Every argument for God debunked in 14 minutes.
Posts
Total:
39
-->
@Bones
I like the comment by Uriah Christensen.
I actually counter the ontological argument by using their argument against their God's existence. The greatest possible being must also be the most impressive being. It is more impressive to complete a task when one is handicapped; and the more handicapped one is, the more impressed. So, the most impressive being must also have the greatest handicap. The greatest handicap is non-existence. So, the greatest possible being (aka god) must be non-existent.
-->
@FLRW
So, the most impressive being must also have the greatest handicap.
In comparison to the second greatest handicap yes, so pretell what’s the second greatest task that’s been successfully completed?
-->
@Bones
The so-called "arguments" for God are simply interpretations of how one views the universe. In essence, if you wish to "debunk" (or perhaps challenge is a better word here) such interpretations all you have to do is say no, I disagree with that and then offer up an alternative interpretation lol. This doesn't really debunk anything at all, and certainly in no way shows God does not exist.
To challenge an interpretation is to simply offer what you feel might be a better alternative, but it doesn't actually debunk the opposing position because it is based on opinion. It's philosophy not equations we are dealing with. You can offer what you feel is a superior interpretation and despite that, the interpretation you challenged could still be true that's the funny part. So hopefully you don't walk away feeling like these videos prove anything, that would be quite embarrassing on your part.
Generally speaking, I don't like to use old arguments to support the notion God exists. I don't feel like any of them really hit the mark, they may contain elements of truth simply because God does exist but to me, they are unconvincing if one is trying to use them to prove something to the opposing party. All these arguments really do is show that there are reasons to believe God exists and it's not irrational to believe it, other than that it's all up to one's personal interpretation.
I'm pretty good at arguing why Theism is a superior interpretation (by comparison) simply because the alternative doesn't have much weight to support its premises. Usually, it's all about making arguments for God look foolish rather than facing their own interpretations. What it boils down to, is that atheists accept materialism and when you really break it down, they have no reason to accept that processes occur all by themselves and now we have a working, functioning universe. When pressed, they mostly claim either we simply don't know why, or we can't know why!
So, their arguments are based upon capitalizing on the foolish mistakes of religion and its proponents, but Theism stands strong on its own without the support of religion or old philosophical arguments. The reason is, is because it deals with the very question of existence and why anything even exists at all. It has no gaps in rational, logical thought because it deals with the root of why things take place, and why there is indication of intelligence dealing with the productions of our universe.
This is why I always start with correlation, making it very clear from the start that there is good reason to make the claim God exists and really, there is no superior alternative.
I haven't actually watched the first video (yet) because 1, I'm pretty sure what will be said and 2, it will just make me frustrated because they aren't my own arguments anyways. So, I'll be watching a semi-intelligent guy "debunking" claims I have not made and can't make rebuttals to. I like the guy, just reminds me of back when I used to follow The Atheist Experience lol, same ol stuff and same ol preconceived ideas.
I did watch the second video where he responds to comments, and I have to say I'd like to have a discussion with a guy like that in a forum like this so I can really stretch out his intellect and take the arguments much deeper. I will agree and always have, that the average Theist make stupid statements and can't argue shyt but that has no bearing on whether or not God exists.
I can't seem to get the interest of the more rational people in this forum, when I find one, they never respond, or they discontinue any potentially good discussions. That leaves me stuck with all the idiots, and the religion forum always has obsessed weirdos. If forums like these would attract more people like him, we could have an open dialogue and it would much more interesting. Sure, I could leave some comments for him on YouTube and hope to get a reply, but I want a platform with an open dialogue not just a reply claiming my comment has been debunked. I want to be able to make a counter argument until either party is satisfied so I can showcase the strength of my positions about every aspect of God and spirituality.
Having said that, the problem is that we aren't arguing facts, we are arguing interpretations. God's existence might be a fact, but any supporting arguments are simply our own ideas to attempt to make it seem legit. For example, I might say there is strong indication that intelligence can be seen in the productions of the universe, and that processes are associated with mind and thought.
Now, that might be true but it's not a statement I can prove, it's just an interpretation and all you have to say is no, there is no need for intelligence behind the products of the universe. You're going to say that there is no need to add God to any process the universe undergoes. So, who is right? well to me, only one of those interpretations seem rational and logical but it is simply my opinion.
You might use the argument that suffering proves God does not exist. I counter by saying not at all, the law of Karma dictates suffering, and the weight of suffering is a consequence of the moral law of cause and effect. Who is right? to me, suffering is not a strong enough argument to show that God does not exist because I can easily deal with the problem. But guess what lol? it's just my own interpretation.
And this goes on and on and on....there are no real hard facts here it's all just philosophical and theoretical positions. That's not to say God is just an idea or a concept, not at all. It's just we are using ideas and theories to justify the premises.
So, when your boy does a video claiming to debunk arguments for God all he is doing is offering an alternative position with no one to make a rebuttal. To be fair, he addressed some snarky comments to what he refers to as low-hanging fruit but still no chance of any rebuttal from any intelligent party.
Doesn't seem like there's any reason for the atheist to be posting here if it's all been summed up in 14 minutes on a YouTube video. You guys are really wasting your time, it's kind of sad when you think about it really.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Doesn't seem like there's any reason for the atheist to be posting here
That is because you want to be let free to post your continuous double standards and continuous contradictions, Witch.
How old are your gods, Witch?
-->
@Bones
I enjoyed his back hands in the follow up vid. 👍
-->
@FLRW
I actually counter the ontological argument by using their argument against their God's existence. The greatest possible being must also be the most impressive being. It is more impressive to complete a task when one is handicapped; and the more handicapped one is, the more impressed. So, the most impressive being must also have the greatest handicap. The greatest handicap is non-existence. So, the greatest possible being (aka god) must be non-existent.
Exactly, that's an argument that I have used, coined by Australian philosopher Douglas Gasking .
-->
@EtrnlVw
The so-called "arguments" for God are simply interpretations of how one views the universe.
There are "objectively" correct and incorrect interpretations of the universe. Some claims are compatible with the nature of our cosmos, and some are not. What the atheist merely attempts is to demonstrate that the theists pov is nonsensical.
In essence, if you wish to "debunk" (or perhaps challenge is a better word here) such interpretations all you have to do is say no, I disagree with that and then offer up an alternative interpretation lol.
It's not as simple as that - you can say "no" all you want, but at the end of the day, reasonable people will assess your alternative interpretation and conclude which worldview is more accurate.
This doesn't really debunk anything at all, and certainly in no way shows God does not exist.
It debunks common arguments for God. Sure, it may not prove that God doesn't exist (just like how I cannot prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit), but it does show that some common arguments for God's existence is faulty.
I haven't actually watched the first video (yet) because 1, I'm pretty sure what will be said and 2, it will just make me frustrated because they aren't my own arguments anyways.
If you have time, watch 1, not 2. 2 addresses some pretty more theistic rebuttals.
What it boils down to, is that atheists accept materialism
Atheism does not equate to materialism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Buddhism is an atheistic doctrine, for example, but it is far from being materialist.
So, I'll be watching a semi-intelligent guy "debunking" claims I have not made and can't make rebuttals to. I like the guy, just reminds me of back when I used to follow The Atheist Experience lol, same ol stuff and same ol preconceived ideas.
He's sharp and respectful - one of the better Youtube atheists.
-->
@Bones
Debunk must have a different meaning for atheists.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Doesn't seem like there's any reason for the atheist to be posting here if it's all been summed up in 14 minutes on a YouTube video. You guys are really wasting your time, it's kind of sad when you think about it really.
Just spreading the love, witch.
-->
@Tradesecret
Debunk must have a different meaning for atheists.
What part of the term debunk do you take issue with.
-->
@Bones
expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief).
That is how I would understand the meaning of debunk.
The video does not do that.
-->
@Bones
Everybody knows what's being spread here.
-->
@Tradesecret
expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief).That is how I would understand the meaning of debunk.The video does not do that.
Where did it fail.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yes, "evil atheist propaganda".
-->
@EtrnlVw
The so-called "arguments" for God are simply interpretations of how one views the universe. In essence, if you wish to "debunk" (or perhaps challenge is a better word here) such interpretations all you have to do is say no, I disagree with that and then offer up an alternative interpretation lol. This doesn't really debunk anything at all, and certainly in no way shows God does not exist.
Concise, succinct, and on point.
It boils down to the atheist declaring this, "I believe this, thus anything I don't believe is debunked."
Theists really have no reason to respond to such circular, self-reverential arguments.
-->
@ethang5
It all boils down to the theist declaring this:
I believe this, thus anything I don't believe is debunked.
And atheists have no reason to respond, other than because they very much enjoy doing so.
But the crucial thing that you are forgetting Mr E, is that Atheists don't believe.
And it took me minus 50 years or so, to debunk popular Middle Eastern based GODS and their associated myths and fantasies.
Atheist continue to admit they are only here to bully theists for their own enjoyment.
It's actually, Atheist continue to admit they are only here to support evolution for their own enjoyment.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Nice jibe Poly.
But I'm pretty certain that Mr E doesn't feel bullied.
He's as thick skinned as me.
-->
@FLRW
I actually counter the ontological argument by using their argument against their God's existence
That doesn't work against Godel's ontological argument and shows a misunderstanding of the ontological argument in general. He probably spent less than 1 month studying it, before giving a half asked rebuttal
-->
@Wylted
Anselm's argument.
Blarney.
Therefore.
Godel's argument.
Unnecessary overthink.
Godel was very good at that.
Put the two together.
And you end up with
Zero.
As ever.
-->
@zedvictor4
So what specifically is wrong with the s5 system of logic where he provided his mathematical proof?
-->
@Wylted
Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from what are typically alleged to be none but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.
In more recent times, Kurt Gödel, Charles Hartshorne, Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga have all presented much-discussed ontological arguments which bear interesting connections to the earlier arguments of St. Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz. Critiques of ontological arguments begin with Gaunilo, a contemporary of St. Anselm. Perhaps the best known criticisms of ontological arguments are due to Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason. Most famously, Kant claims that ontological arguments are spoiled by their reliance upon the implicit assumption that “existence” is a real predicate.
-->
@zedvictor4
It all boils down to the theist declaring this:I believe this, thus anything I don't believe is debunked.And atheists have no reason to respond, other than because they very much enjoy doing so.
Look at your post #23 to Wylted and tell me if you aren't doing exactly what you accuse theists of.
But the crucial thing that you are forgetting Mr E, is that Atheists don't believe.
What I'm remembering is that atheists believe something. I try to get them out from hiding behind the, "I have no beliefs!" sheild and defend the things they do believe.
For some reason, that always makes them angry.
-->
@Wylted
Mathematics can be contrived.
So if Godel desired to represent Anselm's argument mathematically.
Then he undoubtedly could.
But the exercise is worthless overthink.
If the premise is blarney.
-->
@ethang5
In my opinion.
Utilising the word "belief" in a manner that befits it's definition.
Can unavoidably throw up contradictions.
As it makes no distinction between the certainty or uncertainty of data.
Belief can be both:
A certain uncertainty.
Or an uncertain certainty.
-->
@zedvictor4
With atheists, I hardly talk about my beliefs, because I know they don't hold my beliefs. So I speak in facts and logic.
-->
@ethang5
Last post we'll ever hear from this chump. Pop the cork!