I'll give you 2. The Shroud of Turin & Incorrupt Catholic saints. Although the Shroud is THE most studied relic, it still is UNKNOWN how the image appeared on it & CANNOT be reproduced.
I find the moral argument to be the most compelling because otherwise you have to bite the bullet, and just say morals aren't real. It doesn't necessarily get you to God, but it gets you to transcendent properties which is certainly on the road to God.
All these comments below are not satisfactionary with respect to the lecture. Peter Kreeft in this lecture is trying to give rational arguments of which the premise is very strong as he says in the beginning of his lecture. Thus critics can't attack these premises (and not listen to the arguments) so easily as they do with other arguments. And in my opinion this is a very power lecture and food for thought for the one who seeks reality.
He makes the same old fallacies as all theists have done so before. Right from the start of his first arguments: to argue that everything needs a cause except God, is not only a case of special pleading, it's also contradicting his other statement that there is no time before the big bang. Without time, causality is obviously meaningless. However, it even gets worse. Because in every upper level physics class, they will tell you how the theory of general relativity breaks down when it comes to The Big Bang theory (because it is in contrast with quantum mechanics). Therefore, nowadays physicists don't say about the Big Bang that there is no 'time before it', but that our understanding of the laws of physics breaks down at that moment in time. We don't even know if the Big Bang meant the beginning of 'everything'. It just refers to the earliest known moment in time of our scientific universe (= all matter space and time) that we can observe. If there is a beginning, we don't know how it happened. To respond with 'God', would be an argument from ignorance. Which is what Kreeft does. His first cause argument comes down to 'something uncaused must have caused everything, because I can't make up any other explanation'. No, that's an argument from ignorance. We simply don't know if something has always existed. We certainly have no evidence that such a thing can even exist. Even if it did, it wouldn't mean it's still anywhere, it wouldn't mean it's a (conscious) being. That was easy.
Im overwhelmed of happiness, Peter Kreeft.. you hit the nail right on the head at 34:03 - 34:44. This video could be a minute long instead of 80 cause halleluja he hit the bullseye.. Amen brother!
MrTnbopp123 is that the part where he admits all theists are crazy and need to realize that putting truth ahead of happiness would require them to reject God the same as Santa?
Paddy234 that's not too far off. It would be closer to say I modulate what makes me happy in order to ensure that my happiness can't be shattered by truth. And yes, I agree life has no value beyond what we assign it in relation to our own lives and human existence as a whole.
@@konroh2 a description of reality, to the extent it determines our experiences (perceptions). That is, just assume I mean the simplest least complicated thing I could mean by it.
Wow, reading the comments of these jaded Atheists makes me really glad I gave up my arrogance and came Home. Did I really sound like that when I was an Atheist? It's like when I read their words all I can see in my mind is Anakin Skywalker, legless in the fire pit screaming at Obi Wan, "I hate you!"
If you really consider Pascals, it is A) Absolutely terrifying B) very compelling. If you are listening to Ideas, whether they be scientific, philosophical or theological, and you are not scared, you may want to listen more and read more.
I think it is possible to "reason" one's way to faith, but the faith that one's reason leads to transcends the limitations of reason. As a great man once said: One of the best uses of thought is to understand that thought alone isn't enough.
Entertain yourself with pleasures less often, seek the truth more avidly. Over time, that will develop the patience necessary to read or listen through lengthy ideas and arguments that teach you awesome stuff about the universe.
The atheists who come here are really people who deep down have doubts otherwise they wouldn't even come to a video titled rationality of belief in God. There is still hope for you. Keep searching.
We atheists ONLY have doubts about the supernatural... That's the definition of atheism. It means we have doubts about every supernatural claim ever made, due to a lack of supporting evidence. We don't hold a position, we reject the claims made by those who hold positions. You can't have doubt in atheism, because that's literally the same thing as saying you have doubt in doubting.
"You can't have doubt in atheism, because that's literally the same thing as saying you have doubt in doubting." That quite telling. Why can anyone have doubt in doubting? That means that one can't even question the premise of no belief at all. There is more evidence of God than there is of a finite universe that popped out of nowhere. Neither atheism or religion know the origins of the universe(s), matter itself, light, or time. But at least religion puts an intelligence behind it all where as atheist don't even question it. They are just happy with a theory that can't even begin to explain how matter, time, light became into existence.
***** *That means that one can't even question the premise of no belief at all.* It's not a premise, so you can't question it. It's a default position. *There is more evidence of God* Show this evidence. *than there is of a finite universe that popped out of nowhere.* Strawman fallacy. This is not what the Big Bang describes, and it is not what Atheism is about. *Neither atheism or religion know the origins of the universe(s), matter itself, light, or time.* Right, and at least Atheism doesn't claim to. Unlike many religions (Christianity included). The scientific community, on the other hand, DOES know a few things about the first moments after the Big Bang. *But at least religion puts an intelligence behind it all where as atheist don't even question it.* What do you mean "at least"? Why would you think a baseless assertion like "Well, must have been some intelligent agent what done created all the things" is in any way a good thing? You have no conclusive evidence of that, so accepting that conclusion is gullibility. *They are just happy with a theory that can't even begin to explain how matter, time, light became into existence.* You clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what the word "Theory" actually means. *became into existence.* No one in the scientific community is postulating that they "came into existence" in the first place. So far as we can tell, they've always existed in one form or another. You seem to be confusing the CONFIGURATION of the current state of the universe with the CREATION FROM NOTHING of it. What examples do you have of "nothing"? None? Then how could you possibly suggest with any honesty that there was "nothing" "before" space and time? Also, how would you even talk about "before time" without invoking time? That's a meaningless question. Many of your assumptions are wrong, and much of what you think we Atheists believe is nonsense as a result.
Lowraith Why not question a default position? If Aristotle had the same attitude we wouldn't know 99% of his insights. Prove empirically using the scientific method the existence of how we love our offspring. Actually the Big Bang theory describes the finality of the universe. Approx 15 billion yrs old but it does not describe how matter, time, light came to be. And you argue that at least atheist don't claim the existence of God based on not knowing the origins of matter. But it does claim it doesn't exist. It is a claim nonetheless. "No one in the scientific community is postulating that they "came into existence" in the first place" Yes even scientist claim the Big Bang theory, which tells us that existence came to be at a particular point in time.
***** *Why not question a default position?* Because there's nothing to question... It's the default position. You question NON-defualt positions to find out whether or not to accept a positive position. That's how it works. Aristotle didn't question the default position, he explored non-default positions and tested them for validity... while still HOLDING the default position. In other words, maintain the default position while exploring other ideas, until you have found evidence and justification for abandoning the default and excepting a new position. *Prove empirically using the scientific method the existence of how we love our offspring.* Neurochemistry. Next. *Actually the Big Bang theory describes the finality of the universe. Approx 15 billion yrs old* Wrong, it describes the point in our past at which our current mathematical models, in the rudimentary state they are in, are no longer able to accurately describe the universe. This means there is more we can add to our equations, not that the universe "began" at that point in time. *And you argue that at least atheist don't claim the existence of God based on not knowing the origins of matter. But it does claim it doesn't exist.* Strawman fallacy. Atheism is simply us saying, "We don't believe you." when YOU claim that God DOES exist. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof. *Yes even scientist claim the Big Bang theory, which tells us that existence came to be at a particular point in time.* Wrong. You demonstrate a lack of understanding of what the model actually describes.
Major respect to the atheists or agnostics who come to ask questions respecftully and openly and not just to mock this in some childish fashion. Also I will note how sometimes Kreeft is operating on such a hogh philosophical level he takes so many axioms for granted cause he has studied them for decades hut I feel like some of his answers could be worded better. Still love his lectures though!
Because his arguments are the type of stuff you would encounter in an upper level philosophy class in university. Much of the criticism I have read is from people with no comprehension of the argument being made or the complex philosophical assumptions needed.
*Belief in God* It is worth emphasizing that among human thinkers there exists no difference of opinion on the point that this universe has a self-sustaining First Cause. At the most, materialists call it matter, while the religious philosophers call it Allah. It is essential to acknowledge the existence of the First Cause, for a sequence of causes and effects cannot go on indefinitely and we must reach a point where we should come to a cause which is not the effect of any other cause, i.e. the ultimate cause or the Unmoved Mover, which is self-existing and which has always been and shall always be. It is this Self-Sustaining First Cause which not only makes our intellectual life possible but also quite meaningful. Suppose for a moment that there is no such First Cause. Where does this lead us?
99% of atheist comments on apologist videos claim to see lots of fallacies in the arguments. 0% of atheist comments on apologist videos explain what those fallacies actually are.
Klaus von Zeit 3 and a half minutes in and we get a strawman on the position on atheism. Atheism does not say that there are no gods, it says that there is no reason to believe in any gods. Peter makes the common misstake of assuming atheism is a negation of a theistic claim when it's actually just a rejection. at 5:23 there is a false dichotomy fallacy. The god position has no evidence in the first place, that is why the argument is not accepted, and that is far more prominent than the other two options Peter gives. 11 minutes in and Peter ignores that quantum mechanics have NEVER changed as far as know, and neither has the mass - energy equivalence. right 14 minutes in and his argument from causality falls apart. There are other options than god that can be the first cause for the universe. Energy and quantum mechanics can be eternal, and they can generate exactly the kind of universe we reside in. Using Peter's own logic, if there is a natural cause in the cosmos, you don't need to move on to an supernatural cause. 16 minutes in and his argument is essentially assuming the premise of there only being an " being" capable of being the first cause. Again, with energy and quantum mechanics, this simply not the case. To say nothing of the sneaky special pleading of defining god to have existence as a property where everything else needs existence as a gift with no justification given. It's dead easy to argue if i get to define beings and things with whatever properties i want without having to have proved these things beforehand. 20 minutes and Peter brings up the argument from degrees of perfection. How he can ignore, as a philosopher, the most simply explanation is beyond me. The concept of " perfection" is, as far as we know, a human construct. What are the criterion for " perfection" and how we measure it? is there an agreed upon definition of the perfection Peter is talking about here? No, there is not. We humans have made up a concept where we assign " perfection" to various thing, inluding ourselves at times. This does not mean that there must be a standard of perfection that only be based on god. it's simply does not logically follow. Do you wan't more?
Apparently the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy makes the same mistake when they define atheism. The first sentence reads as follows "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.". Those silly philosophers!
Some people in the comments seem to think that if they found a wristwatch lying on the ground that the universe simply put it together by random chance.
Warning: Truth is objective. Opinion often refuses Truth. You can lead someone by reason to the existence of God but they can still refuse to believe due to slavery to sin, as is usually the case.
I love it; God does exist what his name made sense; there must be objective reality; it cannot just exist in your mind; Anyhow God bless you guys good luck
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
scientific method is not the only method of proof in existence of God or certainty. don't expect a scientific proof, but expect good logical philosophical proof. if the universe has no beginning, then there had already been infinite enough time in the universe. if it is already been infinite enough time, then enough time for every possibility to become actualized. good lecture. sharing
ainul bary " . if it is already been infinite enough time, then enough time for every possibility to become actualized." I am objecting to this logic being used to prove god
@@metanoiaepoch380 yes it does. by definition, if there has been infinite time, everything conceivable must have already happened, or else there hasn't been enough time yet, which means there hasn't been infinite time yet.
"I know there is some sort of a god," but "I believe that 'God' loves me." How do you make such distinctions between "belief" and "knowledge" without just choosing the word "believe" or "know" according to personal preference or aspiration?
You can know God loves you because to do anything less comes from selfishness of which God cannot have any part of because that would be an imperfection. God can only love...Her made you out of love.
i listened to his entire speech and opened my mind to the best of my ability and i discovered that Dr. Peter Kreeft is an intelligent man with little wisdom regarding the mentality of many atheists. I doubt the existence of God not due to pride, but rather due to my respect for truth and evidence, he presented nothing new to me here and i was quite disappointed!
He says people proved tbings before the scientific method...yes they did but they just didn't have the name "scientific method yet" or "method of evidence and logic". This guy is a sophist.
Is not as if they used a different way of proving things completely...they used the same evidence based proofs but just didn't name it that. I am not sure what Kreeft is suggesting they did otherwise...
But I meant that society ALWAYS practices biologically advantageous things. Carbon dioxide naturally occurs in the environment. If you mean that we should have adapted to use carbon dioxide then I would respond by saying that photosynthesis would result in a much lesser existence. I'm being very serious. I feel confident in my abilities to refute any of what you would consider biology being disadvantageous.
There is a debate on youtube that applies to moral law. Its a debate that took place in Notre Dame a little bit ago. If you want to look it up its called the God debate and look for the one that is about an hour long. After listening to that debate, this guy doesnt seem so threatening.
Kreeft did not concede that the all, or even most, of the arguments he gives are "poor" ones; he concedes that, taken individually, none is in itself conclusive. So you have caricatured his arguments.
How is it lunacy to follow biologically advantageous options?(I'm trying to go about understanding this in the most polite way possible so please don't take anything I say offensively)
I feel as though society does practice biologically advantageous things. I think that everything has a biological advantage. I encourage you to provide examples of instances where something would not be advantageous. Natural death wouldn't be a good example because you can't practice natural death. Its a process that is out of our control as of this moment in time.
I don't know, this is just word games... He claims that asserting the validity of scientific method is a way to "know" things is denying the possibility of anything ever being proved before the explicitation of any scientific method in the XVIth Century. Counter to that he claims to present "logical-philosophical" proofs, which is weird because one could also say that such a thing is denying the possibility of prooving anything beyond Western logic and philosofy. Big Smurf can exist just as well
That Atheist is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO ANNOYING. Wow. I mean, just listening to him act as though he is somehow intelligent for considering the most basic objections? Truly a representative of the whole. Lol. Astounding.
This guy says you can't be certain if this is a dream or not, then goes on to say you can be certain that there is a god? both are unattainable knowledge which he undertands for being uncertain if this is all dream or not, but for an all knowing, all powerfull divine entity who created the universe? and if not for the scientific method he wouldn't have the camera's or internet to preach his bullshit on.
We can't be certain of our reality, but it is the foundation of scientific discovery, we have to accept reality as we know it until something gets discovered which changes what we know about reality, and just because God's existence and reality are both uncertainties how does that prove the existence of god? He is trying to make comparisons with things that people don't fully understand but I may not undrestand dreams but I have them, and I have never seen, heard or felt god so you can't compare the two.
Translation: I don't know how to deal with the subject matter at hand, so I'm going to make a spurious comparison of two things, equate them falsely, and then plug my ears to the rest while declaring myself to have won.
I’ve never heard a talk on the rationality of physics, chemistry, biology etc,. If something is rational it should be self evident and not require to be constantly bolstered by these talks and apologetic books, you tube channels, colleges and websites. Theism is not rational, that should be obvious. It is to atheist and those theists who hold to a different set of equally irrational beliefs.
To the contrary. We are constantly questioning physics, chemistry, biology and all the sciences. In fact, all the sciences are constantly questioning themselves. The talk is called rationality of belief because there are also irrational reasons to believe, such as feelings and emotions.
It is obvious from creation itself that God exists.(Romans Chapter 1.) God doesn't want "robots" to love Him. He has revealed hs plan to those who recieve it &/or want it.Sin is & always has been the problem. In fact it's the same ol' lie from the garden: "you will be like gods, who know what is good & bad."Well we all "know" & it ain't "good."Humanity ignores the spiritual realm to it's own folly. "Seek & ye shall find; knock & the door will be opened".If you don't want it, u ain't gona get it
Of course Design is a scientific proof of God. Something the se purpose of which is tied to the existence of a separate entity, say a bucket, madates forsight purpose planting. A bucket mandates a designer...ditto a web spinning spider
Man oh man same thing people who do not want to believe in God will come up with a bunch of fancy words and quotes. Its not that hard either you believe in God or you don't. Use good oh logic you can not explain everything by science. Science is a man made trial and error concept. Yes science has been very helpful but at the same time it has been the down fall of man kind over and over. If you live your whole life not believing and then die to find out God is real then what? cant come back.
thats my point. i dont know but iam not making the claim as the dr does. i have to have credible evidence to do things in my life, religion, teachings, passing laws etc
these are not direct connections. i figured you couldnt provide scientific evidence. and this is what you believe ? you better stick to your faith while i will stick with science & logic
3:45 Bait and switch. The title is “Rationality of Belief in God”. “God” used as a title or name refers to one of a few specific characters. What he is proposing to defend is allowing for the existence of some undefined god. That itself is an atheistic position. Belief in God means that you believe in a specific person who is a god. 4:45 Incorrect. There are hundreds of thousands of arguments against the existence of gods. Gods are characters from stories. And there are hundreds of thousands of stories about gods. When a story says that God flooded the entire world and you can argue that the world was not flooded, that is an argument that that story did not really happen, and therefore the god who flooded the world does not exist. The man who reads Genesis as a metaphor about God and the child who hears it as history believe in two different gods. There are also numerous arguments against any god existing. One is simply by definition: a god can do miracles. A miracle is something that could not have happened naturally, therefore an impossible thing. If any person does a miracle, it is possible for him to do it according to his nature and the nature of reality. Therefore it’s not impossible, not a miracle and he is not a god. The entire concept is a paradox. Any god who exists does not fit the definition of the word ‘god’. 11:49 Obviously incorrect. Hot water can make you hot. Fire can make you sweat. 14:00 That is an argument against god. If nothing can exist without a cause, then a supreme god cannot exist because there is no greater god to cause him. If you say an uncaused god can exist, then not everything needs a cause and a universe can also just exist without a person creating it. If you irrationally insist that the Universe needs a cause, but the cause of the Universe does not need a cause, why make up a story about an imaginary person creating it? Why not a giant unthinking hammer striking an anvil? 15:00 Incorrect. You do not make new things, you recombine existing things. Existence is not a chain of new things, it is old stuff in new forms. The atoms of your body were forged in the hearts of stars. The water you drink was pissed out by dinosaurs. Existence is proof that the Universe exists, not that fiction is real. Your existence is not proof that an angel talked to Mohammed or that He-Man battles Skeletor or any other story. 19:45 If every iteration of reality is possible, it is possible we are in a reality where we exist and gods don't, as it appears. 20:30 Absolute perfection/goodness: A god who creates good things is better than a god who creates bad things. (For any values of bad/better/good you choose to define.) A perfect god could create only perfect things. The supreme perfect good god could only create other supreme perfect good gods. That is not this world, therefore the supreme perfect good god does not exist. 22:20 Misunderstanding of the nature of the Universe and the nature of life. It did not happen all at once by chance. The Universe has never before existed in the form it is in this second, and now it is different again. It is in constant change. Matter and energy are constantly reorganising according to the physical properties of reality. Life changes, generation by generation, in tandem with its changing environments. Life on Earth adapted to fit the planet, not the other way around. It has been shown to have changed as the physical conditions changed. "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'" - Douglas Adams 24:00 Morality is a product of evolution. It is a trait which is selected for in times when people's survival depend on group cooperation. A tribe which acts morally survives and breeds more successfully than a tribe which acts immorally. Because it is tribal and not species-wide, we are left with the hangover of immoral action towards out-groups. Hence colonialism, international war, exploitation of developing countries, the negative aspects of capitalism and other immoral acts that people (including religious people) do. Evolution explains morality fully, while stories about God fail to explain God-given morality without contradiction. (Why make partly-moral people? Why contravene free will?) 26:20 By his own arguments, he disproves God again. If conscience is a manifestation of God's absolute morality, it would be the same for everyone. That fact that it is not the same for everybody proves that there is no god who instils absolute morality in all people.
A lot of problems arise due to people misunderstanding or misinterpreting the bible. For instance, people automatically assume that the flood covered the whole world as we know it today but it actually refers to the whole land or region in which Noah lived. The other you mention is about miracles. A miracle is defined as an extraordinary occurrence outside of the regular course of nature and specially produced by the power of God. The miracle, therefore, is not manifested due to the ability of the individual but by God who works the miracle through that individual. Regarding existing without a cause, Peter is referring to things in the universe. God is not subject to anything and is not contained by the universe. "The supreme perfect good god could only create other supreme perfect good gods". God is not limited in what he can create. If he were limited, then he is not God. "The Universe has never before existed in the form it is in this second" What was it that became the Universe before it became the Universe and was it contained in something? Since it is in constant change, it is impossible for it to have always been in the form it is today so it must have been something else. What was it then? You contradicted yourself regarding morality. First you say moral tribes breed more successfully than immoral tribes yet you then say that we are left with the hangover of immoral action (ie more successful breeding).
A supreme, perfect God is infinite. Infinity cannot create infinity. By definition only One can be infinite. Therefore humanity being finite, having free will, being both good and evil is logical. Douglas Adams with the puzzle is so obviously simplistic. We can see that the parameters of existence are very fine-tuned, very unlike the puddle. If morality is the product of evolution, then wouldn't the tribe which is the most immoral win? It would be the tribe that kills all the other tribes.
What is a belief, how do I have one, and how can I be sure I'm right. Genesis begins with three distinct equal beings, whose mutual reciprocal actions between each other, represents a unity of, 'thought' 'will' and 'expression' God is love. A Godhead according to the book Romans. Other belief systems aren't like this, and love and truth can only have an arbitrary value. Islam and Judaism have the same problem. Allah is all by himself. How are they to give love a value? Genesis says to all the other possibilities, "Your turn." It doesn't say, "I'm right." They all fall down. Great talk! I believe the speaker has read Adolf Schlatter.
"If there is GOOD and EVIL, then there has to be GOD who is GOOD..." - why is it that the best argument for the existence of your god is that it HAS TO BE. Why does it have to be? I don't think it HAS TO BE. Prove that it just has to be. Or be honest, and admit that your belief THAT IT JUST HAS TO BE SO.... isn't rational.
There is no ultimate good without God. Because we can justify all sorts of good. It's be good for me if you gave me all your stuff. But would that be good?
@@konroh2 yeah I like that. I mean it would be good for you, and if you happened to force him to give him his stuff, that does not make it good in any reasonable moral sense. even though it will make your life better and reduce your suffering. if people do not believe in any kind of good in an objective sense, then why not just force him, or steal it? everything is permissible in a world where there is no objective morality. I like your comment, I usually don't respond to things this way.
"It is obvious from creation itself that God exists." - of course not. It is patently NOT obvious. Hold a rock in your hand. Tell me how you jump to "creation" and then jump to "God", and then jump to your particular god. The circularity of this kind of thinking is really quite stunning and speaks more about human psychopathology than any magical "creator" being.
+Truth Seeker I'd like to know where Kreeft got the idea that religious people are happier than Atheists, where is the evidence. Also 1:15:00 he states that telekinesis is presumably possible, wow I'd like to see the evidence for that one. Sorry but all I see is a religious man trying to prove his faith with philosophy.
SPOILER: he goes through a dozen unsound, laughable, oft-refuted, totally worthless proofs that God exists, then at 48:56 he says that all of these add up to a "strong case", and he never actually gives the solid proof he promised. Along the way he commits just about every logical fallacy in the books many, many times (sometimes so rapidly it's hard to keep count), displays amazing scientific illiteracy, and makes me wonder just how irrational somebody has to be before he *can't* get a PhD.
Lee Jamison wow. if you are unable to recognize the logical fallacies that kreeft employs, there is not much hope for you. btw, you don't have to make an argument that is more provably sound in order to show that an argument is unsound. are you stupid?
rohadt Anyad Kreeft is a very capable philosopher, and goes through a lesson in the past history of logical proofs. The fact that most of these have been challenged fairly convincingly to many people does not mean they have been conclusively shown to contain logical fallacies. Moreover, the goal of his lecture is to show that faith is not irrational. This he amply demonstrates by showing that each of the proofs is founded in reasons to believe that show connections to elements and experience of the natural world. His goal is not to "prove" the existence of God. It is to support the rationality of belief in the existence of God. You, on the other hand have not demonstrated rationality in your objection to either my comments or to Kreeft's.
Lee Jamison _"Connections to elements and experience of the natural world"?_ You have a very strange definition of "rational" (or maybe "not irrational"). I don't know if you care, but one can come up with equally "rational" beliefs in almost anything: that God does not exist, that multiple gods exist, that the Earth is flat, that storm clouds are angry, and so on and so on. And if Kreeft is a "very capable philosopher", then you have a strange definition of that too; the only unusual abilities he seems to demonstrate here are the ability to talk fast for an hour without notes, and the ability to assert obvious logical fallacies with no sign of embarrassment.
Lee Jamison so you are arguing, that kreeft is demonstrating the rationality of belief in god by being irrational (logical fallacies)? wow. they have been shown to contain logical fallacies. conclusively. btw, kreeft says something very true along the way, as unintended as it is. he said theists are very stupid if atheists are right. well, atheists are right. he also lies. he conflates pantheism and deism to try to justify spinoza and einstein as theists. a deist believes in a first cause being god, a pantheist doesn't. universe=god. i don't think kreeft is that stupid, which means he is just incredibly dishonest. he does not present a single rational reason to believe in god, he does present argumentum ad populum, straw man, argument from ignorance, begging the question, false dichotomy, just to name a few of the fallacies he assert as justification. if this passes as a very capable philosopher for you, i would hate to see how bad one would have to be to not be capable.
cccalhoun *Like the fallacy of an Ad Hominem?* "You are an idiot." - NOT an Ad Hominem "You are an idiot, and you are wrong." - NOT an Ad Hominem "You are an idiot, _therefore_ you are wrong" - THIS is an Ad Hominem. At what point in my original comment did I do this? (At what point in my original comment did I even do ANY of these?) So, not sure what point you thought you were making there... *You say he commits logical fallacies and yet provide none of them. How logical...* No, I IMPLIED that he commits logical fallacies. See, even if I had straight-up said it, though, I would not be REQUIRED to list them for your benefit. If you don't believe me as a result, and cannot see them yourself, so be it. I have 0 obligation to you for further explanation. That said, if you want a few examples, here you go: 0:31 - _"In another sense, I think you CAN prove the existence of God, because I think you can prove through strictly rational arguments..."_ Conflation fallacy - He is ultimately seeking to conflate the definition of "prove" with that of "demonstrate". You cannot demonstrate the existence of ANYTHING through strictly rational arguments. At best you could make a case for the possibility of something. To demonstrate something you require physical evidence, not simply logical arguments. He even seems to understand this later when stated plainly, at around 1:40, when he criticizes Anselm's Ontological Argument. 0:54 - _"If you can prove that there is a being that created the universe, well... who's that, Steven Spielberg?"_ Argument from Incredulity fallacy - "I can't imagine another explanation, therefore God!" No. It could have been mortal alien scientists in another universe who created a pocket universe in their lab (and our universe is the pocket universe). It could be that our entire universe is a simulation on a supercomputer in a real universe, and the creator of this universe is a mortal computer programmer, or an advanced AI. Etc. You don't get to jump to "Gawd dun it" from "I don't know". 1:03 - _"If you can prove that there is an eternal being, or an absolutely perfect being... well, there's only one candidate for that: God."_ Argument from Incredulity fallacy - There could be an eternal, imperfect being that is not God. 3:30 - _"The conclusion is a little weak. It's enough to refute the Atheist; who says there's no kind of god at all."_ Fallacy of Composition - What may be true of the subset of Atheists called Anti-Theists (who claim there are no gods), is not true of the whole set of Atheists (most of whom simply reject current god-claims, without asserting that "no gods exist"). He hasn't even gotten into his arguments for any gods at this point... 4:40 - _"As far as I know there have been only 2 arguments for Atheism."_ Fallacy of Composition - Once again, he seems to imply that what is true for part of the whole (Anti-Theist) is true for the whole as well. There are 0 "arguments for Atheism", because Atheism is not a positive position. It is the default position, with a null claim. 4:47 - _"There are many arguments against religion, against religious people, against the hypocrisy and sins and evils that have been done by religion, but those aren't proofs that God doesn't exist."_ Strawman fallacy - Atheism doesn't make this claim, so this is irrelevant. If he means to further add credibility to the arguments that God DOES exist based on the fact that God hasn't been DISproven, that is additionally an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. 5:04 - _"But if we're asking the question, 'Does God exist or not?", there's really only 2 arguments that claim to prove that God doesn't exist. One is the Problem of Evil, and one is apparently science doesn't need any kind of a god, you can explain anything without Him."_ Equivocation fallacy - He switches the definition of "god" around in that statement multiple times, from "generic god-being" to "Christian God". Ultimately he means "Christian God". False Dichotomy - There are more than 2 arguments against the Christian God. Conflation fallacy - "Science" is not equivalent to "Atheism". Strawman fallacy - Atheism does not claim to "prove God doesn't exist". And science doesn't deal with God at all. Being able to "prove everything without Him" simply means that there is no reason to discuss God, not a claim that God does not exist. I'm not going to sit through this entire video again, you can play "spot the fallacy" from this point on without me.
Well, only an idiot would knowingly commit logical fallacies, right? And if he didn't knowingly commit them, then he's merely ignorant. So pity would be a far better reaction than anger. You called Kreeft an idiot, but you only "implied" he committed logical fallacies? And then maintain it wasn't Ad Hominem. How this can *not* be meant to damage his personal character is beyond me: you say you merely meant accurate description - even though you referenced his degree, his credentials? If you can't even be honest with that, in the beginning, what makes you think I am going to go through your arguments? You might as well not open your mouth except to eat or make bird calls.
cccalhoun *Well, only an idiot would knowingly commit logical fallacies, right?* Or a liar. *And if he didn't knowingly commit them, then he's merely ignorant. So pity would be a far better reaction than anger.* Sardonicism is hardly the same thing as anger. *You called Kreeft an idiot, but you only "implied" he committed logical fallacies?* I never called him an idiot. I tongue-in-cheek called YOU an idiot. *And then maintain it wasn't Ad Hominem.* Yeah, I see you cry wolf on ad hominems in other comments here as well. You seem to have 0 functional understanding of what exactly an Ad Hominem Fallacy actually is, despite my explaining it for you in the previous comment... *How this can not be meant to damage his personal character is beyond me* Are you confusing "ad hominem" with "slander"? Hilarious. Also, badmouthing someone in a UA-cam comment hardly qualifies as the latter. And as I already explained, no one has committed the former here. Super great try, fella. *you say you merely meant accurate description* Are you confused about who you're talking with? I never said anything to that effect. *even though you referenced his degree, his credentials?* I suggest you go look up "joke". *If you can't even be honest with that, in the beginning, what makes you think I am going to go through your arguments?* You can't honestly expect me to believe you are this stupid... Try re-reading this entire thread. Maybe you'll get it the second time around. Gotta work on those reading comprehension skills. By the way, ironically, you implying that you're going to dismiss all my actual arguments without reading them _because_ you claim I am a dishonest person _is the very definition of Ad Hominem fallacy._ Congratulations! [ www.federalobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Dunce-cap-in-corner.jpg ]
You are being dishonest. There is evidence. 1. You discredit Kreeft in your OP and then claim it was an observation in your second post. 2. But observations don't discredit persons. 3. You are fully aware of this. Conclusion: Ergo, you are dishonest. Deconstruct every sentence if you wish. Call me names for all I care. Your vanity is not my problem.
None of that is based upon evidence, its all mythology and tales. The reason for religion is a form of leading people in the right direction and to make good decisions. yet the existence of "gods" or deities is a "white lie" to portray the ideologies in an easy to understand manor.
No first cause... no second cause and that first cause just HAS TO BE God. - I stopped watching at that point. Kreeft pretends to know what he can't possibly know. That is disingenuous to the extreme. He, OF COURSE, does not know if it is true that there has to be a prime mover. It might turn out to be true that nature causes itself. And its a horrible leap from a first cause to God. Kreeft isn't being rational, he is trying to be sneaky. I won't buy his used car.
"Last time I checked he revealed himself in a figure known as Jesus of Nazareth." - the last time you checked..... where? How is your belief from a ghost who is better than other ghosts not a delusion? You are talking about a ghost who talks to you in your head about a magical guy who supposedly lived two thousand years ago. Well, you bought into this story, and you now "defend" it with a lot of fervor. I don't see any good reason for your belief other than your extreme emotional attachment.
Wow. What a load of horse shit that comes out of Kreeft. I think I found a fallacy in just about every one of the arguments he presents. What's even more fascinating is that he didn't even try to look at any of these arguments from a skeptical view. If one thing has become very clear since I started looking at Christians apologetics: *Apologetics is not for the lost, it's for the saved* and Kreeft did an admirable job of demonstrating that my observation seems to be true.
How did we get to the point of unbelief and a false contemporary Christianity? Simple: the Holy Roman Catholic church (the mother of harlots) betrayed Christ and refused to let go of her Paganism which she had before she met Christ.
It is up to the one who makes the claim that a god exists, to present the evidence for that claim; If the evidence is lacking or insufficient, then the claim can be rejected. As Christopher Hitchens put it, "That which is asserted without evidence, can be refuted without evidence".
that is right but not in the way you meant it when it comes to logical argument for example if I ask you if you are awake and you say yes I could say you are asleep you have no proof you are asleep but you could argue that you are not and I could ague that you are and neither of us have proof. in short you still need to address the argument an argument is not empirical evidence it is an argument.
Blackjack If we were both making our own truth statements, then yes, we would each need to defend our position. However, if you say I am asleep, and I say I do not accept your assertion, then YOU must defend your position with evidence. I do not need to prove I am awake, in order to reject your assertion that I am asleep.
biostemm but you have no evidence to back your claim that you are awake I could, by your rules just dismiss your argument until you provided empirical proof that you were awake just so you know saying I do not accept your assertion is just a fancy way of saying no I'm awake without empirical evidence. because what empirical evidence do you have that my refutation based on no empirical evidence of your assertion that you are awake based on no empirical evidence. furthermore I don't have to prove that you are asleep to reject your assertion that you are awake. it is at this point that hitchens "rule" falls apart. by my rules however you could reason that you are not asleep and then we could actually debate whether you are asleep or not instead of just a circular dismissal of each other's assertions.
Blackjack I do not accept hard solipsism; Even if I am actually just dreaming, I have no choice but to accept that the reality I am experiencing is "real", and must act accordingly. That is not the point. I am not claiming that I am awake. I am challenging you to defend your position that I am asleep.
When you need to take 1 hour and 19 minutes just to TRY to explain blah, blah, blah about 'proof', in my book, you are just a scammer PAID CONFERENCE GUY...
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
What a wonderful mind and reasoning.
Lord bless you and give strength of the mind.
I'll give you 2. The Shroud of Turin & Incorrupt Catholic saints. Although the Shroud is THE most studied relic, it still is UNKNOWN how the image appeared on it & CANNOT be reproduced.
... and, in a similar way, the multitude of Eucharistic Miracles... and the Guadalupe image.
I find the moral argument to be the most compelling because otherwise you have to bite the bullet, and just say morals aren't real. It doesn't necessarily get you to God, but it gets you to transcendent properties which is certainly on the road to God.
All these comments below are not satisfactionary with respect to the lecture.
Peter Kreeft in this lecture is trying to give rational arguments of which the premise is very strong as he says in the beginning of his lecture. Thus critics can't attack these premises (and not listen to the arguments) so easily as they do with other arguments. And in my opinion this is a very power lecture and food for thought for the one who seeks reality.
Not really. Pretty weak lecture.
says the person who fails to provide a single counter-argument...
He makes the same old fallacies as all theists have done so before.
Right from the start of his first arguments: to argue that everything needs a cause except God, is not only a case of special pleading, it's also contradicting his other statement that there is no time before the big bang. Without time, causality is obviously meaningless. However, it even gets worse. Because in every upper level physics class, they will tell you how the theory of general relativity breaks down when it comes to The Big Bang theory (because it is in contrast with quantum mechanics). Therefore, nowadays physicists don't say about the Big Bang that there is no 'time before it', but that our understanding of the laws of physics breaks down at that moment in time.
We don't even know if the Big Bang meant the beginning of 'everything'. It just refers to the earliest known moment in time of our scientific universe (= all matter space and time) that we can observe. If there is a beginning, we don't know how it happened. To respond with 'God', would be an argument from ignorance. Which is what Kreeft does. His first cause argument comes down to 'something uncaused must have caused everything, because I can't make up any other explanation'. No, that's an argument from ignorance. We simply don't know if something has always existed. We certainly have no evidence that such a thing can even exist. Even if it did, it wouldn't mean it's still anywhere, it wouldn't mean it's a (conscious) being.
That was easy.
@@srrlIdlnice sophistry
' I am certainthat God is with me in me within me. Therefore my mindset is 👍 truth.❤❤❤
fantastic lecture, beautiful final remarks from audience member and prof. Kreeft
Im overwhelmed of happiness, Peter Kreeft.. you hit the nail right on the head at 34:03 - 34:44. This video could be a minute long instead of 80 cause halleluja he hit the bullseye.. Amen brother!
MrTnbopp123 is that the part where he admits all theists are crazy and need to realize that putting truth ahead of happiness would require them to reject God the same as Santa?
Paddy234 that's not too far off. It would be closer to say I modulate what makes me happy in order to ensure that my happiness can't be shattered by truth. And yes, I agree life has no value beyond what we assign it in relation to our own lives and human existence as a whole.
@@quintopia What is truth?
@@konroh2 a description of reality, to the extent it determines our experiences (perceptions). That is, just assume I mean the simplest least complicated thing I could mean by it.
@@quintopia So is true truth possible? That which reality really is?
Please listen again to the first first two minutes of the lecture. Kreeft addresses this question.
I think I would rather search for truth and be agnostic! But when I am down and out I speak to God!!
Wow, reading the comments of these jaded Atheists makes me really glad I gave up my arrogance and came Home.
Did I really sound like that when I was an Atheist? It's like when I read their words all I can see in my mind is Anakin Skywalker, legless in the fire pit screaming at Obi Wan, "I hate you!"
If you really consider Pascals, it is A) Absolutely terrifying B) very compelling. If you are listening to Ideas, whether they be scientific, philosophical or theological, and you are not scared, you may want to listen more and read more.
I think it is possible to "reason" one's way to faith, but the faith that one's reason leads to transcends the limitations of reason. As a great man once said: One of the best uses of thought is to understand that thought alone isn't enough.
The best arguments he makes are that of causation and of free will.
maybe true but alot of his arguments are good support arguments too
Entertain yourself with pleasures less often, seek the truth more avidly. Over time, that will develop the patience necessary to read or listen through lengthy ideas and arguments that teach you awesome stuff about the universe.
The atheists who come here are really people who deep down have doubts otherwise they wouldn't even come to a video titled rationality of belief in God.
There is still hope for you. Keep searching.
We atheists ONLY have doubts about the supernatural... That's the definition of atheism. It means we have doubts about every supernatural claim ever made, due to a lack of supporting evidence. We don't hold a position, we reject the claims made by those who hold positions. You can't have doubt in atheism, because that's literally the same thing as saying you have doubt in doubting.
"You can't have doubt in atheism, because that's literally the same thing as saying you have doubt in doubting." That quite telling. Why can anyone have doubt in doubting? That means that one can't even question the premise of no belief at all.
There is more evidence of God than there is of a finite universe that popped out of nowhere.
Neither atheism or religion know the origins of the universe(s), matter itself, light, or time. But at least religion puts an intelligence behind it all where as atheist don't even question it. They are just happy with a theory that can't even begin to explain how matter, time, light became into existence.
*****
*That means that one can't even question the premise of no belief at all.*
It's not a premise, so you can't question it. It's a default position.
*There is more evidence of God*
Show this evidence.
*than there is of a finite universe that popped out of nowhere.*
Strawman fallacy. This is not what the Big Bang describes, and it is not what Atheism is about.
*Neither atheism or religion know the origins of the universe(s), matter itself, light, or time.*
Right, and at least Atheism doesn't claim to. Unlike many religions (Christianity included). The scientific community, on the other hand, DOES know a few things about the first moments after the Big Bang.
*But at least religion puts an intelligence behind it all where as atheist don't even question it.*
What do you mean "at least"? Why would you think a baseless assertion like "Well, must have been some intelligent agent what done created all the things" is in any way a good thing? You have no conclusive evidence of that, so accepting that conclusion is gullibility.
*They are just happy with a theory that can't even begin to explain how matter, time, light became into existence.*
You clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what the word "Theory" actually means.
*became into existence.*
No one in the scientific community is postulating that they "came into existence" in the first place. So far as we can tell, they've always existed in one form or another. You seem to be confusing the CONFIGURATION of the current state of the universe with the CREATION FROM NOTHING of it. What examples do you have of "nothing"? None? Then how could you possibly suggest with any honesty that there was "nothing" "before" space and time? Also, how would you even talk about "before time" without invoking time? That's a meaningless question.
Many of your assumptions are wrong, and much of what you think we Atheists believe is nonsense as a result.
Lowraith Why not question a default position? If Aristotle had the same attitude we wouldn't know 99% of his insights.
Prove empirically using the scientific method the existence of how we love our offspring.
Actually the Big Bang theory describes the finality of the universe. Approx 15 billion yrs old but it does not describe how matter, time, light came to be.
And you argue that at least atheist don't claim the existence of God based on not knowing the origins of matter. But it does claim it doesn't exist. It is a claim nonetheless.
"No one in the scientific community is postulating that they "came into existence" in the first place"
Yes even scientist claim the Big Bang theory, which tells us that existence came to be at a particular point in time.
*****
*Why not question a default position?*
Because there's nothing to question... It's the default position. You question NON-defualt positions to find out whether or not to accept a positive position. That's how it works. Aristotle didn't question the default position, he explored non-default positions and tested them for validity... while still HOLDING the default position. In other words, maintain the default position while exploring other ideas, until you have found evidence and justification for abandoning the default and excepting a new position.
*Prove empirically using the scientific method the existence of how we love our offspring.*
Neurochemistry. Next.
*Actually the Big Bang theory describes the finality of the universe. Approx 15 billion yrs old*
Wrong, it describes the point in our past at which our current mathematical models, in the rudimentary state they are in, are no longer able to accurately describe the universe. This means there is more we can add to our equations, not that the universe "began" at that point in time.
*And you argue that at least atheist don't claim the existence of God based on not knowing the origins of matter. But it does claim it doesn't exist.*
Strawman fallacy. Atheism is simply us saying, "We don't believe you." when YOU claim that God DOES exist. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
*Yes even scientist claim the Big Bang theory, which tells us that existence came to be at a particular point in time.*
Wrong. You demonstrate a lack of understanding of what the model actually describes.
Major respect to the atheists or agnostics who come to ask questions respecftully and openly and not just to mock this in some childish fashion. Also I will note how sometimes Kreeft is operating on such a hogh philosophical level he takes so many axioms for granted cause he has studied them for decades hut I feel like some of his answers could be worded better. Still love his lectures though!
There is no worse place to debate the arguments made by Kreeft than UA-cam.
DanS24106 Worse than at a Rave?
+DanS24106 why?
+Truth Seeker a Rave would favor Kreeft so that would be bad. You need drugs or be out of your mind to try and reason god into existance :p
Why - because people disagree with Kreeft?
Because his arguments are the type of stuff you would encounter in an upper level philosophy class in university. Much of the criticism I have read is from people with no comprehension of the argument being made or the complex philosophical assumptions needed.
Professor Kreft is a wonderful guy. And theism is pretty obvious.
*Belief in God*
It is worth emphasizing that among human thinkers there exists no difference of opinion on the point that this universe has a self-sustaining First Cause. At the most, materialists call it matter, while the religious philosophers call it Allah.
It is essential to acknowledge the existence of the First Cause, for a sequence of causes and effects cannot go on indefinitely and we must reach a point where we should come to a cause which is not the effect of any other cause, i.e. the ultimate cause or the Unmoved Mover, which is self-existing and which has always been and shall always be.
It is this Self-Sustaining First Cause which not only makes our intellectual life possible but also quite meaningful. Suppose for a moment that there is no such First Cause. Where does this lead us?
Simplicity = Humility.😊
So he basically says; I will refute an argument by saying it doesn’t work because I don’t like the method.
Fascinating presentation. Thanks for posting.
This guy is a master at stacking empty boxes into a staircase.
To me the Anselm argument is perfect. It's the same way we can prove logos.
99% of atheist comments on apologist videos claim to see lots of fallacies in the arguments.
0% of atheist comments on apologist videos explain what those fallacies actually are.
ask and thou shall receive
Ludvig Burman So, is that an offer to explain?
Klaus von Zeit 3 and a half minutes in and we get a strawman on the position on atheism. Atheism does not say that there are no gods, it says that there is no reason to believe in any gods. Peter makes the common misstake of assuming atheism is a negation of a theistic claim when it's actually just a rejection.
at 5:23 there is a false dichotomy fallacy. The god position has no evidence in the first place, that is why the argument is not accepted, and that is far more prominent than the other two options Peter gives.
11 minutes in and Peter ignores that quantum mechanics have NEVER changed as far as know, and neither has the mass - energy equivalence.
right 14 minutes in and his argument from causality falls apart. There are other options than god that can be the first cause for the universe. Energy and quantum mechanics can be eternal, and they can generate exactly the kind of universe we reside in. Using Peter's own logic, if there is a natural cause in the cosmos, you don't need to move on to an supernatural cause.
16 minutes in and his argument is essentially assuming the premise of there only being an " being" capable of being the first cause. Again, with energy and quantum mechanics, this simply not the case.
To say nothing of the sneaky special pleading of defining god to have existence as a property where everything else needs existence as a gift with no justification given. It's dead easy to argue if i get to define beings and things with whatever properties i want without having to have proved these things beforehand.
20 minutes and Peter brings up the argument from degrees of perfection. How he can ignore, as a philosopher, the most simply explanation is beyond me. The concept of " perfection" is, as far as we know, a human construct. What are the criterion for " perfection" and how we measure it? is there an agreed upon definition of the perfection Peter is talking about here? No, there is not.
We humans have made up a concept where we assign " perfection" to various thing, inluding ourselves at times. This does not mean that there must be a standard of perfection that only be based on god. it's simply does not logically follow.
Do you wan't more?
Apparently the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy makes the same mistake when they define atheism. The first sentence reads as follows "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the
existence of God.". Those silly philosophers!
atheism is the position that you reject the existence of God. Only the atheist losses...God likely has lunch! ;)
Some people in the comments seem to think that if they found a wristwatch lying on the ground that the universe simply put it together by random chance.
I'm surprised he said he wasn't sure the contingency argument worked. It's defiantly the strongest one.
funny it was a catholic priest who was brilliant at maths who posited the idea of the big bang; we never hear of him. le maitre
Warning: Truth is objective. Opinion often refuses Truth. You can lead someone by reason to the existence of God but they can still refuse to believe due to slavery to sin, as is usually the case.
I love it; God does exist what his name made sense; there must be objective reality; it cannot just exist in your mind; Anyhow God bless you guys good luck
Very interesting.
A direct "I don't know"! Thank you!
the problem with a creator being or god is the law of conservation that says that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed
I was talking about Harris versus Craig but you're comment interests me just the same.
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
Never in my life have I ever seen spam of that magnitude.
Yeah, I can see you're sincere seeker.
scientific method is not the only method of proof in existence of God or certainty.
don't expect a scientific proof, but expect good logical philosophical proof.
if the universe has no beginning, then there had already been infinite enough time in the universe. if it is already been infinite enough time, then enough time for every possibility to become actualized.
good lecture. sharing
that's bullshit. Infinite time does not mean that everything conceivable has happened.
pls explain your thought in more details, by saying 'Infinite time does not mean that everything conceivable has happened.'
ainul bary " . if it is already been infinite enough time, then enough time for every possibility to become actualized."
I am objecting to this logic being used to prove god
@@metanoiaepoch380 yes it does. by definition, if there has been infinite time, everything conceivable must have already happened, or else there hasn't been enough time yet, which means there hasn't been infinite time yet.
"I know there is some sort of a god," but "I believe that 'God' loves me." How do you make such distinctions between "belief" and "knowledge" without just choosing the word "believe" or "know" according to personal preference or aspiration?
But is a bad word. It's a departure from antithesis to a synthesis. Here. there are only questions.
You can know God loves you because to do anything less comes from selfishness of which God cannot have any part of because that would be an imperfection. God can only love...Her made you out of love.
How do scientists think they will explain everything when they must understand infinity?
If there is GOOD and EVIL, then there has to be GOD who is GOOD, as we believe it, and disbelief to be EVIL thinking.
i listened to his entire speech and opened my mind to the best of my ability and i discovered that Dr. Peter Kreeft is an intelligent man with little wisdom regarding the mentality of many atheists. I doubt the existence of God not due to pride, but rather due to my respect for truth and evidence, he presented nothing new to me here and i was quite disappointed!
It was wrong 11 years ago, it is wrong today.
KevZen2000, how about not spamming the comments channel a half a dozen times with the same comment. Are you that lonely?
He says people proved tbings before the scientific method...yes they did but they just didn't have the name "scientific method yet" or "method of evidence and logic". This guy is a sophist.
Is not as if they used a different way of proving things completely...they used the same evidence based proofs but just didn't name it that. I am not sure what Kreeft is suggesting they did otherwise...
But I meant that society ALWAYS practices biologically advantageous things. Carbon dioxide naturally occurs in the environment. If you mean that we should have adapted to use carbon dioxide then I would respond by saying that photosynthesis would result in a much lesser existence. I'm being very serious. I feel confident in my abilities to refute any of what you would consider biology being disadvantageous.
There is a debate on youtube that applies to moral law. Its a debate that took place in Notre Dame a little bit ago. If you want to look it up its called the God debate and look for the one that is about an hour long. After listening to that debate, this guy doesnt seem so threatening.
Where's any mention of the Dormanian Argument for God?
Kreeft did not concede that the all, or even most, of the arguments he gives are "poor" ones; he concedes that, taken individually, none is in itself conclusive. So you have caricatured his arguments.
How is it lunacy to follow biologically advantageous options?(I'm trying to go about understanding this in the most polite way possible so please don't take anything I say offensively)
Accepting a lottery ticket and believing in God requires two significantly different amounts of effort, no?
Why?
What are they then? Explain them to me "scientifically.'
I feel as though society does practice biologically advantageous things. I think that everything has a biological advantage. I encourage you to provide examples of instances where something would not be advantageous. Natural death wouldn't be a good example because you can't practice natural death. Its a process that is out of our control as of this moment in time.
I don't know, this is just word games... He claims that asserting the validity of scientific method is a way to "know" things is denying the possibility of anything ever being proved before the explicitation of any scientific method in the XVIth Century. Counter to that he claims to present "logical-philosophical" proofs, which is weird because one could also say that such a thing is denying the possibility of prooving anything beyond Western logic and philosofy. Big Smurf can exist just as well
That Atheist is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO ANNOYING. Wow. I mean, just listening to him act as though he is somehow intelligent for considering the most basic objections? Truly a representative of the whole. Lol. Astounding.
This guy says you can't be certain if this is a dream or not, then goes on to say you can be certain that there is a god? both are unattainable knowledge which he undertands for being uncertain if this is all dream or not, but for an all knowing, all powerfull divine entity who created the universe? and if not for the scientific method he wouldn't have the camera's or internet to preach his bullshit on.
I'm pretty sure what he meant was that you can be as certain of God's existence as you can be certain that reality as you know it exists.
We can't be certain of our reality, but it is the foundation of scientific discovery, we have to accept reality as we know it until something gets discovered which changes what we know about reality, and just because God's existence and reality are both uncertainties how does that prove the existence of god? He is trying to make comparisons with things that people don't fully understand but I may not undrestand dreams but I have them, and I have never seen, heard or felt god so you can't compare the two.
Translation: I don't know how to deal with the subject matter at hand, so I'm going to make a spurious comparison of two things, equate them falsely, and then plug my ears to the rest while declaring myself to have won.
There is a God, Spinoza's God
I’ve never heard a talk on the rationality of physics, chemistry, biology etc,.
If something is rational it should be self evident and not require to be constantly bolstered by these talks and apologetic books, you tube channels, colleges and websites.
Theism is not rational, that should be obvious. It is to atheist and those theists who hold to a different set of equally irrational beliefs.
To the contrary. We are constantly questioning physics, chemistry, biology and all the sciences. In fact, all the sciences are constantly questioning themselves. The talk is called rationality of belief because there are also irrational reasons to believe, such as feelings and emotions.
Philosophers are always talking about rationality and science in all its different aspects. You just haven't looked.
It is obvious from creation itself that God exists.(Romans Chapter 1.) God doesn't want "robots" to love Him. He has revealed hs plan to those who recieve it &/or want it.Sin is & always has been the problem. In fact it's the same ol' lie from the garden: "you will be like gods, who know what is good & bad."Well we all "know" & it ain't "good."Humanity ignores the spiritual realm to it's own folly. "Seek & ye shall find; knock & the door will be opened".If you don't want it, u ain't gona get it
you sir, amuse me.
Crushing critique. Lol
Of course Design is a scientific proof of God. Something the se purpose of which is tied to the existence of a separate entity, say a bucket, madates forsight purpose planting. A bucket mandates a designer...ditto a web spinning spider
No. And that’s OK
Man oh man same thing people who do not want to believe in God will come up with a bunch of fancy words and quotes. Its not that hard either you believe in God or you don't. Use good oh logic you can not explain everything by science. Science is a man made trial and error concept. Yes science has been very helpful but at the same time it has been the down fall of man kind over and over. If you live your whole life not believing and then die to find out God is real then what? cant come back.
thats my point. i dont know but iam not
making the claim as the dr does.
i have to have credible evidence to do
things in my life, religion, teachings, passing laws etc
SO everything in the "bible" is evidence? and therefor the truth? large amounts of sarcasm ;)
these are not direct connections.
i figured you couldnt provide scientific evidence.
and this is what you believe ?
you better stick to your faith while i will
stick with science & logic
its been 6 years, did u finish the rocket ur working on, close to achieve Nobel or yet
3:45 Bait and switch. The title is “Rationality of Belief in God”. “God” used as a title or name refers to one of a few specific characters. What he is proposing to defend is allowing for the existence of some undefined god. That itself is an atheistic position. Belief in God means that you believe in a specific person who is a god.
4:45 Incorrect. There are hundreds of thousands of arguments against the existence of gods. Gods are characters from stories. And there are hundreds of thousands of stories about gods. When a story says that God flooded the entire world and you can argue that the world was not flooded, that is an argument that that story did not really happen, and therefore the god who flooded the world does not exist. The man who reads Genesis as a metaphor about God and the child who hears it as history believe in two different gods.
There are also numerous arguments against any god existing. One is simply by definition: a god can do miracles. A miracle is something that could not have happened naturally, therefore an impossible thing. If any person does a miracle, it is possible for him to do it according to his nature and the nature of reality. Therefore it’s not impossible, not a miracle and he is not a god. The entire concept is a paradox. Any god who exists does not fit the definition of the word ‘god’.
11:49 Obviously incorrect. Hot water can make you hot. Fire can make you sweat.
14:00 That is an argument against god. If nothing can exist without a cause, then a supreme god cannot exist because there is no greater god to cause him. If you say an uncaused god can exist, then not everything needs a cause and a universe can also just exist without a person creating it. If you irrationally insist that the Universe needs a cause, but the cause of the Universe does not need a cause, why make up a story about an imaginary person creating it? Why not a giant unthinking hammer striking an anvil?
15:00 Incorrect. You do not make new things, you recombine existing things. Existence is not a chain of new things, it is old stuff in new forms. The atoms of your body were forged in the hearts of stars. The water you drink was pissed out by dinosaurs. Existence is proof that the Universe exists, not that fiction is real. Your existence is not proof that an angel talked to Mohammed or that He-Man battles Skeletor or any other story.
19:45 If every iteration of reality is possible, it is possible we are in a reality where we exist and gods don't, as it appears.
20:30 Absolute perfection/goodness: A god who creates good things is better than a god who creates bad things. (For any values of bad/better/good you choose to define.) A perfect god could create only perfect things. The supreme perfect good god could only create other supreme perfect good gods. That is not this world, therefore the supreme perfect good god does not exist.
22:20 Misunderstanding of the nature of the Universe and the nature of life. It did not happen all at once by chance. The Universe has never before existed in the form it is in this second, and now it is different again. It is in constant change. Matter and energy are constantly reorganising according to the physical properties of reality. Life changes, generation by generation, in tandem with its changing environments. Life on Earth adapted to fit the planet, not the other way around. It has been shown to have changed as the physical conditions changed.
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"
- Douglas Adams
24:00 Morality is a product of evolution. It is a trait which is selected for in times when people's survival depend on group cooperation. A tribe which acts morally survives and breeds more successfully than a tribe which acts immorally. Because it is tribal and not species-wide, we are left with the hangover of immoral action towards out-groups. Hence colonialism, international war, exploitation of developing countries, the negative aspects of capitalism and other immoral acts that people (including religious people) do. Evolution explains morality fully, while stories about God fail to explain God-given morality without contradiction. (Why make partly-moral people? Why contravene free will?)
26:20 By his own arguments, he disproves God again. If conscience is a manifestation of God's absolute morality, it would be the same for everyone. That fact that it is not the same for everybody proves that there is no god who instils absolute morality in all people.
A lot of problems arise due to people misunderstanding or misinterpreting the bible. For instance, people automatically assume that the flood covered the whole world as we know it today but it actually refers to the whole land or region in which Noah lived. The other you mention is about miracles. A miracle is defined as an extraordinary occurrence outside of the regular course of nature and specially produced by the power of God. The miracle, therefore, is not manifested due to the ability of the individual but by God who works the miracle through that individual.
Regarding existing without a cause, Peter is referring to things in the universe. God is not subject to anything and is not contained by the universe.
"The supreme perfect good god could only create other supreme perfect good gods". God is not limited in what he can create. If he were limited, then he is not God.
"The Universe has never before existed in the form it is in this second" What was it that became the Universe before it became the Universe and was it contained in something? Since it is in constant change, it is impossible for it to have always been in the form it is today so it must have been something else. What was it then?
You contradicted yourself regarding morality. First you say moral tribes breed more successfully than immoral tribes yet you then say that we are left with the hangover of immoral action (ie more successful breeding).
A supreme, perfect God is infinite. Infinity cannot create infinity. By definition only One can be infinite. Therefore humanity being finite, having free will, being both good and evil is logical.
Douglas Adams with the puzzle is so obviously simplistic. We can see that the parameters of existence are very fine-tuned, very unlike the puddle. If morality is the product of evolution, then wouldn't the tribe which is the most immoral win? It would be the tribe that kills all the other tribes.
What is a belief, how do I have one, and how can I be sure I'm right. Genesis begins with three distinct equal beings, whose mutual reciprocal actions between each other, represents a unity of, 'thought' 'will' and 'expression' God is love. A Godhead according to the book Romans. Other belief systems aren't like this, and love and truth can only have an arbitrary value. Islam and Judaism have the same problem. Allah is all by himself. How are they to give love a value? Genesis says to all the other possibilities, "Your turn." It doesn't say, "I'm right." They all fall down. Great talk! I believe the speaker has read Adolf Schlatter.
Christians don't believe in 3 equal beings, they believe in one being comprised by 3 persons
"If there is GOOD and EVIL, then there has to be GOD who is GOOD..."
- why is it that the best argument for the existence of your god is that it HAS TO BE. Why does it have to be? I don't think it HAS TO BE.
Prove that it just has to be. Or be honest, and admit that your belief THAT IT JUST HAS TO BE SO.... isn't rational.
There is no ultimate good without God. Because we can justify all sorts of good. It's be good for me if you gave me all your stuff. But would that be good?
@@konroh2 yeah I like that. I mean it would be good for you, and if you happened to force him to give him his stuff, that does not make it good in any reasonable moral sense. even though it will make your life better and reduce your suffering. if people do not believe in any kind of good in an objective sense, then why not just force him, or steal it? everything is permissible in a world where there is no objective morality. I like your comment, I usually don't respond to things this way.
"It is obvious from creation itself that God exists."
- of course not. It is patently NOT obvious. Hold a rock in your hand. Tell me how you jump to "creation" and then jump to "God", and then jump to your particular god. The circularity of this kind of thinking is really quite stunning and speaks more about human psychopathology than any magical "creator" being.
What do you think when you look at a building?
He does not speak with an open mind.
+ophirdog Ya think?
+Truth Seeker
I'd like to know where Kreeft got the idea that religious people are happier than Atheists, where is the evidence. Also 1:15:00 he states that telekinesis is presumably possible, wow I'd like to see the evidence for that one. Sorry but all I see is a religious man trying to prove his faith with philosophy.
ophirdog
If you're looking for evidence, you're not going to get it from Kreeft or any other religious apologist. Philosophy is just glorified BS.
+Truth Seeker
There's something I've now come to accept, and it seems to fit perfectly here: _Apologetics isn't for the lost, it's for the saved!_
I would have put "saved" in parentheses.
SPOILER: he goes through a dozen unsound, laughable, oft-refuted, totally worthless proofs that God exists, then at 48:56 he says that all of these add up to a "strong case", and he never actually gives the solid proof he promised. Along the way he commits just about every logical fallacy in the books many, many times (sometimes so rapidly it's hard to keep count), displays amazing scientific illiteracy, and makes me wonder just how irrational somebody has to be before he *can't* get a PhD.
Assertions of illogic do not prove illogic. Use arguments that are more provably sound than those you wish to overturn. You haven't done this.
Lee Jamison wow. if you are unable to recognize the logical fallacies that kreeft employs, there is not much hope for you. btw, you don't have to make an argument that is more provably sound in order to show that an argument is unsound. are you stupid?
rohadt Anyad
Kreeft is a very capable philosopher, and goes through a lesson in the past history of logical proofs. The fact that most of these have been challenged fairly convincingly to many people does not mean they have been conclusively shown to contain logical fallacies. Moreover, the goal of his lecture is to show that faith is not irrational. This he amply demonstrates by showing that each of the proofs is founded in reasons to believe that show connections to elements and experience of the natural world. His goal is not to "prove" the existence of God. It is to support the rationality of belief in the existence of God.
You, on the other hand have not demonstrated rationality in your objection to either my comments or to Kreeft's.
Lee Jamison
_"Connections to elements and experience of the natural world"?_ You have a very strange definition of "rational" (or maybe "not irrational"). I don't know if you care, but one can come up with equally "rational" beliefs in almost anything: that God does not exist, that multiple gods exist, that the Earth is flat, that storm clouds are angry, and so on and so on.
And if Kreeft is a "very capable philosopher", then you have a strange definition of that too; the only unusual abilities he seems to demonstrate here are the ability to talk fast for an hour without notes, and the ability to assert obvious logical fallacies with no sign of embarrassment.
Lee Jamison so you are arguing, that kreeft is demonstrating the rationality of belief in god by being irrational (logical fallacies)? wow. they have been shown to contain logical fallacies. conclusively. btw, kreeft says something very true along the way, as unintended as it is. he said theists are very stupid if atheists are right. well, atheists are right.
he also lies. he conflates pantheism and deism to try to justify spinoza and einstein as theists. a deist believes in a first cause being god, a pantheist doesn't. universe=god. i don't think kreeft is that stupid, which means he is just incredibly dishonest.
he does not present a single rational reason to believe in god, he does present argumentum ad populum, straw man, argument from ignorance, begging the question, false dichotomy, just to name a few of the fallacies he assert as justification.
if this passes as a very capable philosopher for you, i would hate to see how bad one would have to be to not be capable.
What does this guy have a doctorate in, logical fallacies?
And Pascal's Wager? Really!? Ok, "professor"...
+Lowraith Like the fallacy of an Ad Hominem? You say he commits logical fallacies and yet provide none of them. How logical...
cccalhoun
*Like the fallacy of an Ad Hominem?*
"You are an idiot." - NOT an Ad Hominem
"You are an idiot, and you are wrong." - NOT an Ad Hominem
"You are an idiot, _therefore_ you are wrong" - THIS is an Ad Hominem. At what point in my original comment did I do this? (At what point in my original comment did I even do ANY of these?)
So, not sure what point you thought you were making there...
*You say he commits logical fallacies and yet provide none of them. How logical...*
No, I IMPLIED that he commits logical fallacies.
See, even if I had straight-up said it, though, I would not be REQUIRED to list them for your benefit. If you don't believe me as a result, and cannot see them yourself, so be it. I have 0 obligation to you for further explanation.
That said, if you want a few examples, here you go:
0:31 - _"In another sense, I think you CAN prove the existence of God, because I think you can prove through strictly rational arguments..."_
Conflation fallacy - He is ultimately seeking to conflate the definition of "prove" with that of "demonstrate". You cannot demonstrate the existence of ANYTHING through strictly rational arguments. At best you could make a case for the possibility of something. To demonstrate something you require physical evidence, not simply logical arguments. He even seems to understand this later when stated plainly, at around 1:40, when he criticizes Anselm's Ontological Argument.
0:54 - _"If you can prove that there is a being that created the universe, well... who's that, Steven Spielberg?"_
Argument from Incredulity fallacy - "I can't imagine another explanation, therefore God!" No. It could have been mortal alien scientists in another universe who created a pocket universe in their lab (and our universe is the pocket universe). It could be that our entire universe is a simulation on a supercomputer in a real universe, and the creator of this universe is a mortal computer programmer, or an advanced AI. Etc. You don't get to jump to "Gawd dun it" from "I don't know".
1:03 - _"If you can prove that there is an eternal being, or an absolutely perfect being... well, there's only one candidate for that: God."_
Argument from Incredulity fallacy - There could be an eternal, imperfect being that is not God.
3:30 - _"The conclusion is a little weak. It's enough to refute the Atheist; who says there's no kind of god at all."_
Fallacy of Composition - What may be true of the subset of Atheists called Anti-Theists (who claim there are no gods), is not true of the whole set of Atheists (most of whom simply reject current god-claims, without asserting that "no gods exist").
He hasn't even gotten into his arguments for any gods at this point...
4:40 - _"As far as I know there have been only 2 arguments for Atheism."_
Fallacy of Composition - Once again, he seems to imply that what is true for part of the whole (Anti-Theist) is true for the whole as well. There are 0 "arguments for Atheism", because Atheism is not a positive position. It is the default position, with a null claim.
4:47 - _"There are many arguments against religion, against religious people, against the hypocrisy and sins and evils that have been done by religion, but those aren't proofs that God doesn't exist."_
Strawman fallacy - Atheism doesn't make this claim, so this is irrelevant. If he means to further add credibility to the arguments that God DOES exist based on the fact that God hasn't been DISproven, that is additionally an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
5:04 - _"But if we're asking the question, 'Does God exist or not?", there's really only 2 arguments that claim to prove that God doesn't exist. One is the Problem of Evil, and one is apparently science doesn't need any kind of a god, you can explain anything without Him."_
Equivocation fallacy - He switches the definition of "god" around in that statement multiple times, from "generic god-being" to "Christian God". Ultimately he means "Christian God".
False Dichotomy - There are more than 2 arguments against the Christian God.
Conflation fallacy - "Science" is not equivalent to "Atheism".
Strawman fallacy - Atheism does not claim to "prove God doesn't exist". And science doesn't deal with God at all. Being able to "prove everything without Him" simply means that there is no reason to discuss God, not a claim that God does not exist.
I'm not going to sit through this entire video again, you can play "spot the fallacy" from this point on without me.
Well, only an idiot would knowingly commit logical fallacies, right? And if he didn't knowingly commit them, then he's merely ignorant. So pity would be a far better reaction than anger.
You called Kreeft an idiot, but you only "implied" he committed logical fallacies? And then maintain it wasn't Ad Hominem. How this can *not* be meant to damage his personal character is beyond me: you say you merely meant accurate description - even though you referenced his degree, his credentials?
If you can't even be honest with that, in the beginning, what makes you think I am going to go through your arguments? You might as well not open your mouth except to eat or make bird calls.
cccalhoun
*Well, only an idiot would knowingly commit logical fallacies, right?*
Or a liar.
*And if he didn't knowingly commit them, then he's merely ignorant. So pity would be a far better reaction than anger.*
Sardonicism is hardly the same thing as anger.
*You called Kreeft an idiot, but you only "implied" he committed logical fallacies?*
I never called him an idiot. I tongue-in-cheek called YOU an idiot.
*And then maintain it wasn't Ad Hominem.*
Yeah, I see you cry wolf on ad hominems in other comments here as well. You seem to have 0 functional understanding of what exactly an Ad Hominem Fallacy actually is, despite my explaining it for you in the previous comment...
*How this can not be meant to damage his personal character is beyond me*
Are you confusing "ad hominem" with "slander"? Hilarious. Also, badmouthing someone in a UA-cam comment hardly qualifies as the latter. And as I already explained, no one has committed the former here. Super great try, fella.
*you say you merely meant accurate description*
Are you confused about who you're talking with? I never said anything to that effect.
*even though you referenced his degree, his credentials?*
I suggest you go look up "joke".
*If you can't even be honest with that, in the beginning, what makes you think I am going to go through your arguments?*
You can't honestly expect me to believe you are this stupid...
Try re-reading this entire thread. Maybe you'll get it the second time around. Gotta work on those reading comprehension skills.
By the way, ironically, you implying that you're going to dismiss all my actual arguments without reading them _because_ you claim I am a dishonest person _is the very definition of Ad Hominem fallacy._ Congratulations!
[ www.federalobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Dunce-cap-in-corner.jpg ]
You are being dishonest. There is evidence.
1. You discredit Kreeft in your OP and then claim it was an observation in your second post.
2. But observations don't discredit persons.
3. You are fully aware of this.
Conclusion: Ergo, you are dishonest.
Deconstruct every sentence if you wish. Call me names for all I care. Your vanity is not my problem.
None of that is based upon evidence, its all mythology and tales. The reason for religion is a form of leading people in the right direction and to make good decisions. yet the existence of "gods" or deities is a "white lie" to portray the ideologies in an easy to understand manor.
No first cause... no second cause and that first cause just HAS TO BE God.
- I stopped watching at that point. Kreeft pretends to know what he can't possibly know. That is disingenuous to the extreme. He, OF COURSE, does not know if it is true that there has to be a prime mover. It might turn out to be true that nature causes itself. And its a horrible leap from a first cause to God.
Kreeft isn't being rational, he is trying to be sneaky. I won't buy his used car.
"Last time I checked he revealed himself in a figure known as Jesus of Nazareth."
- the last time you checked..... where? How is your belief from a ghost who is better than other ghosts not a delusion? You are talking about a ghost who talks to you in your head about a magical guy who supposedly lived two thousand years ago. Well, you bought into this story, and you now "defend" it with a lot of fervor. I don't see any good reason for your belief other than your extreme emotional attachment.
Why do you think he's intelligent?
Wow. What a load of horse shit that comes out of Kreeft. I think I found a fallacy in just about every one of the arguments he presents. What's even more fascinating is that he didn't even try to look at any of these arguments from a skeptical view.
If one thing has become very clear since I started looking at Christians apologetics: *Apologetics is not for the lost, it's for the saved* and Kreeft did an admirable job of demonstrating that my observation seems to be true.
Repent
You found a fallacy in every one, but didn't even list one of them? Uh.. Sure...
EarnedMyResp3ct
*Repent*
Fuck off!
+Atheist Lehman LOL you ignored my actual comment! Priceless!!
EarnedMyResp3ct
No, I ignored you, because you started with bullshit demanding that I "repent!" Now fuck off!
How did we get to the point of unbelief and a false contemporary Christianity? Simple: the Holy Roman Catholic church (the mother of harlots) betrayed Christ and refused to let go of her Paganism which she had before she met Christ.
What is paganism to you? Does it include the language you use currently? And how is it wrong when used by Christians? Common sense is required
Prove god? really?
Well unless you can refute his reasoning then yes, proof.
i am an atheist-and i couldnt stand the kinds of pseuoarguments that he was making
It is up to the one who makes the claim that a god exists, to present the evidence for that claim; If the evidence is lacking or insufficient, then the claim can be rejected. As Christopher Hitchens put it, "That which is asserted without evidence, can be refuted without evidence".
that is right but not in the way you meant it when it comes to logical argument for example if I ask you if you are awake and you say yes I could say you are asleep you have no proof you are asleep but you could argue that you are not and I could ague that you are and neither of us have proof. in short you still need to address the argument an argument is not empirical evidence it is an argument.
Blackjack If we were both making our own truth statements, then yes, we would each need to defend our position. However, if you say I am asleep, and I say I do not accept your assertion, then YOU must defend your position with evidence. I do not need to prove I am awake, in order to reject your assertion that I am asleep.
biostemm but you have no evidence to back your claim that you are awake I could, by your rules just dismiss your argument until you provided empirical proof that you were awake
just so you know saying I do not accept your assertion is just a fancy way of saying no I'm awake without empirical evidence. because what empirical evidence do you have that my refutation based on no empirical evidence of your assertion that you are awake based on no empirical evidence. furthermore I don't have to prove that you are asleep to reject your assertion that you are awake. it is at this point that hitchens "rule" falls apart.
by my rules however you could reason that you are not asleep and then we could actually debate whether you are asleep or not instead of just a circular dismissal of each other's assertions.
Blackjack I do not accept hard solipsism; Even if I am actually just dreaming, I have no choice but to accept that the reality I am experiencing is "real", and must act accordingly. That is not the point. I am not claiming that I am awake. I am challenging you to defend your position that I am asleep.
When you need to take 1 hour and 19 minutes just to TRY to explain blah, blah, blah about 'proof', in my book, you are just a scammer PAID CONFERENCE GUY...
So out of an hour and 19 minutes of lecture the only critique you have is that it was to long?
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.
I am not saying believers in God are irrational, just that they have not made the correct choice on accepting the concept. We all make bad decisions, and the belief in the gods is no exception. It is not a matter of intelligence, we all know smart people believe in the gods, and ignorant people do not, but the fact is that we have no good reason to believe in god, if we truly examine the data properly, without emotion, ignorance, popularity, and so on.