40 years I was team God. And no it wasn't science that brought me out of it. It was a deep study on Judaism that led me to conclude it's all simply a jewish origin story mixed with mythology.
God is not above science, not does it transcend it. It is imaginary, it is a placeholder until science figures it out. God rides the short bus, science is in advanced placement.
The Almighty God Is With Thee in Hebrew Gematria equals 1983 The deadline for the transition from network control protocol (NCP) to TCP/IP was January 1, 1983 All nations and tongues, under one roof. Universal language, all just in time for the last hour. This date is considered the official birthday of the internet, as TCP/IP established a standard way for computer networks to communicate with each other. ARPANET and the Defense Data Network officially changed to the TCP/IP standard on January 1, 1983, hence the birth of the Internet. All networks could now be connected by a universal language. If God had a Son what would you expect him to be? If God represents the cosmic web? Would his Son represent the World Wide Web? If the cosmic web had a baby, what would it look like? The world wide web? Come on Charlotte you know you're crawling the web. Nobody has knocked the pixel dust out of this bugger, that's why that stone hearts blackened by the sin within. A virgin older than dirt, what is it worth?
With a name like mrscience, one would expect you to comprehend it. Do you even comprehend what transcendent means? Did you know light itself is transcendent? Did you know binary code is omni present inside of computational architectures? How much of the science do you actually comprehend? Do you ignore the dark energy, dark matter and focus exclusively on ordinary matter claiming that nothing else exist?
It's rather humorous that the speaker seeks to remove "historical events" from the domain of science, only to ultimately claim that they are a good source of evidence for religious belief. "Hey guys, history isn't falsifiable, so let's go ahead and add it to a list of other unfalsifiable claims outside the domain of science. The more "sources" you have, the strong your argument is!!!" Sheesh, what intellectual bankruptcy.
I mistakenly thought the subject "Ending this stupid debate" would center around the benefits of moving on from religion and into a more rational, logical and secular world. Boy was I wrong. LOL. I'm happy to see so many educated comments though.
Essentially what you are saying is you do not trust the science? Which tells us that 95% of the universe is made up of dark energy and dark matter and only 5% of the universe is made up of physical material or ordinary matter. So you are saying you do not believe there is any underlying architecture or physics to our universe? Do you even know what a possibility space is or how one arises from a physical architecture shaping energy into structure? why not look at the model of it in action, we call it the world wide web, or internet its a fractal model of the cosmic web. What you are saying is human beings do not underly or interact with the world wide web because they are outside of it not inside of it. You see the ridiculousness in your claim? Are human beings inside the world wide web? So does that mean we had nothing to do with the creation of the world wide web? I mean we aren't inside of it, we can't be the creators of said domain, its impossible because we aren't inside of the world wide web physically, so we certainly couldn't have created it right? That's what you are claiming whether you realize that or not.
Faith vs the scientific method. I will take the scientific method. Belief in an omnipotent imaginary friend controlling the universe belongs where it was spawned. In the Bronze age.
@@Shark_fishing Yet so much in religion appeals to instinct to disregard probability. "As long as it is not completely impossible, I am willing to believe it, because it matters to me." - this is frequently the thought process believers and apologists follow.
What I am hearing is the following: Any supernatural claim is to be presupposed true because it can't be proven by science, and that belief is to be put on the same shelf as science not because of empirical evidence but because of widely held belief. Let's seriously end this debate with the following understanding: The domains of science and religion don't touch.
Ah, but they do. Universally, ancient traditions have a commonality in that the omnipotents originate from the Pleiades, which is the radiant of The Taurid Meteor Stream. It is the destructive causation of The World Ages of Mankind. We still dress as the dead and go around asking if the outcome will be good or bad when The Halloween Fireballs (The Taurids) fall. It is really Solar Worship, not daily, nor seasonally, but Impact Winter taking the Sun away for long periods of time.
I don't believe any supernatural claim should be presupposed to be true, but I'd say that to measure it's reality by virtue of natural parameters is to be ignorant of definitions. It is not only the scientific world that determines reality.
@@conversionseo1382 there are so many great examples because science doesn't CAUSE anything, it merely describes it. Emotion is something that comes to mind just off the top of my head. Certainly science has studied it and discovered amazing things in the world of physiological hormones and brain chemistry to better understand what is going on, but those insights attempt to explain a process, not prove the existence of the thing itself or why it is. My only point in this video is that science, by definition of it being a specific discipline, has parameters and isn't all encompassing. I think we agree there. I just believe that it's also good to have cross-disciplinary conversation as we all try and determine things that are "real."
Science never says to get rid of art, morals, etc. Science is a methodology that intentionally limits its scope, while religions tend to limitlessly include all things under its umbrella and claim them all as being under its authority. This is why religions claim that some art is moral and some music is immoral, etc. Science, when untainted by politics or religion, does not stick its nose where it is not needed. Religion should be as modest as science and stop making bold claims about which sexual position is less sinful than another, etc.
Religion : a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe Science is mainly about the nature of the univers, may have some speculations about the cause of the universe but does not address the purpose of the universe. Basically you are claiming that according to your religion other religions should stop making claims about sexual positions. According to my religion freedom of speech is more important than not being bothered by moral standards of other religions one doesn't adhere to anyhow. Anyhow, you are being silly by claiming that religion should be as modest as science since science isn't about the purpose of the universe while religion is. Science can tell you how to send a man to the moon and how to get that man back to earth alive. Science can not tell you whether you should send a man to the moon, what should be done is within the religious domain, not the scientific domain.
@@lumin10 ethics and morals are beliefs about the purpose of the universe. If science is not a religion because it's not about the purpose of the universe, then a system of ethics and morals that doesn't contain anything about either the cause of the universe or the nature of the universe isn't a religion either.
If you’re moving God and his actions outside of the realm of science, then you put yourself in the position of advocating for a deceitful deity. If that’s what you believe, okay. But, if you also propose God is honest by his very nature, then you don’t have to worry about science, you got to deal with that internal inconsistency.
Not moving God OUTSIDE of science, saying that to limit our expectations of proof for the supernatural world by our observation of the natural world is short sighted.
@@TruthBeToldBiblePodcast when you insist that God can’t be investigated scientifically, as you did, you are pushing God outside of science and are not arguing for a god who is imminent and evident in our universe.
God supposedly interacted with people in the Bible. God talked to people, such as Moses, etc. God made a burning bush. That would be scientific evidence, if those events really happened. Since it happened in the Bible, there is no reason for God not to reveal his existence in a scientific way. But, outside of the Bible, God didn't do anything that can be verified by science. I guess God stopped doing things after the Bible was written.
Why? Does beauty not exist because it can't be scientifically measured? Can't something be considered beautiful just because we have no means to measure beauty? Does love not exist because it can't be scientifically measured?
@@sohu86x I said 'scientifically measured' meaning there are scientific units for it to be measured in. Please do mention the scientific unit for love and the scientific unit for beauty. Besides, I asked why, and you didn't even attempt to provide an answer. Why should god's interactions with the world be possible to detect measure and understand? You made the claim, you should provide the substantiation. Or as Christopher used to say : “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
@@BlacksmithTWDLove can be demonstrated through physiological changes, such as pupil dilation and blood vessel dilation, increased neurotransmitter production, such as dopamine, oxytocin or serotonin, areas of brain excitation on brain scan and hormonal level rises. These can be illicited through smell, vision, touch or sound and are limited to the love interest, not control subjects. Beauty is subjective to each individual but can also be demonstrated in this way. To affect the natural world, there must be a measurable interaction. Theists are always banging on about how the Universe needed some form of actuator, which they sometimes refer to as God It must therefore be able to influence something in the matter of the universe, and produce change.
A little honesty is required. I know that is a foreign concept to apologists. No-one has to choose whether to accept science of hold religious beliefs but if you assert those beliefs as facts you are anti-science. Do you imagine science has nothing to say on someone returning from death, walking on water or turning water to wine? Science is about what we may demonstrate to be factual. No religion has ever been able to demonstrate its 'truth'. Which is why belief and faith are required and why there are so many competing religions. Do you think that your specific god and your particular religion is the only correct one when all the others have just as much faith and just as much evidence to support them? Namely none. You are free to believe whatever brings you comfort but you are not free to lie about it by claiming your beliefs are true, unless you have verifiable evidence. And you do not.
"A little honesty is required. I know that is a foreign concept to apologists." Demonstrating your bias towards apologists. "No-one has to choose whether to accept science of hold religious beliefs but if you assert those beliefs as facts you are anti-science." Not necessarily. "Do you imagine science has nothing to say on someone returning from death, walking on water or turning water to wine?" Science requires a literal and unambiguous use of language, there is no such requirement for art or religion. "Science is about what we may demonstrate to be factual." No, science is about we may demonstrate to be most likely factual based on our limited observations. (we haven't observed everything) "No religion has ever been able to demonstrate its 'truth'." 'Truth' is a word synonymous with god in many sacred scriptures, it's believed to exist and to be unknowable in full. Science is merely a derivitive of that. There are no things you claim to know to be true that you don't also believe to be true. To claim knowledge is merely a stronger expression of faith in something to be true when taking Socrates seriously. "Which is why belief and faith are required and why there are so many competing religions." Strikes me as a non sequitur. I've heard of more plausible explanations, for instance geographical differences in which the cultures emerged that founded the religions. "Do you think that your specific god and your particular religion is the only correct one when all the others have just as much faith and just as much evidence to support them?" That's like asking something like : "Are you that dog's human?" rather than "Is that your dog?". Gods don't serve human beings, it's the other way around. I don't know about any god(s) more worthy of my worship, but I tend to believe that many other religions worship the same god merely in a slightly other way and from another point of vieuw. Like supporters for their sport club, they may favor one club over another, but they all come and watch the game and there wouldn't be a game to watch if it weren't for the other clubs to compete with. Just the fact that fans of one club wear another color than fans of another club doesn't mean they don't enjoy the same sport. "You are free to believe whatever brings you comfort but you are not free to lie about it by claiming your beliefs are true, unless you have verifiable evidence. And you do not." That's a rather high standard to demand, especially since you don't even seem to attempt to adhere to this standard yourself. You just spout your believes like the ones you complain about, you don't provide logical arguments containing all the premises you reason from nor do you make a clear distinction between your premises and conclusions. You merely assert things like "No-one has to choose whether to accept science of hold religious beliefs but if you assert those beliefs as facts you are anti-science." as fact rather than to provide a logical argument build up from the premises you started from, hence according to your own assertion you are anti-science by making this religious assertion. My religion taught me that people don't always lie when they say something that is incorrect or merely asserted, instead people can often be genuinly mistaken and as such without any intend to deceive tell something that is incorrect.
@@BlacksmithTWD Thank you for your in-depth response. I’ll try to respond in order. Yes, I am biased. We all are in some way. My preference is for demonstrable facts over religious beliefs. “if you assert those beliefs as facts you are anti-science." Not necessarily”. Absolutely. Science is about what we can demonstrate to be factual. Religion is not. If you assert beliefs to be facts without the means to support the assertion, you are anti-science. Not anti as in hating but as in not understanding or abiding by the scientific principles of evidence. “Science requires a literal and unambiguous use of language, there is no such requirement for art or religion”. That’s true and if you say that miracles are only metaphors or myths, I have no argument. If you say Jesus did not truly resurrect physically, that’s fine. But the moment anyone asserts that a miracle actually took place, they are using literal and unambiguous language and so we may demand their evidence. “No, science is about we may demonstrate to be most likely factual based on our limited observations. (we haven't observed everything)” OK, but that is just another ‘god of the gaps’ argument. Might there be some unknown scientific way for miracles to be real. Extremely unlikely but not 100% impossible. If your argument is that if something is not impossible, it probably happened, I think you are on shaky ground but we will have to agree to disagree. But wouldn’t make them mundane and no longer special or important? “'Truth' is a word synonymous with god in many sacred scriptures, it's believed to exist and to be unknowable in full. Science is merely a derivitive of that.” It is correct that all religions claim to possess the truth, and that most of them have opposite views of what that truth is. They can’t all be right but they can all be wrong. Science is in no way a derivative of the truth of religion. That is so false as to be asinine. In fact, the two largest religions, Christianity and Islam have a history of suppressing scientific enquiry because both thought that only their own holy book was required to understand God’s world. “There are no things you claim to know to be true that you don't also believe to be true. To claim knowledge is merely a stronger expression of faith in something to be true when taking Socrates seriously.” Correct but entirely beside the point. The issue is not whether it is possible to know something and not believe it. It is that beliefs and facts are not the same thing. It is perfectly possible to believe something and be wrong. Therefore, asserting that one’s beliefs are facts, without verifiable evidence, is to lie. You are correct that there are a number of factors determining how a religion develops but they all share a single characteristic. They all place an emphasis on believing things that are not evidentially true about gods, creation and mankind’s relationship with them.. There is not one single religion based upon demonstrable facts. “"Are you that dog's human?" rather than "Is that your dog?". Gods don't serve human beings, it's the other way around.” But only in your belief. And that is the crux of it. There is zero verifiable evidence to support the existence of your god or any other. All are therefore equally likely to be true or untrue. Saying humans serve gods is only a vlaid statement if gods can be shown to be real. And they cannot. “I tend to believe that many other religions worship the same god merely in a slightly other way and from another point of vieuw.” I’m sure that is comforting but it’s also incredibly solipsistic and hubristic. It’s like saying that all people really worship my god, only by a different name. What about Hindus with many gods or Buddhists with none? “That's a rather high standard to demand, especially since you don't even seem to attempt to adhere to this standard yourself.” Not at all. Whilst I have not given all of my arguments and premises, I do use such methods and I will be happy to explain and support anything I have said. My statement that you do not have verifiable evidence for the existence of your god may be readily tested and refuted by simply providing that evidence. “You merely assert things like "No-one has to choose whether to accept science of hold religious beliefs but if you assert those beliefs as facts you are anti-science." as fact rather than to provide a logical argument build up from the premises you started from” Except I offered a rationale for my comment in the very next sentence. As follows; Do you imagine science has nothing to say on someone returning from death, walking on water or turning water to wine? It shouldn’t need me to spell out that believing in such things is fine but asserting that they are facts, is absolutely anti-science because there is no way to show that they happened and they run counter to what we know of how the physical universe works. And yes, we don't know everything but I have already answered that, above. “hence according to your own assertion you are anti-science by making this religious assertion.” That doesn’t even make sense. I said that no-one has to choose science or religion. Do you disagree? I continued that to assert something as a fact which is believed but not known to be a fact is anti-science. I stand by that because to do such a thing is dishonest. We may say colloquially, “I know X’ and simply mean, I am convinced of it but religious people do not do that. They boldly assert that their religious beliefs are true, i.e. factual, but they have absolutely no way to demonstrate it. “people can often be genuinly mistaken and as such without any intend to deceive tell something that is incorrect.” I totally agree. And if you are happy to tell me that your god might not be real and that Jesus might have been just a man and all the miracles might be merely metaphor or myth, I’m fine with all of it. But I have never met a Christian yet who is willing to be that honest.
@@BlacksmithTWDyou just sound like you slightly touch the surface of all religions, implying that Jesus didn’t actually perform miracles and that all religion is equally valid
@@BlacksmithTWD _"That's a rather high standard to demand"_ - what standard do you have for what is true and what not? What method do you use to find out the truth? In another response you already admitted that Genesis must not be taken literally. How did you find that out?
@@lumin10 You misunderstood the implication, it's not that I claim that Jesus didn't do those things, it's rather that I claim that I can't know whether he did those things, hence I can merely choose to believe he did or choose to disbelieve it. I didn't say anything about my choice here. If I sound like i slighly touch the surface of all religions, it may be because I investigated somewhat in the doctrines and practices of the major religions. I woudn't say that all religions are equally valid. But even if merely taking the moral aspect of religion, it's rather clear that geographical differences in which different cultures originated can be of great influence. For example, in the Netherlands where I live, it's considered good moral practice to invest in learning your children how to swim, since the costs are relatave low, most people are able to afford it, and the chance you will need it to survive is not insignificant. For a desert culture living at least 100 km from the neares body of water large enough to drown in it's probably less of a priority.
Isn't it YOUR guys job to prove your assertions that there actually is a "super natural" realm competing with materialism or whatever? You haven't. There's no evidence for it. You just keep asserting it's real because you BELIEVE it is. That is not enough for me, or millions of other skeptics and atheists.
Science doesn't limit itself arbitrarily, but rather because other methodologies are epistemologically flawed. This means that knowledge gained through other means (e.g., revelation) cannot be trusted in the same way as scientific knowledge. I disagree with the claim that you can resolve the debate simply by asserting that there isn't one. Such a claim requires justification, and yours appears to be just a series of assertions. Let me briefly explain why I believe there is a dichotomy between science and religion. Even if it were possible to adhere to both approaches, doing so would inevitably lead to inconsistencies. If you truly value science-which is to say, if you value truth-you cannot accept a compartmentalization where the scientific method is not applicable. Thus, it's impossible to consistently value both science and religion. If you value religion (as a method for gaining knowledge), you are inevitably prioritizing other considerations over truth itself.
A clash and conflict between two absolutist and presumptuous worldviews, one that is reductively materialist and the other so transcendental that it becomes unaccessible and unknowable to earth bound creatures.
No atheist claims that there is no historical reference to any real historical places in the bible, just like any reader of Stephen King does not claim that New York he is referring to in this novel is not a real place. However, many works of fiction just like the bible and The Stand refers to actual real places because it makes for more entertaining and realistic reading of such works of fiction.
Just a short remark: moral values and free will are not entirely outside the field of science. Of course, science won't tell you what values to follow, but can definitely tell you why some people value one thing over another. And as for free will: the evidence points to free will doesn't exist the way most people (and religions) think.
I wouldn't desire to exclude science from a discussion on morality or free will. I expect atheists or naturalists to extend the same courtesy to Christians rather than just defacto excluding them because they don't respect their conclusions on God.
@@TruthBeToldBiblePodcast I don't think they are excluded. It has to do how to come to conclusions. Unfalsifiable claims are hardly a reliable way to truth.
Just disregard that science part that indisputably points to the fact that humans evolved from the simplest life forms millions of years in the making and "believe" we were created by "something great" in six days (it was tired & rested on the seventh). Or are you suggesting that Genesis should be disregarded? Cant have it both ways, believers. Come on... you gotta have FAITH! Paradise is near! ( you cant handle the real truth)
@@BlacksmithTWDI can’t tell what dig you are trying to make at science, are you saying discoveries should be communicated in metaphors or something? Also that’s only the case because of discoveries in science, if we didn’t have that people would still be clinging to a literal interpretation of the bible
@@BlacksmithTWD Yes it does. If one thing in the Bible is false, that means everything in it can be argued to be false. At which point why would you have any confidence this is the mandated "word of god" and not just creative stories from Greek poets put into a collection of action stories that were later made into a religion? Is there a single fact-claim made in the Bible that we can even verify?
@@BlacksmithTWD _"Unlike science Genisis doesn't mandate a literal and unambigous interpretation"_ - how do you know that Genesis must not be interpreted literally? How do you know which parts of the bible to interpret literally, and which parts not? Where do you get that knowledge from?
The Norwegian church has finally realized reality: Those who want to find out how the world became like it is, should read science books about astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, history and so on.
@@BlacksmithTWD Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is the most progressive of them all, which makes sense as it's the oldest. Yet, they have become presuppositionalists: they presuppose God exists and trust the Gospels as sufficient evidence, which would be preposterous in any other domain of life. They just need to take the extra step and recognize that using science to evaluate the material origins of their faith would likely lead them to the realization that the resurrection is probably a legendary development. However, they won't do that anytime soon, especially not if it means giving up the power they still hold.
@@BlacksmithTWD Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is the most progressive of them all, which makes sense as it's the oldest. Yet, they have become presuppositionalists: they presuppose God exists and trust the Gospels as sufficient evidence, which would be preposterous in any other domain of life. They just need to take the extra step and recognize that using science to evaluate the material origins of their faith would likely lead them to the realization that the resurrection is probably a legendary development. However, they won't do that anytime soon, especially not if it means giving up the power they still hold.
@@BlacksmithTWD Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is the most progressive of them all, which makes sense as it's the oldest. Yet, they have become presuppositionalists: they presuppose God exists and trust the Gospels as sufficient evidence, which would be preposterous in any other domain of life. They just need to take the extra step and recognize that using science to evaluate the material origins of their faith would likely lead them to the realization that the resurrection is probably a legendary development. However, they won't do that anytime soon, especially not if it means giving up the power they still hold.
@@BlacksmithTWD Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is the most progressive of them all, which makes sense as it's the oldest. Yet, they have become presuppositionalists: they presuppose God exists and trust the Gospels as sufficient evidence, which would be preposterous in any other domain of life. They just need to take the extra step and recognize that using science to evaluate the material origins of their faith would likely lead them to the realization that the resurrection is probably a legendary development. However, they won't do that anytime soon, especially not if it means giving up the power they still hold.
Wait, "...let god into the sciences"?!? Which god? If one god is allowed into scientific methodology, why aren't all the others? Should the number of hypotheses increase based on the number of deities proposed by adherents? Of do you have some means by which to limit the scope of possible deities that you would allow? Seriously, have you even thought about this for more than three seconds?
Believing is what we do when we don't know. As we get to know more and more, there is less left to believe. The world was NOT created 6000 years ago, 66 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. The Earth is NOT standing on "pillars" and does NOT have four corners.
@@BlacksmithTWD Philosophy was what we used to use to figure out the world before science. Now that we have science, philosophy is basically useless. Only apologists seem to use it, because they don't have any actual evidence of god or anything they claim to be true. Quotes from Socrates don't have anything to do with this discussion and won't help you make an actual case for your Bronze Age moronic belief system.
Sorry but you are unable to understand the concepts of evidence. And learn what a false dichotomy is before you use it. Words mean specific things and you word badly. We can end this argument when both side are reasonable, then we would only have one side. Thank you. No god in my house
Faith-based certainty is an oxymoron. You assume facts, not in evidence. That is an error in judgment. You are taking a concept and reifying that concept, but this is just fine-tuning ideas in the head that have no counterpart in reality. That is an error in judgment. Self-talk is fine, but it doesn't alter reality. Debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is about the level of reality and sophistication most theists achieve when staring into the void. Get your head right. Before you can say God transcends anything, you have to define God and demonstrate that an entity with that description exists.
God has been defined in many ways: Truth, love, the way, existence, that what/he who/she who is. Obviously existence exists, since without existence nothing could exist. Most people believe truth to exist, even though they may differ in opinion on what exaclty the truth is. Most people believe love to exists, even though they may differ in opinion on what exactly love is. The way exists as we all move from A to B by going some way that leads from A to B. " “Mistress Weatherwax, you are a natural disputant.” “No I ain’t!” “You’d certainly enjoy yourself at the Synod, anyway. They’ve been known to argue for days about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” He could almost feel Granny’s mind working. At last she said, “What size pin?” “I don’t know that, I’m afraid.” “Well, if it’s an ordinary household pin, then there’ll be sixteen.” “Sixteen angels?” “That’s right.” “Why?” “I don’t know. Perhaps they like dancing.” The mule picked its way down a bank. The mist was getting thicker here. “You’ve counted sixteen?” said Oats eventually. “No, but it’s as good an answer as any you’ll get.” (p. 277) “And that’s what your holy men discuss, is it?” “Not usually. There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example.” “And what do they think? Against it, are they?” “It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.” “Nope.” “Pardon?” “There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.” “It’s a lot more complicated than that-” “No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.” ”Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes-” ”But they starts with thinking about people as things…” " - Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum.
@@BlacksmithTWD _"When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth."_ - Terry Pratchett is great. _"God has been defined in many ways: Truth, love, the way, existence, that what/he who/she who is."_ - that is one of the problems with God. Everybody has their own idea of what he/she/it is, and nobody agrees on it. That makes things a lot more complicated than they are.
@@BlacksmithTWD I am just curious. Not trying to be a jerk. You do know nothing you typed defined a god at all right? What were you trying to reply to from the Lawrence? If you are telling me for example I have take reality is real as a presumption and go from their ok I do. I dont see the leap to god if that is what you are getting at. I cant say god more then i can say we are a brain in a jar, or simulation. Skeptics dont bring those things up because we believe them but how do you dismiss them as possible why not dismissing god? Normally this means we move on to the first mover but I wont assume where you were going with this.
@@renedekker9806 "that is one of the problems with God. Everybody has their own idea of what he/she/it is, and nobody agrees on it. That makes things a lot more complicated than they are." Truth tends to have the exact same problem, that still doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Though some smaller groups of people are able to come to an agreement on both. For instance both of us consider the claim "Terry Pratchett is great" to be true.
@@BlacksmithTWD _"Truth tends to have the exact same problem, that still doesn't mean it doesn't exist."_ - that's why it is good that we have a reliable method to determine the real truth about reality.
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
40 years I was team God. And no it wasn't science that brought me out of it. It was a deep study on Judaism that led me to conclude it's all simply a jewish origin story mixed with mythology.
God is not above science, not does it transcend it. It is imaginary, it is a placeholder until science figures it out. God rides the short bus, science is in advanced placement.
Derp!
You are stupid!
The Almighty God Is With Thee in Hebrew Gematria equals 1983
The deadline for the transition from network control protocol (NCP) to TCP/IP was January 1, 1983
All nations and tongues, under one roof. Universal language, all just in time for the last hour.
This date is considered the official birthday of the internet, as TCP/IP established a standard way for computer networks to communicate with each other. ARPANET and the Defense Data Network officially changed to the TCP/IP standard on January 1, 1983, hence the birth of the Internet. All networks could now be connected by a universal language. If God had a Son what would you expect him to be? If God represents the cosmic web? Would his Son represent the World Wide Web? If the cosmic web had a baby, what would it look like? The world wide web? Come on Charlotte you know you're crawling the web. Nobody has knocked the pixel dust out of this bugger, that's why that stone hearts blackened by the sin within.
A virgin older than dirt, what is it worth?
With a name like mrscience, one would expect you to comprehend it. Do you even comprehend what transcendent means? Did you know light itself is transcendent? Did you know binary code is omni present inside of computational architectures? How much of the science do you actually comprehend? Do you ignore the dark energy, dark matter and focus exclusively on ordinary matter claiming that nothing else exist?
The goal of science is make the human condition better.
The task of philosophy is to find a God.
Alignment of probability results in reality.
An arguments against a strawman is so incredibly tedious to listen to. That is the totality of this argument.
It's rather humorous that the speaker seeks to remove "historical events" from the domain of science, only to ultimately claim that they are a good source of evidence for religious belief.
"Hey guys, history isn't falsifiable, so let's go ahead and add it to a list of other unfalsifiable claims outside the domain of science. The more "sources" you have, the strong your argument is!!!"
Sheesh, what intellectual bankruptcy.
I mistakenly thought the subject "Ending this stupid debate" would center around the benefits of moving on from religion and into a more rational, logical and secular world. Boy was I wrong. LOL. I'm happy to see so many educated comments though.
I agree but lets give this person credit for not deleting the comments. See that way to much
You are dumb!
You ended the debate, for yourself. How do you not understand that one cannot have faith in something if they don't believe it exists?
Essentially what you are saying is you do not trust the science? Which tells us that 95% of the universe is made up of dark energy and dark matter and only 5% of the universe is made up of physical material or ordinary matter. So you are saying you do not believe there is any underlying architecture or physics to our universe? Do you even know what a possibility space is or how one arises from a physical architecture shaping energy into structure? why not look at the model of it in action, we call it the world wide web, or internet its a fractal model of the cosmic web.
What you are saying is human beings do not underly or interact with the world wide web because they are outside of it not inside of it. You see the ridiculousness in your claim? Are human beings inside the world wide web? So does that mean we had nothing to do with the creation of the world wide web? I mean we aren't inside of it, we can't be the creators of said domain, its impossible because we aren't inside of the world wide web physically, so we certainly couldn't have created it right? That's what you are claiming whether you realize that or not.
Faith vs the scientific method. I will take the scientific method. Belief in an omnipotent imaginary friend controlling the universe belongs where it was spawned. In the Bronze age.
Science is belief with evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. One is rational. One is not. Seems very easy to me.
Much in science is believed based upon probability. We are all subject to our own perspective of probability.
@@Shark_fishing
Yet so much in religion appeals to instinct to disregard probability.
"As long as it is not completely impossible, I am willing to believe it, because it matters to me." - this is frequently the thought process believers and apologists follow.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 have you ever engaged with the work of Frank Turek? His book, “I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist”
@@Shark_fishing
Yes. You should pick a better, more honest apologist. It's not hard.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 perhaps again, we are all subject to our own perception of truth. (I'm not exclusive by the way!)
What I am hearing is the following: Any supernatural claim is to be presupposed true because it can't be proven by science, and that belief is to be put on the same shelf as science not because of empirical evidence but because of widely held belief. Let's seriously end this debate with the following understanding: The domains of science and religion don't touch.
Ah, but they do. Universally, ancient traditions have a commonality in that the omnipotents originate from the Pleiades, which is the radiant of The Taurid Meteor Stream. It is the destructive causation of The World Ages of Mankind. We still dress as the dead and go around asking if the outcome will be good or bad when The Halloween Fireballs (The Taurids) fall. It is really Solar Worship, not daily, nor seasonally, but Impact Winter taking the Sun away for long periods of time.
I don't believe any supernatural claim should be presupposed to be true, but I'd say that to measure it's reality by virtue of natural parameters is to be ignorant of definitions. It is not only the scientific world that determines reality.
@@TruthBeToldBiblePodcast I am curious what example you would provide that determines reality that is not scientific or material?
@@TruthBeToldBiblePodcast What nonscientific parameters do you suppose we use to identify reality? What is an example?
@@conversionseo1382 there are so many great examples because science doesn't CAUSE anything, it merely describes it. Emotion is something that comes to mind just off the top of my head. Certainly science has studied it and discovered amazing things in the world of physiological hormones and brain chemistry to better understand what is going on, but those insights attempt to explain a process, not prove the existence of the thing itself or why it is. My only point in this video is that science, by definition of it being a specific discipline, has parameters and isn't all encompassing. I think we agree there. I just believe that it's also good to have cross-disciplinary conversation as we all try and determine things that are "real."
Science never says to get rid of art, morals, etc. Science is a methodology that intentionally limits its scope, while religions tend to limitlessly include all things under its umbrella and claim them all as being under its authority. This is why religions claim that some art is moral and some music is immoral, etc. Science, when untainted by politics or religion, does not stick its nose where it is not needed. Religion should be as modest as science and stop making bold claims about which sexual position is less sinful than another, etc.
Religion : a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
Science is mainly about the nature of the univers, may have some speculations about the cause of the universe but does not address the purpose of the universe.
Basically you are claiming that according to your religion other religions should stop making claims about sexual positions.
According to my religion freedom of speech is more important than not being bothered by moral standards of other religions one doesn't adhere to anyhow.
Anyhow, you are being silly by claiming that religion should be as modest as science since science isn't about the purpose of the universe while religion is.
Science can tell you how to send a man to the moon and how to get that man back to earth alive.
Science can not tell you whether you should send a man to the moon, what should be done is within the religious domain, not the scientific domain.
@@BlacksmithTWDso you can’t get ethics and morals without religion?
@@BlacksmithTWD
What you've done is endorse the use of the fallacy of Begging the Question.
That fails without further analysis. Sorry.
@@lumin10 ethics and morals are beliefs about the purpose of the universe.
If science is not a religion because it's not about the purpose of the universe, then a system of ethics and morals that doesn't contain anything about either the cause of the universe or the nature of the universe isn't a religion either.
@@starfishsystems Which argument I stated did you consider to be an example of this fallacy?
Religion has zero scientific discoveries so far.
It.. doesn't claim to
@@TruthBeToldBiblePodcast , ever heard of Scientology, answers in Genesis, Christian science?
If you’re moving God and his actions outside of the realm of science, then you put yourself in the position of advocating for a deceitful deity.
If that’s what you believe, okay. But, if you also propose God is honest by his very nature, then you don’t have to worry about science, you got to deal with that internal inconsistency.
Not moving God OUTSIDE of science, saying that to limit our expectations of proof for the supernatural world by our observation of the natural world is short sighted.
@@TruthBeToldBiblePodcast when you insist that God can’t be investigated scientifically, as you did, you are pushing God outside of science and are not arguing for a god who is imminent and evident in our universe.
If god interacts with the world it should be possible to detect and measure and understand, like infra-red, otherwise what are you even talking about?
God supposedly interacted with people in the Bible. God talked to people, such as Moses, etc. God made a burning bush. That would be scientific evidence, if those events really happened.
Since it happened in the Bible, there is no reason for God not to reveal his existence in a scientific way. But, outside of the Bible, God didn't do anything that can be verified by science. I guess God stopped doing things after the Bible was written.
Why? Does beauty not exist because it can't be scientifically measured? Can't something be considered beautiful just because we have no means to measure beauty?
Does love not exist because it can't be scientifically measured?
@@BlacksmithTWD Actually, beauty and love can be measured. Just use your common sense and think about it. Now try that for God.
@@sohu86x I said 'scientifically measured' meaning there are scientific units for it to be measured in. Please do mention the scientific unit for love and the scientific unit for beauty.
Besides, I asked why, and you didn't even attempt to provide an answer. Why should god's interactions with the world be possible to detect measure and understand? You made the claim, you should provide the substantiation. Or as Christopher used to say : “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
@@BlacksmithTWDLove can be demonstrated through physiological changes, such as pupil dilation and blood vessel dilation, increased neurotransmitter production, such as dopamine, oxytocin or serotonin, areas of brain excitation on brain scan and hormonal level rises. These can be illicited through smell, vision, touch or sound and are limited to the love interest, not control subjects.
Beauty is subjective to each individual but can also be demonstrated in this way.
To affect the natural world, there must be a measurable interaction. Theists are always banging on about how the Universe needed some form of actuator, which they sometimes refer to as God It must therefore be able to influence something in the matter of the universe, and produce change.
"We've all already observed the greatest miracle in all of history, and it's been scientifically proven". - Frank Turek
A little honesty is required. I know that is a foreign concept to apologists.
No-one has to choose whether to accept science of hold religious beliefs but if you assert those beliefs as facts you are anti-science.
Do you imagine science has nothing to say on someone returning from death, walking on water or turning water to wine?
Science is about what we may demonstrate to be factual. No religion has ever been able to demonstrate its 'truth'. Which is why belief and faith are required and why there are so many competing religions.
Do you think that your specific god and your particular religion is the only correct one when all the others have just as much faith and just as much evidence to support them? Namely none.
You are free to believe whatever brings you comfort but you are not free to lie about it by claiming your beliefs are true, unless you have verifiable evidence. And you do not.
"A little honesty is required. I know that is a foreign concept to apologists."
Demonstrating your bias towards apologists.
"No-one has to choose whether to accept science of hold religious beliefs but if you assert those beliefs as facts you are anti-science."
Not necessarily.
"Do you imagine science has nothing to say on someone returning from death, walking on water or turning water to wine?"
Science requires a literal and unambiguous use of language, there is no such requirement for art or religion.
"Science is about what we may demonstrate to be factual."
No, science is about we may demonstrate to be most likely factual based on our limited observations. (we haven't observed everything)
"No religion has ever been able to demonstrate its 'truth'."
'Truth' is a word synonymous with god in many sacred scriptures, it's believed to exist and to be unknowable in full. Science is merely a derivitive of that. There are no things you claim to know to be true that you don't also believe to be true. To claim knowledge is merely a stronger expression of faith in something to be true when taking Socrates seriously.
"Which is why belief and faith are required and why there are so many competing religions."
Strikes me as a non sequitur. I've heard of more plausible explanations, for instance geographical differences in which the cultures emerged that founded the religions.
"Do you think that your specific god and your particular religion is the only correct one when all the others have just as much faith and just as much evidence to support them?"
That's like asking something like : "Are you that dog's human?" rather than "Is that your dog?". Gods don't serve human beings, it's the other way around. I don't know about any god(s) more worthy of my worship, but I tend to believe that many other religions worship the same god merely in a slightly other way and from another point of vieuw. Like supporters for their sport club, they may favor one club over another, but they all come and watch the game and there wouldn't be a game to watch if it weren't for the other clubs to compete with. Just the fact that fans of one club wear another color than fans of another club doesn't mean they don't enjoy the same sport.
"You are free to believe whatever brings you comfort but you are not free to lie about it by claiming your beliefs are true, unless you have verifiable evidence. And you do not."
That's a rather high standard to demand, especially since you don't even seem to attempt to adhere to this standard yourself. You just spout your believes like the ones you complain about, you don't provide logical arguments containing all the premises you reason from nor do you make a clear distinction between your premises and conclusions. You merely assert things like "No-one has to choose whether to accept science of hold religious beliefs but if you assert those beliefs as facts you are anti-science." as fact rather than to provide a logical argument build up from the premises you started from, hence according to your own assertion you are anti-science by making this religious assertion.
My religion taught me that people don't always lie when they say something that is incorrect or merely asserted, instead people can often be genuinly mistaken and as such without any intend to deceive tell something that is incorrect.
@@BlacksmithTWD Thank you for your in-depth response. I’ll try to respond in order.
Yes, I am biased. We all are in some way. My preference is for demonstrable facts over religious beliefs.
“if you assert those beliefs as facts you are anti-science." Not necessarily”.
Absolutely. Science is about what we can demonstrate to be factual. Religion is not. If you assert beliefs to be facts without the means to support the assertion, you are anti-science. Not anti as in hating but as in not understanding or abiding by the scientific principles of evidence.
“Science requires a literal and unambiguous use of language, there is no such requirement for art or religion”.
That’s true and if you say that miracles are only metaphors or myths, I have no argument. If you say Jesus did not truly resurrect physically, that’s fine. But the moment anyone asserts that a miracle actually took place, they are using literal and unambiguous language and so we may demand their evidence.
“No, science is about we may demonstrate to be most likely factual based on our limited observations. (we haven't observed everything)”
OK, but that is just another ‘god of the gaps’ argument.
Might there be some unknown scientific way for miracles to be real. Extremely unlikely but not 100% impossible. If your argument is that if something is not impossible, it probably happened, I think you are on shaky ground but we will have to agree to disagree. But wouldn’t make them mundane and no longer special or important?
“'Truth' is a word synonymous with god in many sacred scriptures, it's believed to exist and to be unknowable in full. Science is merely a derivitive of that.”
It is correct that all religions claim to possess the truth, and that most of them have opposite views of what that truth is. They can’t all be right but they can all be wrong.
Science is in no way a derivative of the truth of religion. That is so false as to be asinine.
In fact, the two largest religions, Christianity and Islam have a history of suppressing scientific enquiry because both thought that only their own holy book was required to understand God’s world.
“There are no things you claim to know to be true that you don't also believe to be true. To claim knowledge is merely a stronger expression of faith in something to be true when taking Socrates seriously.”
Correct but entirely beside the point.
The issue is not whether it is possible to know something and not believe it. It is that beliefs and facts are not the same thing. It is perfectly possible to believe something and be wrong. Therefore, asserting that one’s beliefs are facts, without verifiable evidence, is to lie.
You are correct that there are a number of factors determining how a religion develops but they all share a single characteristic. They all place an emphasis on believing things that are not evidentially true about gods, creation and mankind’s relationship with them.. There is not one single religion based upon demonstrable facts.
“"Are you that dog's human?" rather than "Is that your dog?". Gods don't serve human beings, it's the other way around.”
But only in your belief. And that is the crux of it. There is zero verifiable evidence to support the existence of your god or any other. All are therefore equally likely to be true or untrue. Saying humans serve gods is only a vlaid statement if gods can be shown to be real. And they cannot.
“I tend to believe that many other religions worship the same god merely in a slightly other way and from another point of vieuw.”
I’m sure that is comforting but it’s also incredibly solipsistic and hubristic. It’s like saying that all people really worship my god, only by a different name. What about Hindus with many gods or Buddhists with none?
“That's a rather high standard to demand, especially since you don't even seem to attempt to adhere to this standard yourself.”
Not at all. Whilst I have not given all of my arguments and premises, I do use such methods and I will be happy to explain and support anything I have said.
My statement that you do not have verifiable evidence for the existence of your god may be readily tested and refuted by simply providing that evidence.
“You merely assert things like "No-one has to choose whether to accept science of hold religious beliefs but if you assert those beliefs as facts you are anti-science." as fact rather than to provide a logical argument build up from the premises you started from”
Except I offered a rationale for my comment in the very next sentence. As follows;
Do you imagine science has nothing to say on someone returning from death, walking on water or turning water to wine?
It shouldn’t need me to spell out that believing in such things is fine but asserting that they are facts, is absolutely anti-science because there is no way to show that they happened and they run counter to what we know of how the physical universe works. And yes, we don't know everything but I have already answered that, above.
“hence according to your own assertion you are anti-science by making this religious assertion.”
That doesn’t even make sense.
I said that no-one has to choose science or religion. Do you disagree?
I continued that to assert something as a fact which is believed but not known to be a fact is anti-science. I stand by that because to do such a thing is dishonest. We may say colloquially, “I know X’ and simply mean, I am convinced of it but religious people do not do that. They boldly assert that their religious beliefs are true, i.e. factual, but they have absolutely no way to demonstrate it.
“people can often be genuinly mistaken and as such without any intend to deceive tell something that is incorrect.”
I totally agree. And if you are happy to tell me that your god might not be real and that Jesus might have been just a man and all the miracles might be merely metaphor or myth, I’m fine with all of it. But I have never met a Christian yet who is willing to be that honest.
@@BlacksmithTWDyou just sound like you slightly touch the surface of all religions, implying that Jesus didn’t actually perform miracles and that all religion is equally valid
@@BlacksmithTWD _"That's a rather high standard to demand"_ - what standard do you have for what is true and what not? What method do you use to find out the truth?
In another response you already admitted that Genesis must not be taken literally. How did you find that out?
@@lumin10 You misunderstood the implication, it's not that I claim that Jesus didn't do those things, it's rather that I claim that I can't know whether he did those things, hence I can merely choose to believe he did or choose to disbelieve it. I didn't say anything about my choice here.
If I sound like i slighly touch the surface of all religions, it may be because I investigated somewhat in the doctrines and practices of the major religions.
I woudn't say that all religions are equally valid. But even if merely taking the moral aspect of religion, it's rather clear that geographical differences in which different cultures originated can be of great influence.
For example, in the Netherlands where I live, it's considered good moral practice to invest in learning your children how to swim, since the costs are relatave low, most people are able to afford it, and the chance you will need it to survive is not insignificant. For a desert culture living at least 100 km from the neares body of water large enough to drown in it's probably less of a priority.
Isn't it YOUR guys job to prove your assertions that there actually is a "super natural" realm competing with materialism or whatever? You haven't. There's no evidence for it. You just keep asserting it's real because you BELIEVE it is. That is not enough for me, or millions of other skeptics and atheists.
Give some videos from Alex O'Connor a watch.
Alex is a Moron.
Science doesn't limit itself arbitrarily, but rather because other methodologies are epistemologically flawed. This means that knowledge gained through other means (e.g., revelation) cannot be trusted in the same way as scientific knowledge.
I disagree with the claim that you can resolve the debate simply by asserting that there isn't one. Such a claim requires justification, and yours appears to be just a series of assertions.
Let me briefly explain why I believe there is a dichotomy between science and religion. Even if it were possible to adhere to both approaches, doing so would inevitably lead to inconsistencies. If you truly value science-which is to say, if you value truth-you cannot accept a compartmentalization where the scientific method is not applicable. Thus, it's impossible to consistently value both science and religion. If you value religion (as a method for gaining knowledge), you are inevitably prioritizing other considerations over truth itself.
Great post
We are looking for things that cannot be explained by natural means. Can god regrow a limb?
A clash and conflict between two absolutist and presumptuous worldviews, one that is reductively materialist and the other so transcendental that it becomes unaccessible and unknowable to earth bound creatures.
The Bible is true.
@@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh Yes it is that's why the biblical worldview is INCARNATIONAL and TRANSCENDENTAL.
No atheist claims that there is no historical reference to any real historical places in the bible, just like any reader of Stephen King does not claim that New York he is referring to in this novel is not a real place. However, many works of fiction just like the bible and The Stand refers to actual real places because it makes for more entertaining and realistic reading of such works of fiction.
Just a short remark: moral values and free will are not entirely outside the field of science.
Of course, science won't tell you what values to follow, but can definitely tell you why some people value one thing over another.
And as for free will: the evidence points to free will doesn't exist the way most people (and religions) think.
I wouldn't desire to exclude science from a discussion on morality or free will. I expect atheists or naturalists to extend the same courtesy to Christians rather than just defacto excluding them because they don't respect their conclusions on God.
@@TruthBeToldBiblePodcast
I don't think they are excluded. It has to do how to come to conclusions.
Unfalsifiable claims are hardly a reliable way to truth.
Just disregard that science part that indisputably points to the fact that humans evolved from the simplest life forms millions of years in the making and "believe" we were created by "something great" in six days (it was tired & rested on the seventh). Or are you suggesting that Genesis should be disregarded? Cant have it both ways, believers. Come on... you gotta have FAITH! Paradise is near! ( you cant handle the real truth)
Unlike science Genisis doesn't mandate a literal and unambigous interpretation.
@@BlacksmithTWDI can’t tell what dig you are trying to make at science, are you saying discoveries should be communicated in metaphors or something? Also that’s only the case because of discoveries in science, if we didn’t have that people would still be clinging to a literal interpretation of the bible
@@BlacksmithTWD Yes it does. If one thing in the Bible is false, that means everything in it can be argued to be false. At which point why would you have any confidence this is the mandated "word of god" and not just creative stories from Greek poets put into a collection of action stories that were later made into a religion?
Is there a single fact-claim made in the Bible that we can even verify?
@@lumin10 He trolling for Jesus like they all do here....
@@BlacksmithTWD _"Unlike science Genisis doesn't mandate a literal and unambigous interpretation"_ - how do you know that Genesis must not be interpreted literally? How do you know which parts of the bible to interpret literally, and which parts not? Where do you get that knowledge from?
The Norwegian church has finally realized reality: Those who want to find out how the world became like it is, should read science books about astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, paleontology, archeology, history and so on.
That's only about 800 years after the RC church.
@@BlacksmithTWD Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is the most progressive of them all, which makes sense as it's the oldest. Yet, they have become presuppositionalists: they presuppose God exists and trust the Gospels as sufficient evidence, which would be preposterous in any other domain of life. They just need to take the extra step and recognize that using science to evaluate the material origins of their faith would likely lead them to the realization that the resurrection is probably a legendary development. However, they won't do that anytime soon, especially not if it means giving up the power they still hold.
@@BlacksmithTWD Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is the most progressive of them all, which makes sense as it's the oldest. Yet, they have become presuppositionalists: they presuppose God exists and trust the Gospels as sufficient evidence, which would be preposterous in any other domain of life. They just need to take the extra step and recognize that using science to evaluate the material origins of their faith would likely lead them to the realization that the resurrection is probably a legendary development. However, they won't do that anytime soon, especially not if it means giving up the power they still hold.
@@BlacksmithTWD Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is the most progressive of them all, which makes sense as it's the oldest. Yet, they have become presuppositionalists: they presuppose God exists and trust the Gospels as sufficient evidence, which would be preposterous in any other domain of life. They just need to take the extra step and recognize that using science to evaluate the material origins of their faith would likely lead them to the realization that the resurrection is probably a legendary development. However, they won't do that anytime soon, especially not if it means giving up the power they still hold.
@@BlacksmithTWD Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is the most progressive of them all, which makes sense as it's the oldest. Yet, they have become presuppositionalists: they presuppose God exists and trust the Gospels as sufficient evidence, which would be preposterous in any other domain of life. They just need to take the extra step and recognize that using science to evaluate the material origins of their faith would likely lead them to the realization that the resurrection is probably a legendary development. However, they won't do that anytime soon, especially not if it means giving up the power they still hold.
Wait, "...let god into the sciences"?!?
Which god? If one god is allowed into scientific methodology, why aren't all the others? Should the number of hypotheses increase based on the number of deities proposed by adherents? Of do you have some means by which to limit the scope of possible deities that you would allow?
Seriously, have you even thought about this for more than three seconds?
If your child has acute appendicitis will you put your faith in a sky fairy, or scientific medicine?
Believing is what we do when we don't know.
As we get to know more and more, there is less left to believe.
The world was NOT created 6000 years ago, 66 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. The Earth is NOT standing on "pillars" and does NOT have four corners.
"As we get to know more and more, there is less left to believe."
Did you ever hear about Socrates and what he said about knowing?
@@BlacksmithTWD Philosophy was what we used to use to figure out the world before science. Now that we have science, philosophy is basically useless. Only apologists seem to use it, because they don't have any actual evidence of god or anything they claim to be true.
Quotes from Socrates don't have anything to do with this discussion and won't help you make an actual case for your Bronze Age moronic belief system.
That was ok until you started special pleading. You have to prove a god exists before you attribute anything to it.
Sorry but you are unable to understand the concepts of evidence. And learn what a false dichotomy is before you use it. Words mean specific things and you word badly. We can end this argument when both side are reasonable, then we would only have one side. Thank you. No god in my house
Same old, same old. Where is the proof for god's existence? Where is the evidence? Where are the observations? Just more words and pretzel logic.
Faith-based certainty is an oxymoron. You assume facts, not in evidence. That is an error in judgment. You are taking a concept and reifying that concept, but this is just fine-tuning ideas in the head that have no counterpart in reality. That is an error in judgment. Self-talk is fine, but it doesn't alter reality. Debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is about the level of reality and sophistication most theists achieve when staring into the void. Get your head right. Before you can say God transcends anything, you have to define God and demonstrate that an entity with that description exists.
God has been defined in many ways: Truth, love, the way, existence, that what/he who/she who is.
Obviously existence exists, since without existence nothing could exist.
Most people believe truth to exist, even though they may differ in opinion on what exaclty the truth is.
Most people believe love to exists, even though they may differ in opinion on what exactly love is.
The way exists as we all move from A to B by going some way that leads from A to B.
" “Mistress Weatherwax, you are a natural disputant.”
“No I ain’t!”
“You’d certainly enjoy yourself at the Synod, anyway. They’ve been known to argue for days about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
He could almost feel Granny’s mind working. At last she said, “What size pin?”
“I don’t know that, I’m afraid.”
“Well, if it’s an ordinary household pin, then there’ll be sixteen.”
“Sixteen angels?”
“That’s right.”
“Why?”
“I don’t know. Perhaps they like dancing.”
The mule picked its way down a bank. The mist was getting thicker here.
“You’ve counted sixteen?” said Oats eventually.
“No, but it’s as good an answer as any you’ll get.” (p. 277)
“And that’s what your holy men discuss, is it?”
“Not usually. There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example.”
“And what do they think? Against it, are they?”
“It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.”
“Nope.”
“Pardon?”
“There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”
“It’s a lot more complicated than that-”
“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”
”Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes-”
”But they starts with thinking about people as things…” " - Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum.
@@BlacksmithTWD _"When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth."_ - Terry Pratchett is great.
_"God has been defined in many ways: Truth, love, the way, existence, that what/he who/she who is."_ - that is one of the problems with God. Everybody has their own idea of what he/she/it is, and nobody agrees on it. That makes things a lot more complicated than they are.
@@BlacksmithTWD I am just curious. Not trying to be a jerk. You do know nothing you typed defined a god at all right? What were you trying to reply to from the Lawrence? If you are telling me for example I have take reality is real as a presumption and go from their ok I do. I dont see the leap to god if that is what you are getting at. I cant say god more then i can say we are a brain in a jar, or simulation. Skeptics dont bring those things up because we believe them but how do you dismiss them as possible why not dismissing god? Normally this means we move on to the first mover but I wont assume where you were going with this.
@@renedekker9806 "that is one of the problems with God. Everybody has their own idea of what he/she/it is, and nobody agrees on it. That makes things a lot more complicated than they are."
Truth tends to have the exact same problem, that still doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Though some smaller groups of people are able to come to an agreement on both. For instance both of us consider the claim "Terry Pratchett is great" to be true.
@@BlacksmithTWD _"Truth tends to have the exact same problem, that still doesn't mean it doesn't exist."_ - that's why it is good that we have a reliable method to determine the real truth about reality.
Utter nonsense
"Let's put this to bed"
Did not put it to bed