much as I'd love to convince you of my point of view), but that we're having a courteous discussion to see where the other person is coming from. ...so, you didn't like the metal detector analogy? Well, in retrospect, it was sort of lame, huh? At any rate, I agree with what you're saying about the argument...sort of. If I understand you correctly, your criticism is actually, in some ways, the mirror image of what I'm trying to say. I did say that scientific methods can't find (direct) evidence of something outside the natural world. (And when I say "can't", I don't mean that we looked and haven't found any. I mean "can't", even in principle.) Your point was then, how could we ever positively conclude that God exists? Juxtapose that with my point: that lack of direct evidence does not mean God doesn't exist. So we're saying the same thing, really. So then, how do we marshal a positive argument for (or against) the existence of God? It is through indirect (rather than direct) methods. So no, science cannot measure the properties of an entity that is outside the universe (unless he/she/it enters into the universe), but we *can* measure the effects of such an entity's actions (if there are any) and therefore conclude the entity's existence. Or, put it another way, if we observe our universe, and it is composed in such a way that the existence of God is the best explanation for the way things are, then we are perfectly justified in that conclusion. On the other hand, if we find that the universe is composed in such a way that everything is perfectly well-explained from inside the universe, then we have no need for the "God hypothesis". (Note that in this case, this does not prove that God does not exist, it just gives us no reason to suppose He does.) Or, it may be the case that the universe is composed in such a way that the classical notion of God as a [transcendent, eternal, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, omipresent, morally perfect] being actually *goes against* what we observe. Then we have positive evidence against the existence of God. This is best captured in the problem of evil. I hope you see that I'm not trying to claim any special knowledge. We're looking at the same data, you and I. I'd be happy to answer any further questions, or to continue this discussion point if you don't think my answer satisfied your criticism.

Your answer appears to confirm my point. You have nothing on which to base your claims that a god exists. That I can't prove one doesn't exist by no means adds credibility to your claim. So in your understanding that you cannot provide evidence of such existence, I refer you back to my original rant. How do you dare to assert such claims as if they are true? If I anticipate correctly, I would think you'll raise the "personal experience" standpoint. This personal experience is something that occurs in all religious sects and is claimed by people with a number of different gods. How exactly do you claim to discern between the gods, considering a personal experience is identical in each case. How would you argue for one god over multiple gods? He would you defend your claims that it's the abrahamic god? I'm not particularly interested in your answers because they usually devolve down to "faith" which is admission of believe without evidence. And belief without evidence has no right to be indoctrinated into children or spoken of as "truth".

"You have nothing on which to base your claims that a god exists." Um...I take it from this statement that you were dissatisfied with my explanation that "if we observe our universe, and it is composed in such a way that the existence of God is the best explanation for the way things are, then we are perfectly justified in that conclusion"...? What about that dissatisfied you? Granted, I did not go into specifics, but before I try that, do you have anything specific with this statement that you take exception to? This is an important question because it gets at some of our own basic presuppositions, and if we differ on those and do not identify that difference, then looking at the same data, we might never even speak the same language about them. "That I can't prove one doesn't exist by no means adds credibility to your claim." I never said it did. (In fact, I basically said what you just said here when I opened the next paragraph with, "So then, how do we marshal a positive argument for (or against) the existence of God?" Then I went on to explain how you could do so.) But my point in saying that one could not prove, from direct scientific data, that God does not exist, was to explain what the metal detector analogy was for and try to find some common ground with you. So of course I was not saying that the fact that you can't prove one doesn't exist adds any credibility to my claim. "If I anticipate correctly, I would think you'll raise the "personal experience" standpoint." Actually, no, the answer is not personal experience. "I'm not particularly interested in your answers because they usually devolve down to 'faith' which is admission of believe without evidence." Well, rest assured that my answers do not devolve down to admission of belief without evidence. In a nutshell: "How exactly do you claim to discern between the gods, considering a personal experience is identical in each case." It is not a personal experience. Most classical arguments for theism involve determining general attributes of deity. For example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument points to a deity that is transcendent, eternal, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and omnipotent. Many conceivable Gods could fit this description. Therefore, one should marshal other positive arguments for the existence of God to help narrow down further attributes. Another example is the Moral Argument. This would argue for a morally perfect God. So if these arguments go through (and I think they do), they narrow down the possibilities of deity. "How would you argue for one god over multiple gods?" One could argue this from a philosophical standpoint, such as the difficulty of having two omnipotent Gods. But I admit I am not well-versed in those arguments. But no worries, this question is answered by simply answering the next question (because the answer to the next question implies the answer to this one): "How would you defend your claims that it's the abrahamic god?" There are multiple lines of evidence that support the existence specifically of the God of the Bible. First, His character is consistent with what we have gleaned from the other arguments (i.e., that He is [transcendent, eternal, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, omipresent, morally perfect]...note that I did not name all of the arguments here because of space constraints, nor did I defend the arguments that I did name. If you wish to know more about any particular attribute or argument, just ask! We could take up that discussion at that point). Second, the historical data surrounding the resurrection argues strongly in favor of of that event. I understand that might seem crazy, so if you're interested, we could definitely talk about that more. Third, the reliability of the NT documents (and specifically the Gospels as eyewitness accounts) is very well supported by history and textual criticism. And fourth, the prophecies concerning the future found in the OT have come true, either in the person of Jesus Christ, or events that took place in the first century AD. There are probably more, but I think stopping there should be fine for now.

Thanks for the post; if you don't think any of the things said in the video hold water, I would be happy to engage with you intellectually if you think you can act courteously. If not, then please stop posting intellectually vacuous comments. They do not show your position to be stronger.

I wouldn't mind engaging you.

Hi +rapidmon17, sorry for the long wait. The end of the spring semester was crazy, and I am usually off-duty for the summer. When you proffer to engage in a discussion with me, do you have a topic (related to the video) that you'd like to start with?

Thanks for the post; if you don't think any of the things said in the video hold water, I would be happy to engage with you intellectually if you think you can act courteously. If you don't think I understand what the original video shows, I would be happy to have a conversation with you about that too. TBH, I don't remember every detail of every rabbit trail that occurred during the discussion in the video, but the main point had nothing to do with creation or evolution. I wonder if perhaps you are showing a huge misunderstanding about what my video is about? "There is no reason why you cannot be a theist and still believe in a God." Huh? I guess you meant to say "scientist"' instead of "theist"? I am a scientist myself, so yes, you are right.

You're a scientist ? In what field, ignorance ?

Hello Peet. Thanks for the comment, but in the future, I would ask you to post comments with specific questions or critiques. For example, you could tell me what specifically about the video made you think I am ignorant of science? If you think that anyone who believes in God is ignorant of science, then that shows you are ignorant of history and the current cultural landscape of science today. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I imagine there is something else that is bothering you. If you must know, I am a dual major in mathematics and chemical engineering, with a PhD in chemical engineering and postdoctoral training in biology.

YOU FUNNY! TRUTH IS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HOLD RATIONAL LOGICAL AND INTELLIGENT CONVERSATIONS WITH PROGRAMMED RELIGIOUS ROBOTS LIKE YOU. - - ALL PROGRAMMED RELIGIOUS ROBOTS DENY FACTS, DO NOT USE LOGIC, AND ARE IRRATIONAL!

WHO SAYS? --- OVER 750 FORMER CHRISTIAN MINISTERS AND MILLIONS OF FORMERLY PROGRAMMED RELIGIOUS ROBOTS.

Thanks for the comment. Unfortunately, we don't have the budget for such.

If I remembered, I did try to repeat the questions that others gave so video-watchers could hear.

Ratio Christi you did, but overall, it made the listening experience rather difficult, otherwise,it would have been a more interesting video.

Yes, very true! We don't deny that. A lot of the times, we talk about how to establish that a general monotheistic God exists (it's all part of a bigger argument for Christianity). In this particular case, there were a lot of very bad arguments in the video that we are critiquing here. Most of those bad arguments are non-sequiturs, or are self-defeating. After that, where you go from there (argue for Christianity, argue for Islam, or present a better argument for atheism than what the critiqued video gives) is up to you. If you are interested, we have other material that makes those distinctions.

Thanks for the comment! The video we were critiquing here can basically be summed up by, "There are so many religions out there, how do you know yours is the right one?...Therefore, they are all false." Along the way, the video makes a series of non-sequitur and self-defeating arguments. So in our critique of the video, we are not saying, "This guy's wrong, atheism is false, and Christianity is right!" In my recollection, the critique is mostly focused on spotting the bad argument. For example, the classical fallacy, "If you had been born in India, you'd probably be a Hindu...therefore, Christianity (and Hinduism, for that matter) is false," is there in the video. We critique that and point out its short-comings (namely that it is both self-defeating and a non-sequitur). This does not mean Christianity is true. Far from it. "Ironically your response to his video proves it to be accurate." I am sorry, I just don't see how our showing the arguments in this video to be logically fallacious makes the video accurate. It would seem to be the opposite. Could you please explain? "Just as you rationalize your view to be 'true' it's not hard to imagine members of other faiths doing the same." Of course it is not hard to imagine. If you believe something, you probably will find a way to rationalize it. (At least, we hope you would.) But the fact that others do this neither makes Christianity false, atheism true, or any other set of beliefs true (or false). All we were doing is showing that this video has bad arguments. If you'd like to defend any particular argument, then by all means! We'd love a spirited discussion using dispassionate, rational, logical discourse!

Thanks for the comment...if you would like a more in-depth discussion, please describe what, in detail, you think is the God of the gaps argument here. Looking forward to a reply.

Steve, could you explain what about the video is god of the gaps? Note that in the video, I am not putting forth a positive case for Christianity (or any worldview in particular) but instead critiquing the arguments in the "Dear Believer" video.

Ratio Christi your first objection is simply wrong considering he did not make a statement about all believers. He spoke of "majorities" and used the word almost, meaning that there are people who are exceptions to his statement. I find it frustrating that you want to critique his arguments but are not actually trying to listen to them. You know the point he is trying to put across but that is not what you will argue about. It is like somebody presenting a good argument about something they are passionate about and they happen to insult the person they are debating with, resulting in all his points being ignored and the focus being placed on his insult. I'm sure a word exists for that type of argument in philosophy, so please bare with me on my lack of jargon within the subject. I honestly haven't watched your video all the way through because I couldn't hear what the audience was saying and that was frustrating too (I know, I'm a frustrated individual mostly because I can never seem to put together a good argument but I can assess one). Anyway, I just wish your audio was a lot better. Was actually interested in hearing what you had to say considering I thought the video conveyed a good message. And I appreciate that you think people should ask themselves the questions presented in this video. My curiosity to your video was more to find out what reasons you would have as to why you believe but your video came off to me as dismissive of the questions all together only for you to throw a red herring (I know 'some' jargon lol) into the mix. In general, I was hoping to hear you say how you know your religion is the right one, which is a question many people do not venture to ask. If people had doubt they would surely know other religions in more detail simply to know which is right. But most people believe absolutely regardless of their religion. If my question has already been answered in your video then my apologies. I Cannot sit through the poor quality audio from the audience.

Ratio Christi just seen this comment. So I guess you were not responding to the video the way I had imagined. You should have made the title " argument analysis..." rather than "response..."

Sorry, I realize this was a year ago, but please see: space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html Max Tegmark is a leading researcher into the multiverse phenomenon. See also: www.reasons.org/articles/multiverse-musings---introduction