1. They lost credibility when listing the "things that could not exist." The list included a multitude of blatant descriptions for religious figures. The bias was established openly there. 2. Time is different our time? I stopped watching. 3. There are smarter people with a disdain for religion you could listen to than this monotone vomit. 4. I watched the rest. He's got some good social advice I'll admit.
The bias was insignificant from a logical point of view, and the monotonous voice was used to show that. However from a faith based standpoint it completely ignored all belief so is also flawed. Its an impossible argument either way, and unfortunately for Rene Descartes took this idea farther and showed that there is no proof for ANYTHING because we don't one single accurate theorem that we can use to establish anything. So why bother arguing, when we can just live?
Whether or not the video is right or not, I definitely agree on one thing. If you believe in a god, good for you. It's when you either try to make someone believe of force them to believe, that's when you get problems.
The reason they don't exist is because their very definition contradicts itself. Before questioning his credibility and denying his arguments, you should probably provide an argument of your own. I'm going to take a guess and say you believe in a higher being and that's how this biased post came to be. There is a reason why they disdain religion. It clouds the mind and prevents progress. When you say "However from a faith based standpoint it completely ignored all belief so is also flawed." Faith is illogical by its definition, I don't see how it is flawed. In order for us to try and understand anything about the world around us, we have to accept reality and life to be true and existent. From there we can and have established many things. It's trippy how you can't prove it though. I think therefor I am.
There are vast possibilities to explain higher intelligences, however not one of them is infallible, and none can show irrefutable evidence of such a beings existence. Therefor the logical belief would be one where no higher being exists, however most religion is more about easing fears of death than actually proving that humans are somehow special and something happens to us after death. I do believe in a god, but I am not so heinous to think that it only allows a specific way of belief, and especially not enough to think that there even is a heaven or hell. My god is more of an explanation for the begining, not our end.
I love this debate. Because neither side can possibly understand the other without realizing that both ideas are wrong. From a logical standpoint, faith is stupid and based on flawed logic correct? Well, from a religious standpoint, logic is based on nothing more than postulates - which by their definition are things that we have to accept as fact because they are, at the core, completely improvable. I just put your entire world-view in its place.
Except that I am born without knowing god. As I learn and grow, all I believe in is the world around me. You can't suddenly say that might not be true because that is all you know to be true. If there is only one thing you know to be true, it's that you exist and reality is indeed real. So knowing that is true, I disagree with your argument. I can't prove a higher being doesn't exist, but I can prove it's illogical and improbable.
How can you prove that is true? Rene Descartes is back in the discussion; what if you are nothing more than a toy for some genius alien being? For all you know, you could be code that was wired to believe in your own existence for the amusement of something else. In fact, you don't have anything at all that you can use or say or DO that will prove that you are real. For all i know, you may just be something made up by my imagination. It is totally possible that you are simply dreaming the ultimate dream and everybody, everything, and everyone is just a projection of your subconscious. You have no irrefutable fact that you can use to base anything on, so you have no proof that you are alive. How then, is your insistence that we are real any different than a religious mans faith that god is real? The answer, quite simply, is not at all.
Because I came to the decision that life is real and I exist far before I had even heard or understood any higher being. The belief in a higher being conflicts with the belief that I am real and exist, because then I can use logic and what I know from the conclusion I am real and exist to conclude that a higher being is illogical and improbable. I can't prove I exist either, but it's knowledge all of us are forced to accept.
1) Well, just because you decide or believe something doesn't make it fact. The simple statement that rebuffs your comment is the very argument you use to invalidate 'god.' 2) You can't prove that. It is a theorem based on a postulate, something that has already been shown to be unprovable at the core. 3) What if the world around you itself is the higher being? Once again, since nothing is truth, everything is permitted. 4) Well, if there is a contradiction (which there isnt, logically at least) why do you automatically assume that a higher being must be the cause of it? If we are the imagination of a higher being, then the belief that you are real and exist is flawed. 5) Here, i will use strait up standard logic to counter this. Let (P = proof of reality), (H = the possibility of a higher being), and (R = argument against god) If -P then -R If -R then H If there is no way to prove reality, then it is impossible to support your argument against god. If there is no way to support your argument against god, then there is a possibility of a higher being. By the Law of Syllogism, if there is no way to prove reality, then there could be a higher being.There is no proof of reality. Therefore, you have no support of reality, therefore there can be no argument logically debunking a deistic figure.
If that really is how you feel, go jump off a bridge. Then try and wake up before you hit the water. What is the probability that this really is a dream, and that you'll wake up? Is there an exact number? Will we ever really know? No. But we know our reality as it is now, so we play by the rules. Don't go spouting obvious bullshit like "this could all be a dream, dude" unless you can back it up, which is basically what that video is about. If any of you bothered to translate the Latin at the end, then <3. If not, then here it is. "Everything unknown is not magnificent" So basically, just because we don't understand some things, doesn't mean they're acts of some divine being or anything else marvelous. Oh, and that bit on the liability of fact. Apparantly you haven't heard of the scientific method. Test, replicate, repeat. That's how facts are formed. According to the idea of faith and deities, a god can choose to act differently even if the situations were identical. Possible? Sure. Nearly as likely or liable? Hell no.
Prove reality, prove ANYTHING. You cant, because its either based on your interpretation or a postulate. Neither of which are reliable. So that very comment you make about spouting bullshit applies to you as well, because all of your logic itself is based on a misconception. Btw, latin <3 EDIT: Also, i dont necessarily believe this, its an impossible argument. You cant be right, and all im saying is that there is no way for you to be correct. Therefore, i cannot be wrong.
I'm not saying you or I are right or wrong. I am saying I am right that god is illogical and improbable based on our belief that we exist and reality is real. We have to take this as fact, because we all think we are alive and we exist, whether you thinks it's possible that we are the imagination of a higher being is irrelevant to the fact that we think we exist.
Again, scientific method. Nothing can be irrefutably proven, but by testing things, we learn what we can safely consider to be true. There's a reason why there are LAWS of physics. It's because they haven't been disproven. Which is plenty of reason to believe in them.
You haven't disproven god, so there must be plenty of reason to believe in him as well? I don't argue for myself. I argue because somebody is expressing an intellectually flawed argument Kuroda! And now i'm just doing it to annoy you
Yeah, I noticed. You're not the first to make this arguement with me. But remember, I'm showing why faith is a very poor way to place your beliefs, I'm not disproving a god. However, like Misch said, if our reality is as we know it through logic and reasoning, then a god cannot exist outside of it. Which side seems more reasonable to you, eh?
Not what I said, I said it's improbable and illogical. Not impossible. You can't disprove a higher being.