Hi Mr. Andrew Loke, I have question regarding the kalam and decided the most recent video was the best way to ask. Recently I heard someone object to the casual principle saying that before the universe the casual principle could not have existed because there was nothing and therefore something could come from nothing. Now this objection is flawed but I can’t put my finger on it. I mean I can use ur modus tollen argument as one rebuttal. This led to me my second question. If the reality of the casual principle existed before the universe, then is it above God, grounded in God, or created/set by God?
Good question! You can indeed use my modus tollens argument to show that the conclusion of the objection is flawed. The causal principle is not above God, grounded in God or created/set by God, but merely descriptive of the fact that out of nothing nothing comes.
@@andrewloke7 Ohh Thank You for responding, made my day. I’m still an amateur in philosophy so this follow up question might sound dull. How does this descriptive fact or descriptive facts in general exist? I’m a fellow Brother in Christ btw and my assumption is that without the universe, God is all that exist so then I guess I’m confused on how descriptive facts would or could co-exist with God. Are they grounded in him? I apologize if this sounds like I’m repeating myself 😅.
@@PeterChoi444 You’re welcome. Suppose that without the universe God is all that exist, then in that state there would be nothing else that would bring about something else. In this case the ‘fact’ is simply a description of the absence of anything (else) which coexist with God, rather than something that coexist with God.
His video response is very long-more than 10 times longer than my critique. I don’t have time at the moment to watch the whole thing. If you can summarize his main points below (with timestamp references), I will be happy to respond to them.
THANK YOU. This is the perfect argument for Joseph Smith's translating the golden tablets being true. Everything you said applies to Joseph. Attested by many witnesses. Can't dismiss it because it's rare. We have good reasons to think Joseph was special given the religious context.
So you should be open minded to follow the evidence and become a Mormon :) As for me, I will not become a Mormon because I am aware that (contrary to what you claimed) it is not true that everything I said applies to Joseph. For some important differences, see this article: seanmcdowell.org/blog/was-joseph-smith-a-martyr
@@andrewloke7 Of course the rules only apply to your case. That's what confirmation bias does to one's belief. If we were to find another multi-witnessed 'miracle' in another religion, then i'm sure you'd find excuses why your rules don't apply there. Your bias is apparent to everyone who doesn't buy into your presupposition that the Bible is the only truth out there. Every religion says the same about their sacred book. Which is why none of them are true, including yours.
@@ingersoll_bob As I said, if you think the rules also apply to Mormonism, then you should be open minded to follow the evidence and become a Mormon. You didn't answer this point. Your refusal to do so is an indication of what confirmation bias has done to your secular belief. Your refusal to address the reasons mentioned in the article I cited seanmcdowell.org/blog/was-joseph-smith-a-martyr is apparent to everyone, and is an indication of your bias against the possibility that the Bible is true. Your claim that ‘Every religion says the same about their sacred book. Which is why none of them are true’ is a non-sequitur and an indication of your superficiality in thinking and your stubborn refusal to consider the specific evidence for or against specific religions. Isn't this another indication of what confirmation bias has done to your secular belief?
@@andrewloke7 I was a Christian for 35 years. I considered the Bible true. It's not a bias anymore. I see no good evidence for it being true. It's no better than any collection of legend stories, is not corroborated by history and is nothing but a bunch of stories of people just saying its true. You've failed to consider your own biases and your refusal to so is and indication that you've can't think rationally about this subject. You're quick to make assumptions about who you're talking to. You don't question your interlocutor which is another one of your downfalls in discussions with people. You fail to interact with others and preach from your perch of 'higher education' which gives you an air of pomposity, another indication of your confirmation bias. I dare say you're still on the down-slope of the Dunning-Kruger and you're certainly at top of the chart on name-calling. If people applied your actions to "What Would Jesus Do", you'd fail as a Christian. There's no love and hope in your words. All I see is a man who MUST be right instead of following the supposed teachings of the son so called one-true god.
Robert Ingersoll, well response to Andrew. I have a good laugh listening to his distorted logic and wishful thinking. It is a perfect example of an intelligent person's brain toasted by religious indoctrination. All is needed is for god to show itself, then no more saliva will be wasted on possibility of miracle nor resurrection. Of course he cannot, hence he needs to use twisted logic to argue, like a salesman selling sands in sahara. Surely the gullible will buy sand.
He misunderstood my views and ignored the reasons I gave for my arguments, and thus failed to refute my Kalam. You will see my response on academia.edu in one week's time
@@AryanSahu-e7u I have posted my response here, please share it with him and his followers: www.academia.edu/115795811/Reply_to_Richard_Carrier_concerning_the_Kalam_Cosmological_Argument
@@andrewloke7 will post this in his first blog post which he posted after debate. Your response piece is voluminous. Thanks again for accepting my request
Hey can you please response to Majesty of reason's recent long refutation video on Hilbert's Hotel . Joe made many response to your works in that video.
@@andrewloke7 thank you for your time and hard works. Btw Joe and Rationality Rules are currently making a really big in-depth Series on Kalam. They said episode 5 will be on one of your arguments. Currently they only uploaded 3 episodes . They discussed this in their episode 3 video.hereua-cam.com/video/xFyk700PdC8/v-deo.html
Hume’s objection is the same that any professional historian would make. Given two explanations, one of which is well within everyday experience, the other absurd, one chooses the sensible one. Hume, of course, knew very little of physics and biology and chemistry compared to a science undergraduate today. For example, the resurrection would violate te second law of thermodynamics, pretty fundamental stuff! You can keep the gospels as moral guides if you like*, but the miraculous bits are patent fictions, like Beowulf’s defeats of Grendel’s dam (underwater for hours) and the dragon (cryptozoology). Whereas Grendel could be human, I think * I wouldn’t, myself. When I note how the established Christian churches reverse their positions on all sorts of important moral matters, and how trained Christian theologians like William Lane Craig can use Scripture to defend genocides, I would prefer something rational and codified. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, for one example. It has problems, it can’t solve quandaries, but it doesn’t tell you that you can vandalize people’s legal places of business whenever you avé a fit of righteousness.
@@andrewloke7 No offence, but I don’t have to read a book or buy your book to learn common-sense. Not to be arch about it, while you can “respond” to my objecting, you cannot “answer” it, or resolve it. Right reason after all prevails. It is comic, you know. To watch the devotees of various gods construct enormous edifices of theological discourse, as large as libraries of Soviet revolutionary thought and quite as dense, for their favorite deities. (Couldn’t all of theology be a branch of cryptozoology?) You will admit that only one of these deities can be real (and you will assert that it is yours, just as the Hindu asserts that his are the true ones). Or that they are all fictions (my claim). You will admit that they likelihood that anyone is a devotee of any particular one has most to withthe culture of family, place of birth than any rational comparison of contenders. John Godfrey Saxe concludes, “So, oft in theologic wars The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen!” Just don’t feed Apu’s god peanuts.
@@oldpossum57 Since you only seem to be interested in airing your own opinions without bothering to read the refutations of your objections which point out the errors in your reasonings , there is no point replying to you further as it would be a waste of time . Farewell.
@@andrewloke7 Oh, yes, fare thee well. As you travel, you will find yourself in good company: there are good Muslim clerics that have shaken the dust off their feet and left ne, there are Hindus who have despaired of me, there are (I guess) devotees of JohnFrum wondering why I do not build a scale model of a cargo plane in my backyard. I am sure you folks must have the most delightful discussions of the merits of your gods: locally we ask each other questions just as abstruse: could the 1971 Habs defeat the 1967/Leafs? There is no end of making many books. I have some thousands in this house to read And there are as many fool’s errands as there are fools to run them. I don’t propose to run them. I do not pretend, of course, that the scientific approach to understanding has solved all the problems and mysteries we can pose. Give it time. Some might well be beyond the grasp of the human ape’s capacity to cogitate. Well, I’d rather be stumped for an answer than make one up. Peddle your book elsewhere.
Thank you!
You're welcome! May God bless you and your ministry!
Hi Mr. Andrew Loke, I have question regarding the kalam and decided the most recent video was the best way to ask. Recently I heard someone object to the casual principle saying that before the universe the casual principle could not have existed because there was nothing and therefore something could come from nothing. Now this objection is flawed but I can’t put my finger on it. I mean I can use ur modus tollen argument as one rebuttal. This led to me my second question. If the reality of the casual principle existed before the universe, then is it above God, grounded in God, or created/set by God?
Good question! You can indeed use my modus tollens argument to show that the conclusion of the objection is flawed. The causal principle is not above God, grounded in God or created/set by God, but merely descriptive of the fact that out of nothing nothing comes.
@@andrewloke7 Ohh Thank You for responding, made my day. I’m still an amateur in philosophy so this follow up question might sound dull. How does this descriptive fact or descriptive facts in general exist? I’m a fellow Brother in Christ btw and my assumption is that without the universe, God is all that exist so then I guess I’m confused on how descriptive facts would or could co-exist with God. Are they grounded in him? I apologize if this sounds like I’m repeating myself 😅.
@@PeterChoi444 You’re welcome. Suppose that without the universe God is all that exist, then in that state there would be nothing else that would bring about something else. In this case the ‘fact’ is simply a description of the absence of anything (else) which coexist with God, rather than something that coexist with God.
Godless engineer responded to your Jesus Mythicism critique. Please let me know your thoughts.
His video response is very long-more than 10 times longer than my critique. I don’t have time at the moment to watch the whole thing. If you can summarize his main points below (with timestamp references), I will be happy to respond to them.
THANK YOU. This is the perfect argument for Joseph Smith's translating the golden tablets being true. Everything you said applies to Joseph.
Attested by many witnesses.
Can't dismiss it because it's rare.
We have good reasons to think Joseph was special given the religious context.
So you should be open minded to follow the evidence and become a Mormon :) As for me, I will not become a Mormon because I am aware that (contrary to what you claimed) it is not true that everything I said applies to Joseph. For some important differences, see this article: seanmcdowell.org/blog/was-joseph-smith-a-martyr
@@andrewloke7 Of course the rules only apply to your case. That's what confirmation bias does to one's belief. If we were to find another multi-witnessed 'miracle' in another religion, then i'm sure you'd find excuses why your rules don't apply there. Your bias is apparent to everyone who doesn't buy into your presupposition that the Bible is the only truth out there. Every religion says the same about their sacred book. Which is why none of them are true, including yours.
@@ingersoll_bob As I said, if you think the rules also apply to Mormonism, then you should be open minded to follow the evidence and become a Mormon. You didn't answer this point. Your refusal to do so is an indication of what confirmation bias has done to your secular belief. Your refusal to address the reasons mentioned in the article I cited seanmcdowell.org/blog/was-joseph-smith-a-martyr
is apparent to everyone, and is an indication of your bias against the possibility that the Bible is true. Your claim that ‘Every religion says the same about their sacred book. Which is why none of them are true’ is a non-sequitur and an indication of your superficiality in thinking and your stubborn refusal to consider the specific evidence for or against specific religions. Isn't this another indication of what confirmation bias has done to your secular belief?
@@andrewloke7 I was a Christian for 35 years. I considered the Bible true. It's not a bias anymore. I see no good evidence for it being true. It's no better than any collection of legend stories, is not corroborated by history and is nothing but a bunch of stories of people just saying its true. You've failed to consider your own biases and your refusal to so is and indication that you've can't think rationally about this subject. You're quick to make assumptions about who you're talking to. You don't question your interlocutor which is another one of your downfalls in discussions with people. You fail to interact with others and preach from your perch of 'higher education' which gives you an air of pomposity, another indication of your confirmation bias. I dare say you're still on the down-slope of the Dunning-Kruger and you're certainly at top of the chart on name-calling. If people applied your actions to "What Would Jesus Do", you'd fail as a Christian. There's no love and hope in your words. All I see is a man who MUST be right instead of following the supposed teachings of the son so called one-true god.
Robert Ingersoll, well response to Andrew. I have a good laugh listening to his distorted logic and wishful thinking. It is a perfect example of an intelligent person's brain toasted by religious indoctrination. All is needed is for god to show itself, then no more saliva will be wasted on possibility of miracle nor resurrection. Of course he cannot, hence he needs to use twisted logic to argue, like a salesman selling sands in sahara. Surely the gullible will buy sand.
Richard carrier refuted your position on Kalam. Can you give your response?
He misunderstood my views and ignored the reasons I gave for my arguments, and thus failed to refute my Kalam. You will see my response on academia.edu in one week's time
@@andrewloke7 will wait for your response. God bless
@@AryanSahu-e7u I have posted my response here, please share it with him and his followers: www.academia.edu/115795811/Reply_to_Richard_Carrier_concerning_the_Kalam_Cosmological_Argument
@@andrewloke7 will post this in his first blog post which he posted after debate. Your response piece is voluminous. Thanks again for accepting my request
@@andrewloke7 Dr loke, I have posted your reply in the comment section, but still it hasn't been published. I'll update when it gets published.
Hey can you please response to Majesty of reason's recent long refutation video on Hilbert's Hotel .
Joe made many response to your works in that video.
Thanks for letting me know. I will try to find time to check out what he says.
@@andrewloke7 thank you for your time and hard works.
Btw Joe and Rationality Rules are currently making a really big in-depth Series on Kalam. They said episode 5 will be on one of your arguments. Currently they only uploaded 3 episodes . They discussed this in their episode 3 video.hereua-cam.com/video/xFyk700PdC8/v-deo.html
Hume’s objection is the same that any professional historian would make. Given two explanations, one of which is well within everyday experience, the other absurd, one chooses the sensible one. Hume, of course, knew very little of physics and biology and chemistry compared to a science undergraduate today. For example, the resurrection would violate te second law of thermodynamics, pretty fundamental stuff!
You can keep the gospels as moral guides if you like*, but the miraculous bits are patent fictions, like Beowulf’s defeats of Grendel’s dam (underwater for hours) and the dragon (cryptozoology). Whereas Grendel could be human, I think
* I wouldn’t, myself. When I note how the established Christian churches reverse their positions on all sorts of important moral matters, and how trained Christian theologians like William Lane Craig can use Scripture to defend genocides, I would prefer something rational and codified. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, for one example. It has problems, it can’t solve quandaries, but it doesn’t tell you that you can vandalize people’s legal places of business whenever you avé a fit of righteousness.
The objection you mentioned is answered in chapter 8 of my book Investigating the resurrection of Jesus
@@andrewloke7 No offence, but I don’t have to read a book or buy your book to learn common-sense. Not to be arch about it, while you can “respond” to my objecting, you cannot “answer” it, or resolve it. Right reason after all prevails.
It is comic, you know. To watch the devotees of various gods construct enormous edifices of theological discourse, as large as libraries of Soviet revolutionary thought and quite as dense, for their favorite deities. (Couldn’t all of theology be a branch of cryptozoology?)
You will admit that only one of these deities can be real (and you will assert that it is yours, just as the Hindu asserts that his are the true ones). Or that they are all fictions (my claim). You will admit that they likelihood that anyone is a devotee of any particular one has most to withthe culture of family, place of birth than any rational comparison of contenders.
John Godfrey Saxe concludes,
“So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!”
Just don’t feed Apu’s god peanuts.
@@oldpossum57 Since you only seem to be interested in airing your own opinions without bothering to read the refutations of your objections which point out the errors in your reasonings , there is no point replying to you further as it would be a waste of time . Farewell.
@@andrewloke7 Oh, yes, fare thee well. As you travel, you will find yourself in good company: there are good Muslim clerics that have shaken the dust off their feet and left ne, there are Hindus who have despaired of me, there are (I guess) devotees of JohnFrum wondering why I do not build a scale model of a cargo plane in my backyard. I am sure you folks must have the most delightful discussions of the merits of your gods: locally we ask each other questions just as abstruse: could the 1971 Habs defeat the 1967/Leafs?
There is no end of making many books. I have some thousands in this house to read And there are as many fool’s errands as there are fools to run them. I don’t propose to run them.
I do not pretend, of course, that the scientific approach to understanding has solved all the problems and mysteries we can pose. Give it time. Some might well be beyond the grasp of the human ape’s capacity to cogitate. Well, I’d rather be stumped for an answer than make one up.
Peddle your book elsewhere.