Evidence for God | Andrew - Rhode Island | Atheist Experience 21.05
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 гру 2017
- The Atheist Experience 21.05 for February 5, 2017, with Matt Dillahunty and John Iacoletti.
Call the show on Sundays 4:00-6:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
We welcome your comments on the open blog thread for this show.
► freethoughtblogs.com/axp/
UA-cam comments are at present disabled in our channel, to the displeasure of some. However, each video has a prominent link to the associated open thread that appears on our blog. In the past we've tried opening up the channel to comments, but we found that a very high number of episodes wound up being flooded with a combination of spam, long winded apologists, and various obscene or misogynistic comments directed at various hosts by people with an axe to grind. This seems to be the nature of UA-cam comment sections, in our experience.
We do moderate the blog, the same way that we moderate chat during the show, as well as comments on our Facebook group. For comment sections that are "officially" associated with our show (and, to a much lesser extent, channels that may give the unintended appearance of being official), we prefer not to play host to straight up ad hominem attacks and bigotry. As a general policy we do not block commenters simply on the basis of disagreement with our point of view. However, we do prefer discussion environments that don't actively chase off more reasonable contributors.
-------
The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting atheist-experience.com/archive/
You can read more about this show on the Atheist Experience blog:
► freethoughtblogs.com/axp/
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
► www.atheist-community.org (The Atheist Community of Austin)
► www.atheist-experience.com (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
► www.atheist-experience.com/arc...
DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
► www.atheist-community.com/prod...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysegal.com/
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
“Have you ever investigated a unicorn to find out if it’s maximally great?” -Matt Dillahunty 2017.
Sentences that do not appear in any other context
r/brandnewsentence
Link to the Past is one of the greatest games ever made! 👍
Jonathan Locke Agreed sir! I lived and breathed that game as a kid.
Unicorns are beautiful
It’s funny how the same person lies about his name every time he calls.
Lying for God! It’s the Christian way!
But he is a good Christian
@@jewsco He doesn't even claim to be a Christian. He could just be a deist, but most likely, he's too cowardly to admit it on the show, because he knows he has no way to defend his Christian beliefs.
@@boblangford5514 he is clearly a Christian
@@boblangford5514 It's good of you to be skeptical about this. We can't assume anything.
He claims he has evidence, but instead of presenting his evidence, he presents an argument. Screw the argument, whatever your name is this week, we want to hear the EVIDENCE!
Kishiruキシル
😃😀😁
He sounds like jonathan the pre-sup guy.
He doesn`t have ANY ! ..................
It's closer to rhetoric in trying to convince you something being true rather than making an argument as to why the conclusion must be true through premise.
Also he's confusing "evidence" with "demonstration", which is more what philosophy does than science, though science deals in demonstrating through evidence
You'd think on a show that deals with logic as often as this one people would understand that you cant separate arguments from evidence and that saying something like this is absolutely nonsensical, but nope. The phenomenon of laymen disregarding philosophy because they dont understand it continues...
@@ZeeDrakon Yes, you've given a demonstration yourself!
"God is incapable of being a unicorn" haha
Of course he is not a unicorn he is a God afterall.
@Ace Degenerate There is one thing God can not do and that is to stop being God. Turning into a unicorn makes him an insecure clown. As a human, I would never do that in order to please some assholes on youtube.
Arkadiusz Jan Dylewski Name something that god CAN do and then demonstrate that he can do it. First, demonstrate that this god exists or can even exist. Before that, you should probably define what a god even is and how the concept of a god would even make sense in reality. Discussing what god can turn into isn’t even close to the first hurdle you should be thinking about. You are in no position to be correcting anyone about this thing that no one has any evidence for even it’s simple existence.
1. He is claimed to have become a man, so why not a unicorn?
2. Would you do "that" in order to prove the most important thing necessary to get your most important message across to your most
important creations? Show that you exist and reliably and consistently make your message know to ALL. Or would you rather it be a matter of smoke and mirrors and hit or miss.
Why does every description of "God" sound like just an infinitely powerful version of ourselves?
Because man created God in his own image...?
Because gods are just ancient versions of superheroes.
Both these answers are 100% correct
Because it's practically universal that we anthropomorphize, either because of psychology or just philosophical necessity on anthropic principle
Because it is
Maximally great is a BS term created to avoid using the term Omnipotent... because omnipotence immediately produces logical inconsistencies that can't be overcome.
Exactly correct...theists had to make this amendment to the classic ‘omnis’s’ to avoid the painfully obvious contradictions within having the attribute. But when has contradictions ever stopped a theist? Lol! Taker easy!
Great point Kev ;)
Oh what are those inconsistencies?
@@raysalmon6566 An omnipotent being would know all things in advance...including it's own future; therefore it would not be able to change it's future actions. It could not be both all good and all powerful. To be all good, it could not allow evil to exist; it could not allow it's children to suffer; it could not exhibit personality flaws such as jealousy or revenge; it certainly could not torture its own children in a fire for all eternity. If this creature had a plan for all mankind it would know all possible future outcomes; EVERY outcome would therefore be predestined and unchangeable; there would be no such thing as free will and EVERY event and outcome would therefore be part of HIS plan and HIS responsibility. He would surely have known in advance Adam and Eve would disobey him; yet he did not give them any knowledge of good and evil... how therefore were they expected to know they were doing wrong and if he knew in advance they would disobey, why did he not intervene?
And of course the simplest form; could he make a rock so heavy he could not lift it?
@@banba317
So ya got it all figured....
Did you want a 5 star rating
I knew a Fergal Burgle Menurgle Burgle and he was a maximally great being.
cjsligo Jones but was he also capable of being a maximally great unicorn 🦄?
Yep, on his better days.
But Super Fergal Burgle Menurgle Burgle is a more powerful maximally great being.
I went on a date with Fergal Burgle Menurgle Burgle's sister once.her name was Sheila Burgle Menurgle Burgle and believe me she was maximally great. The morning after I was totally wrecked!
Anyone named that has to be maximally great to prevent bullying.
Premise 1: a maximally great sandwich can exist in some possible world
Premise 2: if a maximally great sandwich can exist in some possible world it exits in all possible worlds
Premise 3: if a maximally great sandwich exists in all possible worlds it exists in this world
Premise 4: a maximally great sandwich can teleport to anyone that asks for food
Conclusion: where is my sandwich?
Absolutely hilarious to see Matt politely destroy a feeble mind that thinks it is a genius.
C'mon everybody. This Andrew (and all of his alternate identities) has given all of us max entertainment value for several months. Let's give credit where credit is due.
The way he gasps anytime matt argues against his claims as though he can't believe anyone dares to disagree with him is really something else
He's a troll; his manner of speaking, with random unconnected leaps of illogic and false emotion, shows that. He wants to vex the hosts.
He succeeded with me, because I've vowed to myself to beat the shit out of him if I ever met him. (Since I'm now retired, on disability, and rarely leave the property, he's pretty safe.)
He also seems to think that he has "fooled" everyone by his multi-ID tricks.
I may find the notion of a bunny running into a buzz-saw over and over and over again, but that doesn't mean I encourage it. It's "Be Kind to Dumb Animals Week" so maybe we should go easy on Brad/Alex/etc...
And the Darwin Award goes to......
The problem with the ontological argument: if the premise were valid you can use it as evidence for everything and anything.
I get what you're saying, but premises arent valid or invalid. They are either accepted as true, or they arent.
A person can reject a premise from an argument for virtually any reason, but if they do, then you can discuss with them and attempt to convince them that the premise they reject is true.
So, for future reference, validity only refers to the logical form of an argument. An argument with false premises can be valid. To check for validity, I find that the easiest way to do it is pretend that you accept all the premises as true, and then see if they logically lead ONLY to the conclusion that is offered by the argument. If you can reach any other conclusions based on these premises, then the argument is invalid.
This version of the ontological argument is (as Matt pointed out) an attempt to define a God into existence.
It is trying to irrationally lead the listener down to the conclusion of "Therefore a maximally great being (God) exists", but without any logical syllogism whatsoever.
See for yourself: All of these premises ARE the claim that a God actually exists. Accepting the premises as true means you already believe that some God exists.
And after accepting all the premises as true, then the conclusion simply regurgitates "Some God exists."
This argument simply has no point. It doesnt convince anyone....other than theists. And if you're already a theist, then you dont need to be convinced.
See for yourself:
Premise 1: "Its possible that a maximally great being exists." - This premise can be removed, and the argument will have lost nothing, since its basically included in the other premises.
P2: "A maximally great being exists in some possible world" - This premise asserts that this MGB exists in some possible world. So whats the point of P1 then? If someone already accepts P2, then there's no need for P1. P1 doesnt even logically lead to P2, its just absurd.
P3: "If a MGB exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. And if it exists in every possible world, then it exists in our world."
Conclusion, a MGB (God) exists (in our world).
The conclusion, is included in the premises! Honestly, theists dont need to bother with that pretentious crap. They can just state: "God exists", and thats it.
Its the same thing, but without pretending you have an argument.
@@morpheas768 "The conclusion, is included in the premises!" well, not the specific version of the conclusion. But yes, the gist of it.
Also, they don't define world. What are these 'worlds'? What is 'our world'?
Also, are there other maximally great beings, and god is just one of them? or is that just another way to say god?
Also also, P4 is sound, P1 can be accepted in a way that P2 and P3 absolutely cannot. Do they ever explain the leap to P2 and P3?
@@morpheas768 why, if something exists in a possible world, does it necessarily exist in all worlds? I don't get it.
@@torsteinnordstrand170
I expect that an Equivocation fallacy is being brought in here on the meaning of "possible." That in turn facilitates a hidden Argument from Ignorance fallacy in which something unknown is magically converted into something known.
Under one definition (call it A) of "possible," every actual world is a possible world which happens also to have that possibility become realized. That's fine, but it's quite a change from a definition (B) of "possible" which is distinct from actual.
For example, a given jar of coins might contain either an odd or even number of coins. So far we don't know. Both of those options are "possible" in both senses A and B, whereas a negative number of coins is not possible. If you count the coins, one of the options becomes actual and the other becomes not possible. Whether the actual state of the jar still remains "possible" depends on whether you refer to definition A or B.
Reliance on this kind of ambiguity is at the heart of every Equivocation fallacy. In this example, it also helps to blur the distinction between "we don't know" and "we do know" which is how Argument from Ignorance works. Under definition B, "possible" must mean that we don't yet know the number of coins, but under definition A we might know or we might not.
A bare Argument from Ignorance goes straight from "we don't know" (how the universe came into existence, say) to "we do know" that god did it. In the modal ontological argument (as the caller presented it here, anyway) we're being led to accept that possible worlds are actual worlds (under definition A, this only arises when "we do know" that the world is actual) so that a god in a possible world (under definition B, "we don't know" that any such world is actual) is a god in an actual world, where we do know.
No wonder that you smell a rat here! Any reasonable person would. I think that the only way that a person can buy this argument is if they want so much to believe its conclusion that they're willing to overlook the flaws in it.
Last night I had a dream.
In the dream, God told me he has retired and won't be doing any more miracles.
Nobody else will be allowed in Heaven.
No more prayers will be answered.
One day you will wake up in another world and we won't be having all these useless debates. it is just a matter of time. I am God's Messenger. I walked through the door of Time and saw the Sacred Wolrd often. I came before Mohammed who was the last Messenger. I live in Montréal. Come and see us. It is with the spirit that one sees not with the eyes. Who knows maybe you'll find Jesus in Montréal.
Study physics are you will understand who is God and what is our soul
“Maximally Great Unicorns” is going to the top of my shortlist of band names
Mclovin has called in at least a couple of times
Hahahaha...
He's a know all peice of shit lol..
Omg now I hear it. Damn you.
Steven B glad I could help
Holy shit! Hahaaahaha spot on
Fergal Burgle Menurgle Burgle is the second cousin once removed of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Proof required .
How dare you compliment my future child.
Replace the word God with dragon, or some other mythological thing, and suddenly the argument has less value in determining truth. Quite telling, I think.
Absolutely
The proof of God to Theists or Christians is they have felt the presence of Christ ,and felt the joy peace and comfort which one feels, as he said, come to me all who are weary and i will give you rest, you'll find him ib your heart not in your head ,if you've ever truly longed for true piece of mind week him out, and you don't get to define what i feel as you have never felt it , im talking about a peace that's not like any other..
@@tasmarkou5681 I feel my bullshit detector going off. Don't tell me you can't understand, it just is, you've never felt it.
@@tasmarkou5681 I can find ALL those "things" with a Good Cognac, a maximally Good Cognac ! .........................
@@ralfhaggstrom9862 i have also felt what a nice drink can do ,calm the nervous make you feel floaty, but the love of christ is much different to what your saying ,you need to experience it to understand, its the difference between say,the way you love a friend ,to the way you love a partner, its on a different frequency
All christians expain the feeling the same way,im afraid your on a complete ly different tangent with your analogy
I went to school with a fergal burgle menurgle burgle.
@Teal : Was the Fergal Burgle feral?
@@ucheogwude2516 OOPS ......................
You guys cant even spell it right - therefore God must exist!
All bow down to the Maximum Great Unicorn.
also known as, maximus unicornis
That excists WITHOUT EXCISTING e5678iopå ...............
@@whitewingnutter Correctly known as Frglbrglmnrglbrgl.
Sounds like an awesome rock band name. At the very least, my next username.
That should be the next FSM lol
Have you seen the clip where "Andrew" gets so frustrated by Matt that he actually has a screaming fit? I so want to find that clip again.
I'm pretty sure it's the one with tracie and Matt -Brad from Colorado, evidence for the existence of god
@@jacibea he keeps making the statement, "falsify your position" He seems intent on ending atheism single-handed.
I worry that he is a victim of sexual molestation by a member of clergy. He starts whining as his arguments get picked apart faster than a corpse at a vulture family reunion. He is so determined to get rational people to be convinced by terrible arguments that it starts to hurt him.
@Comp seriously, this young man is so deep into the apologist redoric, but he kept coming back. He needs for this ultimate justice in an afterlife to exist, because he cannot get it here in this life.
Andrew needs to seek professional help.
@@tripolarmdisorder7696 That in no way insinuates any sort of molestation - if such a need were true, that could be caused by any number of things. You're making a similar illogical and unfounded leap to your own assumption as the usual AXP callers do. I would look hard at your own assumptions and how you came to them before touting them as even probable, let alone most likely.
@@zachc349 I honestly do not remember what I was thinking several months ago when I wrote this comment, I might have been in a mood where I was just projecting a worst-case scenario onto poor Andrew, because although he may not be a victim of molestation he does deeply and truly need help and his anguished cry in the middle of his call, not this one but a different one, is clear he is desperate to make someone believe in the same b******* that he does and there could be many reasons but if he had a need for the ultimate Justice because there was no way he was going to get it on this Earth, would be valid reason to try to convince others that heaven and hell actually exist, not that he has a valid reason for them actually existing but a reason to make that argument.
You know as soon as someone starts using the term "maximally great being" they are batshit crazy. Matts parting words were the hammer blow too
Surely the problem with this argument is the word “IF”!
1) It is possible that a maximally great Batman exists
2) A maximally great Batman exists in some possible world
3) If a maximally great Batman exists in some possible world, then he exists in every possible world
You better watch out criminals...I just proved the existence of Batman.
All three seasons of Batman now on HD Blu-Ray disk. It was filmed on 35mm film. They did a 2K scan of the negatives.
“Andrew” sounds like he’s almost in tears every time Matt challenges his script.😭
If people actually answered 'I dont know' more often, the world would be a much better place.
It's always funny to hear these "arguments", like we are supposed to believe that that's why people believe in god(s)
Sure, the fact that you start believing in god likely when you were 5 years old and mommy told you to... doesn't matter, you were playing on the floor biting plastic toys and thinking "if a superior being exists on a planet it exists on every planet"... Yeah, right.
Biting plastic toys!! That is hilarious!! You have added to my response to theists arsenal.
If a Lamborghini Countach exists in every possible driveway, then WHERE IS MY COUNTACH??
There's something I really like about hearing Matt argue for a maximally great unicorm
He is a troll. He has called in as Brad before and he made just as stupid arguments when he called in as Brad.
emil engen I recognize his voice. Is he desperate?
I don't think you can call him a troll, because in at least one call he ends up in a fit of screaming rage, suggesting that he's actually angry about it. He's probably just mentally unstable and desperate to defend his beliefs.
Brad, of course. Sounds exactly like something a Brad would do.
Andrew's call is what happens when people hear something that sounds good but don't have any idea what it actually means.
Andrew, you should open a fruit drink shop, so you can start getting rid of those straws your clutching at!! 😂😂
I had to hop in the comments to see if someone is trying to found the Church of the Maximally Great Unicorn
We meet every Wednesday. All glory to the great unicorn.
Produce any myth , for your purpose, without evidence. Ignorance always destroys, education of facts, does not exist in any religion.
The word faith always excuses ignorance, ignorance is the base of all myths.
When day you will wake up in another world and we won't be having all these useless debates. it is just a matter of time. I am God's Messenger. I walked through the door of Time and saw the Sacred Wolrd often. I came before Mohammed who was the last Messenger. I live in Montréal. Come and see us. It is with the spirit that one sees not with the eyes. Who knows maybe you'll find Jesus in Montréal.
@@garystevenson5560 You came before Mohammed? What, were you taking turns? Oh and btw, get the fuck out of here with your deluded bs
Anyone who knows this caller in day to day life and does not mercilessly beat him daily is neglecting their duty as a human being.
LOl. Matt destroyed his argument in the first minute, and McLovin thought he could still whine his way out.
Sweet Jesus Matt just blew my mind at the end. All Hail the Maximally Great Unicorn!
Yeah verily yeah.
I usually manage to listen to these theists for only 5-10 mins by which time their argument have already been destroyed by Matt. I then revert to reading the excellent comments from other subscribers
I've heard this weasel on other episodes using a different name. His weaselness cannot hide behind another name.
"Maximally great" means there is a limit. That is the 'maximum'. So his god is limited. By what, pray tell? The laws of logic! Just like us.
Maybe the mother of the maximally great Unicorn is above the limit only to be surpass by a grandmother of the maximally great Unicorn.
Don't "present an argument", present your god-thing.
If you have one.
The question to all theists should be:
“why doesn’t your god present himself to all of us to show he actually exists rather than you arguing on his behalf?”
This is my favourite caller ever. I rewatch his calls all the time. It's so amazing how someone so smart is so deluded. His ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
I disagree with the idea that he's smart.
Smart people recognize weasel words which his argument is entirely made up of.
Smart people look at arguments like this and understand that they fundamentally say nothing and have no anchor in reality.
Smart people do all kinds of things this kid doesn't do.
He's definitely not smart. He thinks he is but no. Way off smart
He’s determined, but smart…
He's not smart. He's dumb as a post. He is *polite*. There are plenty of very successful dumb people out there, because they're affable and friendly due to the bliss of ignorance.
This caller here is a dumb but successful person, and he knows that if God turned out to be a lie, it would mean his life has been nothing but dumb luck and that no one is out there guiding him.
Matt's breadth of knowledge is impressive to be able to debate various esoteric theories.
I’ve flushed down things smarter than this guy
Whatever
But you could not win are argument against Jesus
And neither has Ra
@@raysalmon6566 I would completely agree with that statement. I've never been able to win an argument against a dead guy.
@@KWMQ
well read the gospels then
So you have a more correct insight
Can You find ANYTHING more DUMB ? ...............
God, I wish I had thought of this one...I will be laughing the rest of the day... thanks Joseph.
"Great" is SO Great!
I came up thought the "Great" Depression.
None of us thought it was so fucking "great."
Maximally Great?? Now we are making shit up!
We’ve been making shit up for thousands for years
When day you will wake up in another world and we won't be having all these useless debates. it is just a matter of time. I am God's Messenger. I walked through the door of Time and saw the Sacred Wolrd often. I came before Mohammed who was the last Messenger. I live in Montréal. Come and see us. It is with the spirit that one sees not with the eyes. Who knows maybe you'll find Jesus in Montréal.
@@garystevenson5560 No you aren’t. No you didn’t. No you didn’t. Maybe you do. I don’t care.
What...you were expecting REAL evidence?
@@garystevenson5560 keep dreaming fruitloop.
Where's he getting all these worlds?
Great stuff
The mental gymnastics these people resort to is utterly deranged!
The argument includes "existing" as part of the definition of "maximally great" used in the first clause.
It effectively says:
- it is possible for something that exists to exist
- [Other clauses]
- Therefore something that exists exists.
I think that a better wording for that premise would be "it is possible for a being to be maximally great". The argument is still bullshit but that avoids the issue that you correctly pointed out.
If everybody lived a pain free life with no need for hospitals, doctors and nurses,
and died peacefully in their sleep, that might be evidence for a god, but I don't know which one.
@Flightof2Owls
I'm sure a god could have designed a world that didn't require any pain, even useful pain.
Oh wait ! He did ! It's just above the clouds. The "firmament" that he created on day 2.
You know, what I mean. Genesis 1:8 tells us what he called it.
Heaven ! That's where Jesus went according to Acts 1:9.
@Flightof2Owls
And that shows the world is not the best of all possible worlds.
@Flightof2Owls
Hey, calm down. I'm on your side.
But IF a god existed, don't you think he could have done better ?
If you were a god for just a day, what would you do ?
Would you take everybody to Heaven and delete the universe ?
@Flightof2Owls
Thanks for your interesting thoughts, of which there are many.
For my part, I have a policy of denying the existence of anything spooky.
Spirit, life, mind, consciousness, soul, ghost, god, thought and love are all fantasies.
I am sure that my dog knows nothing of these concepts.
@Flightof2Owls
Except I deny that there is a thing called consciousness.
I really liked Matt's initial counter, while the route he eventually went was equally valid and perhaps more direct, I would have enjoyed to see him follow through on the fact that a maximally great being who is maximally great in all qualities, must therefore be maximally evil, maximally sadistic, maximally cruel, maximally deceitful, etc. One could then argue that since a being can not both be maximally good and maximally evil at the same time, a maximally great being can not exist.
If "Andrew-This-Week" wanted to argue this being is maximally powerful but other wise only maximally great in qualities that we as humans would consider beneficial to moral behavior, where morality is defined as that which benefits human well being... or something along those lines... even if his argument wasn't flawed, then the same argument can also be used to prove that a maximally powerful being exists who is other wise only maximally great in qualities that we as humans would consider harumful to moral behavior, so now we've defined two god's into existence, both with the maximum (and thus equal) power a being can have, one as morally good as possible, one as morally bad as possible. Now if we have to believe both of these beings exist, and one of them created us, we have to ask ourselves, which being is more likely to have created a species capable of torturing each other and causing immense pain and suffering for themselves and others, which is more likely to reveal itself extremely scarcely and inconsistently to different people groups in different ways, and in most cases convince the people group that only their way is the right way such these people actually participate in witch burnings and holy wars, horrifically murdering their fellow humans in the name of a God who could clear everything up about who is right but instead allows the wars and cruelty to happen.
Just food for thought.
But then some dumb person would call that Satan..
Wonderful clip 👍🏻
I'm gonna have to expand on his premise, the concept of a "Maximally great being" existing in some extra-dimentional realm is "possible" (in an abstract manner) but is highly improbable and the entire argument he presents for his case that said being existing would then lead in to the idea that it would exist in all planes of existence is faulty in that if a "Maximally great being" is hypothetically capable of existing that would also mean that an "Infinitely unstoppable conquerer" should also be capable of existing on all planes and as we aren't currently being obliterated for said beings enjoyment I'm gonna have to conclude that neither case or any variations of such phenomenon would be viable nor reasonable to utilize as a body of proof towards ones case...
" wouldn't it be greater not to feel pain than to feel pain" erm no, pain can be the first indication something is wrong, if we never felt pain would we ever go to the doctors before it was too late? To add to that how many times would we injure ourselves more severely if we didn't feel the pain of something to hot. Pain is a necessity in some cases.
U missed when he said generally didn't you.
pain in necessary because it is an indication that something is wrong, we don't have to like it, but we need it
Define pain..
@@deliriousmysterium8137 Listening to this guy Andrew and his Maximally Great Unicorn named Phil.
@@nellgwenn one year later and you gave me a chuckle. Your legacy will live on, sir.
0:57: John -- "I've heard this one before." Why don't we number all of these and it would make the calls get to the point quicker. You could even number the responses.
Caller: 12
Matt: 42
Caller: But 27 and 38
Matt: 67!
Caller: I'll call back next week with a new number.
Maybe I'm watching too many of these things.
Bravo!!!!! Loved the end!!!!!
I want a maximally great unicorn dammit !!!!
Ill get you one Verucka sweetheart
This dude sounds like McLovin
Premise 1: it is possible for Pabst to change their blue ribbon recipe to make it even better.
Premise 2: it would be sad if Pabst could be improved but didn't improve.
Premise 3: in some other world, it is possible that Pabst has improved their recipe by adding more hops.
Premise 4: "I hear there's more h-hops in it this year..."
*hard swallow*
Yes he does.. spot on mate
Two fantastic presenters today, John and Matt, I could I ask a quick question? I always wonder about the tattoo on Matt’s arm? Thank you all at AE.
Any argument that starts with "if" loses me right off the bat.
I suspect most things do
I think that if God had his time over again, he wouldn't bother creating the cunning snake.
Or the tree. Or the woman. Or the man. Or the garden. Or the middle East.
They've been nothing but trouble.
Think it through, God !
Do the same thing with a minimally great being that exists in no possible worlds. Boom! No god exists in any possible world.
Interesting video.
7:48 I’m expecting in June and have been struggling with names. Thanks so much Matt 😃
Wait, where was the evidence that a God exists that Andrew / McLovin' was suppose to present? Oh right, there is none.
I kept hearing Maximally Great Dane, and that’s slightly more convincing and maybe adorable.
"...only a few minutes left and, oh my gosh, so many theists...."
*Beatific smile* "Ask and ye shall receive, my son..." :D
"The Menergle-Bergle estate has the best viewing of maximally great unicorns transported at light-speed from other possible planets."
-Ferglebergle VIII
I came for the "Maximally Great Unicorn"
And his sidekick My Little Pony.
@@jjphank I lost 30 IQ points reading this.
@@jjphank You realize ALL of these things are debunked on this very channel - almost weekly right?
@@jjphank wow, so you have evidence for a god?! Amazing! Who would have thought I'd be converted in the comment section of UA-cam.
At last we found him ! Donald Trump's speech writer.
Yeah, but you're enjoying his great economy aren't you !! I'll take the Orangeman's unpolished verbal shortfalls to Obama's smooth talking orating that brought us 8 years of trillions in debt and the worst economic recovery and GDP since WWII....
@@KD-hi6hh You said it so it must be true. Phhbbtt. I argue that Obama is the one who started to pull us out of a horrible recession and Trump is just reaping the benefits and adding on to it.
Provide sources for your claim.
I can say just Google things Obama had done while in office.
@@astroanima9965 Obama gave us 10 million more on food stamps, Obama gave us 10 Trillion more in debt, Obama had the lowest job participation rate in 40 years, Obama's economies never had a GDP over 3%, Obama's economies had the lowest new home ownership rate in 40 years, Obama's economies had only minimum wage job growths and existing wages were stagnant, Obama had 8 years to fix the bad economy he inherited and never did and was thus labeled the worst economic recovery since WWII, Obama strangled job growth with endless regulations, Obama raised taxes which further killed economic growth - Any economic recovery we did have under Obama was not caused by his policies; it was the determined hard work and perseverance of the private sector on its own. You can Google and verify all of this....Trump has done the exact opposite and we're Booming !!!
@@KD-hi6hh
Donald is objectively stupid. Monumentally stupid. Just a stupid, stupid, _stupid_ man.
Funny as fuck, though. 🤣
Grown men arguing about a unicorn. Love it haha
We have tons of Andrew’s here in Rhode Island! 😂
8:33 "you're talking about an action, not something actually existing"
isn't existing an action?
Andrew, lives in a comic book world !
No no no Do not blame Comic book fans for this Asshole!!! All praise Loki !!!
If I ever adopt a kid, I'm gonna get him taken away for renaming him Fergalburgle Manergaburgle.
P1 It's possible that there is a maximally great bank account belonging to you exists.
P2 - P5: Yade yade yada......
Conclusion: Therefore, a maximally great bank account belonging to you exists.
Ok Theists, go to your local bank and claim your bank account today! You earned it.
"if something isn't impossible then it is possible" actually true by simple definition. However that doesn't answer the question of how we know if something is impossible.
Right they are mutually exclusive. But in the caller's head, the default is "possible" until proven impossible. Which is nonsense.
Also the whole "infinite universes" is just as bullshit until someone provides real evidence.
@@MustbeTheBassest we've put forward our best guesswork so far. Is that good enough? Lol
There is a strip club more entertaining than any other strip club, a maximally great strip club in some possible world. This strip club is greater if it existed rather than not exist. Therefore a maximally entertaining strip club exists.
A maximally entertaining strip club DOES exist.. I have been there
@@nathanmckenzie904 is it completely free with no cover, free drinks, dancers don't need money in their thongs, an EDIBLE buffet AND SEX in the champagne room?
No?
Then it couldn't have been the maximally great strip club. I am not saying that you didn't experience a good strip club, but to be maximally great, the list of criteria would be longer than just the few I came up with off the top of my head, but it would exceed your wildest expectations on EVERY criteria you could possibly list.
Can a maximally great stripper 💃 👠 also be a maximally great unicorn 🦄 that’s greater than a maximally great being?
@@tripolarmdisorder7696 I believe.
Wait, are you telling me this Maximally Entertaining strip club exist in God's society? I mean no mortal strip club would be this maximally entertaining. Therefore this strip club must have Goddess and in God's society and I bet you that Jesus also went there and got kick out for being a cheap ass and nobody in control of some remote planet at the corner of a galaxy.
Love the religious advertising that comes up on these channels
The correct statement about light is that "Nothing (with mass) can ever go *as fast as* light," *not* "faster than!"
BTW Matt, one of your female co-hosts in another video talked about "the center of the universe" when there *is* no center, or alternately every place is the center. It's like asking where is the center of the surface of a sphere when no unique place like that exists.
In the universe every galaxy is receding from every other galaxy *as if* it's at the center because we're all receding from each other. The fact is that it's space itself which is expanding, and in fact can do so faster than light. That's what's called the event horizon because we'll never be able to see past it. Lawrence Krauss has made some videos which elaborate on this.
Quickest way to respond to this guy would’ve been “ a maximally great being would be all powerful thus God would be able to create a rock it couldn’t lift, but also lift the rock”
Or “a maximally great being would make itself known by all”
No, actually. The maximally great argument is a revision of "omnipotent", which we know is illogical. But by doing this, they expose the limitation of their god. "Maximal" is the limit. That god is not all powerful at all!
jegonus huh. Interesting. Would the problem of evil disprove a maximally great being? Being maximally good and maximally powerful means that it would logically use its powers to create a maximally good universe, which is not what we live in. Or does the whole “maximally” business get in the way of that one too.
@@bassman9261995 I personally, don't believe the argument of evil disproves a god. It would just mean he's a douchebag that doesn't deserve worship! I get this from the verse of the bible that says god creates good AND evil. So biblical god is out. Now if someone says THEIR maximally powerful god (not biblical) is all good, now we have the smoking gun.
@@jegonus that is the point of the argument "The problem of evil".
Evil exists in the world therefore a all just and loving god doesn't. The douchebag god could exist but Why worship him? A deistic god could exist, but again, why worship that?
I love listening to them stumble. So laughable.
I love Matt's closing statement.
When theist start to bring up arguments like this and sometimes better one like kalam cosmological argument. They leave out a large majority of population that don't understand this.
Why not make it simple by showing God exist.
Reminds me of how Jesus only came 2000 years ago but humanity has been around longer. Are all the others not saved?
I'm gonna name my kid Fergal Burgle Menurgle Burgle and he will join WWE and win the WWE Championship when the announcer says "The winner AND the NEW WWE World Heavyweight Champion - FERGAL BURGLE MENURGLE BURGLE!
Ah bless. Somebody doesn’t understand their own argument.
Word Diarrhea ...............
Left channel audio cuts out at 14:09. I only had a right channel 🙁
11:50
This would make a great chase scene:
MATT: "well first of all I reject the idea that because we create a definition of something that seems possible in some possible world, that it then becomes possible in every world and then it becomes - it basically we're all versions of the ontological argument try to define a God into existence..."
JOHN: "Looks like we lost him mate"
Why are the ends of some of these videos either muted or restricted to one audio channel? My speaker is broken, I can't hear the conclusions, science damn it!
Matt is brilliant. But it is my nature to question everything. Has he ever been wrong? And if so, has he ever admitted it?
He was a christian and now admits he's not.
I don't know about being wrong, but he has contradicted himself a few times if you watch separate callers.
Of course he has admitted being wrong... multiple times when watching the show I have heard him address a previous weeks show where he said something that wasn't accurate.
Not to mention that for many years he was convinced by Christianity, and he admits that he was completely wrong to believe those things.
sfprivateer Hence, he’s human.
He was a theist once and when he realized he didn't actually have a good reason, he self-corrected. I know that you probably meant to ask if he has ever been wrong on the show, but I like being pedantic.
Yes, he and Russel once did a complete dedunk on the wrong argument. Customer was doing the tealilogical they went off on the ontelogical on something like that. But once they realized their issue, they apologized and corrected. This is just one example of his being wrong and correcting.
I knew the conclusion in the beginning. Why entertain this nonsense ?
For people who aren't narcissistic and/or don't know the conclusion.
Every time Matt says Fergle Bergle M'Nergleberger an angel gets its wings
The last 5 minutes of this is hilarious.
I will never see unicorns in the samevway. All hail Supremus Maximus Unicorn!
Where the hell are all these possible worlds? I'd like to visit one of them. I have a passport and I'm ready to go.
Andrew sounds like Fogel from Superbad, except Matt told *him* what time it was.
I had no idea that "fergle bergle manergle bergle" went this far back in the canon.
"By calling it a unicorn you're putting limitations on it."
Follow up question is then "can your greatest being be anything at all, including something that isn't greatest?"
If the answer is "no, it can only be something that is greatest," then that's a limitation it has.
If the answer is "yes, it can be anything," then the question is "given unlimited time, will it ever spend time as a lesser form?"
If the answer is "no, it never will," then that puts a limitation on it by limiting its future.
If the answer is "yes, it will spend some time as a lesser form," we can then imagine an even greater being, who is always identical to the first one, but spends that particular time segment in slightly greater form.
I can't wait to introduce my son Ferglebergermanugelberger to Matt.
Fergle Burgle Menurgle Burgle made me lol
I'm pretty sure that after this someone is going to call their kid Furgleburgle Munurgleburgle.