It’s year 2024 the population of planet earth is dominated by faith based beliefs in primitive mythologies and cults. What happened? How is this nightmare scenario even remotely possible among ‘intelligent’ civilizations? Thank you, Mike, for your clarity of thought and for provoking doubt where necessary by applying your exceptional critical thinking skills and unbelievable patience to shine some light into the heart of darkness. Your contribution has been missed, and is greatly appreciated. Welcome back.
What do you believe happened for us to think, live, feel, visualize, etc.? you REALLY believe that God isn’t real? All the uncertainties and questions not answered are all just from the Big Bang? EVERYTHING that we have is on Earth. Mike is only debating with people who have no sense of thought, empathy, open mindedness or actual beliefs. They are literally just drones so stop being close minded and think about life, the universe, the laws of the universe, creation, destruction, and faith.
Idk maybe calling people who believe in a religion and actually getting better because of the therapy they got from it is primitive is a bit to much. But still Mike rocks
Simultaneously we have people like Sapolsky with exceptional rationality writing books debunking free will. It's just insane how many God simps there are. Still. Coexisting with rationality. Hopefully the seven mountain shit doesn't come to pass. Countries with lower cost tuition free or completely free education have higher rates of atheism, less religiosity. America really needs education reform, not that it will solve everything but it'll at least help. I'm pessimistic though because functional illiterates are graduating high school.
Your videos provoke such clear examples of cognitive dissonance. Brains melting down when challenged with such strong arguments. If people are angry they should be angry that they were lied to so much.
The female linguist was lying. Even without looking up metaphysics, her definitions of objectivity and subjectivity were neither colloquial nor philosophical.
Faith is only good on smaller claims. Smaller claims. Like faith in success. We all should have faith that we will be successful. But faith in specific gods is crazy.
18:10 “your trying to evaluate a being that is beyond your understanding”. That is one of the greatest indoctrination responses theist claim, because if its beyond human understanding, then even the theist has zero ability to understand it and no, you dont get a special power up from speaking an incantation that automatically grants you understanding.
Have you read the Bible? you don’t even have to read it to know that it is about God and grants you information about God. Mike is comparing God to greek mythology like it makes sense. As said by his debator, there are so many accounts of Jesus the prophet and God literally all throughout the world and there are cross references everywhere. And Mike says that the accounts aren’t good evidence bc it talks about the same thing; Now tell me, how does that make sense? The Bible is the only first hand account of God. And please help me understand why prophets came together to write a fake book about a God to spread misinformation among themselves? just stop trying to defend him like he is right, he’s not. He is a close minded individual that does not have to open mindedness to realize that maybe the evidence for God is true. Either way, why is he arguing with people who have faith? He doesn’t argue with any catholics or muslims or buddhists, so how can he say God isn’t real when he barely knows anything?
Time doesnt have an absolute direction, just as space has no absolute direction. The flow of time however is correlated to entropy which would be experienced the same way no matter which direction through time you travel. so when we say time in reverse, its a relative statement
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00:00 *🗣️ Discussion on Purpose and Morality without God* - Purpose found in personal achievements and relationships, - Hypothetical scenario about morality without God, - Comparison of divine and human laws. 00:02:04 *🌌 Explanation of the Big Bang Theory* - Misconceptions about the Big Bang, - Scientific explanation of the Big Bang and universe expansion, - Distinguishing between scientific theories and religious beliefs. 00:05:14 *🗣️ Transition and Encounter with Trolls* - Dismissal of disruptive participants, - Efforts to maintain a respectful debate environment. 00:06:20 *🙏 Personal Experience as Evidence for God* - Participant shares personal experience as evidence, - Host challenges personal experience as reliable evidence, - Discussion on faith and critical thinking. 00:09:05 *🧠 Faith vs. Evidence in Religion* - Arguments on the utility and limitations of faith, - Examples of faith causing negative outcomes, - Emphasis on the need for evidence in big questions. 00:14:17 *🗣️ Personal Testimonies and Faith* - Debate on the validity of personal testimonies, - Discussion on the untestable nature of personal experiences, - Suggestions for critical examination of faith-based experiences. 00:18:42 *🐍 Challenges to Biblical Literalism* - Questioning the literal truth of biblical stories, - Arguments against the creation narrative, - Explanation of Earth's formation through scientific methods. 00:22:52 *🌠 Formation of the Earth and Solar System* - Scientific explanation of Earth's formation, - Discussion on the nebular hypothesis, - Clarification of scientific theories and their proof. 00:24:53 *📚 Understanding Scientific Theories* - Discussion on the definition and validity of scientific theories, - Explanation of how scientific theories are built upon evidence and testing, - Comparison between scientific theories and beliefs about God. 00:29:56 *🧪 Miracles and Science* - Debate on miracles and their scientific explanations, - Discussion on the validity of attributing miracles to God, - The concept of unfalsifiable claims and their implications. 00:34:00 *🌍 Creation of the Earth and Life* - Explanation of the formation of Earth and the origin of life, - Discussion on abiogenesis and the differences between early Earth conditions and present, - Critique of using gaps in scientific knowledge to justify the existence of God. 00:40:13 *🧬 Evolution and Human Development* - Clarification on the concept of evolution and its evidence, - Explanation of the slow process of evolution over millions of years, - Critique of misunderstandings about evolution and the perfect design argument. 00:46:27 *📅 Carbon Dating and Misconceptions* - Explanation of carbon dating and its limitations, - Discussion on other methods of dating rocks and fossils, - Addressing misconceptions about the reliability of scientific dating methods. 00:51:04 *🤔 Logical Inconsistencies and Evidence* - Discussion on the lack of empirical evidence for God, - Addressing logical inconsistencies in theistic beliefs, - The problem of evil and other philosophical challenges to the existence of God. 00:51:17 *🌌 The Nature of God and Evidence* - Discussion on what constitutes evidence for God, - Argument that belief should be withheld until sufficient evidence is presented, - Questioning the definition and nature of God. 00:53:09 *🔍 Metaphysical Claims and Solipsism* - Exploring the realm of metaphysical and philosophical claims, - Comparing belief in God to belief in other consciousnesses, - Emphasizing the difference between empirical proof and belief. 00:57:31 *📖 Definitions and Semantics of Metaphysics* - Debating the definition of metaphysics, - Distinguishing between philosophical and colloquial definitions, - Discussion on the importance of clear definitions in philosophical debates. 01:02:35 *🚀 Near-Death Experiences as Evidence* - Examination of near-death experiences and their interpretations, - Argument that such experiences are likely brain-related phenomena, - Discussion on the reproducibility and empirical study of these experiences. 01:10:31 *🌍 Archaeological Evidence and Biblical Claims* - Claims of archaeological evidence supporting the Bible, - Discussion on the existence of historical figures like Jesus, - Critique of using the Bible as the sole source of evidence for such claims. 01:14:52 *🗣️ Morality and Religion* - Debate on whether living a good life is contingent on believing in God, - Discussion on the Ten Commandments and the morality depicted in the Bible, - Argument on the origins of morality and its subjective nature. 01:16:34 *📜 Biblical Morality and Modern Ethics* - Questioning the morality of biblical teachings, specifically regarding homosexuality, - Discussion on how moral standards have evolved since biblical times, - Comparison between religious and secular sources of morality. 01:18:44 *📚 Subjective Morality and the Bible* - Exploration of subjective vs. objective morality, - Critique of using the Bible as an absolute moral guide, - Argument for deriving morality from real-world experiences and observations. 01:21:31 *🔍 Evaluating the Bible's Moral Framework* - Discussion on the implications of adhering strictly to biblical morals, - Argument on the flexibility and adaptability of secular ethics, - Critique of the Bible's approach to topics like slavery and violence. 01:22:47 *🤔 Cherry-Picking the Bible* - Addressing the concept of cherry-picking favorable verses, - Discussion on the consistency and contradictions within the Bible, - Argument on the difficulty of maintaining the Bible as a source of objective morality. 01:23:55 *🧩 Historical Context and Biblical Instructions* - Examination of the historical context of biblical teachings, - Argument on why certain biblical instructions, like those on slavery, are problematic, - Discussion on why a moral God would allow or instruct such practices. Made with HARPA AI
1:01:15 “im a linguist, so dont come at me with semantics”. Her school is either not credited, she didnt pay attention or she should get her money back, because she clearly doesn’t have a grasp on linguistics.
lol what? there is plenty of carbon in various rocks, carbon dating is mainly used for living things since there's a predictable amount of carbon in living things and rocks are outside of the domain that carbon dating can be used within
@@mikebrigandi_ while some minerals contain carbon, it's not that carbon which can be used for carbon dating - it's not because "predictable amount", but because C14 is a result of cosmic radiation on C12 in CO2 - i.e. it can be only fixed by plants.
- Medical miracles - “You have Binitus, it’s an incurable disease”. “You are cured, it’s a miracle!” Next person “You have Binitus it’s an almost incurable disease” “You are cured it’s a miracle!” Next person “You have Binitus, it’s a curable disease” First person - “But i thought i was a miracle..😩” Every disease was incurable at one point, and the first person to get cured would attribute it to a miracle.
@@Unholy_11 only way to justify it. Logic is only perceptable with the mind, yet if there is no mind, it persists. This points to a universal mind that holds the laws in place. Same for all laws of the universe. We wouldn't want to be circular unless there were some force outside of the universe that makes it so.
“God is imaginary, prove me wrong.” You start with an assertion, and then shift the burden of proof from yourself to an opponent. It is your duty to furnish the logics behind your assertion not the other way around… Don’t be intellectually dishonest, it’s a bad look. 3:33 You are making a mistake that Dawkins himself wouldn’t. You are trying to force a scientific framework to test hypothesis against for a philosophical problem… If you’re going to debate people, make sure you do it in good faith. You’re making the Athiest community look intellectually inept here with your very juvenile understanding of the concepts you are trying to bulldoze through. You aren’t ready for a real debate which is painfully obvious within the first 5 minutes, and perhaps that’s why you pick on random kids from the internet.. This kind of debate format only works as a source for entertainment rather than actual intellectual discourse with challenging ideas.. although I suspect you have set it up this way on purpose. It’s easier to defeat a strawman after all. Shameful. Do better.
@@slyguy8943 I do defend the claim that god doesn’t exist. It’s to get more people in so we can talk though. 2. Can you provide the exact example for where I stated there needs to be empirical evidence for a philosophical claim?
@@mikebrigandi_ You have misunderstood entirely. I linked the time stamp to your outrageous assertions. You said, and I quote. “It’s not testable in any way.” Well not scientifically, and of course it isn’t… because dealing with the existence of God is not a scientific problem it’s a philosophical problem. Your grasp of Ontology and epistemology is glaringly obvious here. Instead of picking on random children from the internet, you should debate someone credible who won’t let your fallacies stand up without being called out.. The mistake you made, that I rightly pointed out. Is you have forced the framework for proof, into a system that by design is incapable of even testing for that proof. It would be like me saying I can’t test the theory of gravity because I can’t prove it philosophically. It’s obviously bad logic by anyone who would sit down to think critically about it for longer than 10 seconds. You can do better.
@@slyguy8943 I was referring to God or theism which often times includes empirical claims of Noah’s ark, talking donkeys etc. of course if one is making a specific analytical claim there wouldn’t be empirical evidence for that however that wasnt the context. but nice try there.
@@mikebrigandi_ What you’re doing now is called semantics or moving the goal post. Nice try there [sic] Not to mention, your further assertions assume your premise as a correct platform to base your further claims on. Since your premise is flawed, you cannot extrapolate from that position without first correcting it logically. You may get away with that nonsense with random kids on the internet, but anyone who has spent a significant amount of time hearing both sides of this debate is not going to be easily fooled by your bad faith tactics.. You can do better.
The person at 58:00 has no clue what she is talking about. Dictionaries define how to use words in sentences, it doesnt at all describe the concepts behind those words. Asking for a definition is not the same as asking what something is and visa versa. For example, i can ask you to define what “hit” is, You then would use a dictionary. Now if i asked you “what is hit”, you then would have to go outside the diction to describe the concept.
@@mikebrigandi_you don't understand that faith is unavoidable in all contexts, not just with God. You have faith that the most fundamental aspects of physics are reliable and stable to do science. There is no logical way of assuring this to be the case, you just assume it. Induction is not logical; it is faith-based. You also don't understand how to do meta-analysis. When you do science or philosophy, you don't just look at everything on the pragmatic surface level to see if it is valid. The validity of an endeavor or phenomenon is rooted in its coherence, not in it's tangibility. Just because you can't touch or sense something doesnt mean it doesn't exist. Also, as usual your argument for morality holds no water since it is subjective. No such thing as morality if it could just be made up. If it's made up then it could be ignored at the same time.
@@davefrage125Wrong, faith only pertains to religion and spiritual matters. Faith doesnt exist in science, because not only do scientist believe nothing is 100% certain, but they are open to changing their positions as new data arises in the fountain of human knowledge. Their positions can also be demonstrated with facts, evidence, logic and reason. Theist dont change. They stay static in their belief. They dont have facts, evidence, logic or reason when it pertains to their god or supernatural concepts. Tell me, how do you get out of the tangible? Demonstrate something that is beyond the physical? As for morality, its foundations are completely subject to a contract between three or more entities, that create enforceable objective laws or rules between them. Your god concept doesn’t get you out of a subjective foundation and even further it cant even get you to enforceable objective rules or laws. No god has ever enforced their commandments, dogmas, rules, codes, or laws. Its always been humans pretending a god is guiding their actions. Youre just OBJECTIVELY wrong on every point you brought up. Nice try though, but theist can never muster up logic, reason, evidence or facts to back their claims on these topics. 😁😉😘
@davefrage125 We have repeatedly observed the fundamental aspects of physics, it's not assumptions. Morality is subjective. Yes you can ignore the moral opinions of other people, morals would still be subjectively true even if its made up
@@zulunet3285 look up problem of induction. also read about philosophy of science. If morality is subjective what does it mean for something to be immoral or moral? Merely thinking that something is immoral is the reason WHY it is immoral? So you would say something along the lines of - "I think x is wrong"= "x is wrong"? Additionally, if morals are not made up, where do they come from?
Mike has returned !!! Just like Jesus 😭 great to see you back, Mike!
He’s like Jesus but with less holes
we got Mike back to debating before gta 6, welcome back
Welcome back Mike. Good to see you again. Fire up!!!!!
YESSSSSSSS!!!!! 🎉 I've literally watched all of your Lives twice bro! I am ecstatic that you're back. Hope you've been good brother
It’s year 2024 the population of planet earth is dominated by faith based beliefs in primitive mythologies and cults. What happened? How is this nightmare scenario even remotely possible among ‘intelligent’ civilizations?
Thank you, Mike, for your clarity of thought and for provoking doubt where necessary by applying your exceptional critical thinking skills and unbelievable patience to shine some light into the heart of darkness.
Your contribution has been missed, and is greatly appreciated. Welcome back.
What do you believe happened for us to think, live, feel, visualize, etc.? you REALLY believe that God isn’t real? All the uncertainties and questions not answered are all just from the Big Bang? EVERYTHING that we have is on Earth. Mike is only debating with people who have no sense of thought, empathy, open mindedness or actual beliefs. They are literally just drones so stop being close minded and think about life, the universe, the laws of the universe, creation, destruction, and faith.
Idk maybe calling people who believe in a religion and actually getting better because of the therapy they got from it is primitive is a bit to much. But still Mike rocks
@@user-fq6uc5wd9c different topic - is it useful vs is it real
Simultaneously we have people like Sapolsky with exceptional rationality writing books debunking free will. It's just insane how many God simps there are. Still. Coexisting with rationality. Hopefully the seven mountain shit doesn't come to pass. Countries with lower cost tuition free or completely free education have higher rates of atheism, less religiosity. America really needs education reform, not that it will solve everything but it'll at least help. I'm pessimistic though because functional illiterates are graduating high school.
I actually love these debates never stop. These will blow up one day I bet
Your videos provoke such clear examples of cognitive dissonance. Brains melting down when challenged with such strong arguments.
If people are angry they should be angry that they were lied to so much.
welcome back mike good to see ya
The female linguist was lying. Even without looking up metaphysics, her definitions of objectivity and subjectivity were neither colloquial nor philosophical.
Finally.... you've been missed Mike! Hope ya allright!
EYYY, HAPPY TO SEE YOU AGAIN MIKE
Really liking the new debate style. Keep doing what you're doing Mike
The 🐐is back
😎
Welcome back mate
A scientific theory is the graduation of a hypothesis
So sad no god loves you, Mike - lots of respect for you from all the rest of us.
The goat is back and better than ever 😎
I love the work you do ❤
Mike has returned
Excellent debate Mike.
Dude you have the patience of a saint! Sheesh
Welcome back Mike!!
MIKE IS BAACKK
Faith is only good on smaller claims. Smaller claims. Like faith in success. We all should have faith that we will be successful. But faith in specific gods is crazy.
Mike is finally back ❤
18:10 “your trying to evaluate a being that is beyond your understanding”.
That is one of the greatest indoctrination responses theist claim, because if its beyond human understanding, then even the theist has zero ability to understand it and no, you dont get a special power up from speaking an incantation that automatically grants you understanding.
Have you read the Bible? you don’t even have to read it to know that it is about God and grants you information about God. Mike is comparing God to greek mythology like it makes sense. As said by his debator, there are so many accounts of Jesus the prophet and God literally all throughout the world and there are cross references everywhere. And Mike says that the accounts aren’t good evidence bc it talks about the same thing; Now tell me, how does that make sense? The Bible is the only first hand account of God. And please help me understand why prophets came together to write a fake book about a God to spread misinformation among themselves? just stop trying to defend him like he is right, he’s not. He is a close minded individual that does not have to open mindedness to realize that maybe the evidence for God is true. Either way, why is he arguing with people who have faith? He doesn’t argue with any catholics or muslims or buddhists, so how can he say God isn’t real when he barely knows anything?
If jesus was real he wouldve changed mike on this live. Period.
Why would Jesus do that?
listening while cleaning my house, welcome back 🫡
Turning of the cheek is not the best thing to do because it causes enabling.
if the big bang is real, does that mean we get to do this convo again, but in reverse?
Time doesnt have an absolute direction, just as space has no absolute direction. The flow of time however is correlated to entropy which would be experienced the same way no matter which direction through time you travel. so when we say time in reverse, its a relative statement
Makes sense. The same matter used for my body is from the stuff I consume or something lol.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:00:00 *🗣️ Discussion on Purpose and Morality without God*
- Purpose found in personal achievements and relationships,
- Hypothetical scenario about morality without God,
- Comparison of divine and human laws.
00:02:04 *🌌 Explanation of the Big Bang Theory*
- Misconceptions about the Big Bang,
- Scientific explanation of the Big Bang and universe expansion,
- Distinguishing between scientific theories and religious beliefs.
00:05:14 *🗣️ Transition and Encounter with Trolls*
- Dismissal of disruptive participants,
- Efforts to maintain a respectful debate environment.
00:06:20 *🙏 Personal Experience as Evidence for God*
- Participant shares personal experience as evidence,
- Host challenges personal experience as reliable evidence,
- Discussion on faith and critical thinking.
00:09:05 *🧠 Faith vs. Evidence in Religion*
- Arguments on the utility and limitations of faith,
- Examples of faith causing negative outcomes,
- Emphasis on the need for evidence in big questions.
00:14:17 *🗣️ Personal Testimonies and Faith*
- Debate on the validity of personal testimonies,
- Discussion on the untestable nature of personal experiences,
- Suggestions for critical examination of faith-based experiences.
00:18:42 *🐍 Challenges to Biblical Literalism*
- Questioning the literal truth of biblical stories,
- Arguments against the creation narrative,
- Explanation of Earth's formation through scientific methods.
00:22:52 *🌠 Formation of the Earth and Solar System*
- Scientific explanation of Earth's formation,
- Discussion on the nebular hypothesis,
- Clarification of scientific theories and their proof.
00:24:53 *📚 Understanding Scientific Theories*
- Discussion on the definition and validity of scientific theories,
- Explanation of how scientific theories are built upon evidence and testing,
- Comparison between scientific theories and beliefs about God.
00:29:56 *🧪 Miracles and Science*
- Debate on miracles and their scientific explanations,
- Discussion on the validity of attributing miracles to God,
- The concept of unfalsifiable claims and their implications.
00:34:00 *🌍 Creation of the Earth and Life*
- Explanation of the formation of Earth and the origin of life,
- Discussion on abiogenesis and the differences between early Earth conditions and present,
- Critique of using gaps in scientific knowledge to justify the existence of God.
00:40:13 *🧬 Evolution and Human Development*
- Clarification on the concept of evolution and its evidence,
- Explanation of the slow process of evolution over millions of years,
- Critique of misunderstandings about evolution and the perfect design argument.
00:46:27 *📅 Carbon Dating and Misconceptions*
- Explanation of carbon dating and its limitations,
- Discussion on other methods of dating rocks and fossils,
- Addressing misconceptions about the reliability of scientific dating methods.
00:51:04 *🤔 Logical Inconsistencies and Evidence*
- Discussion on the lack of empirical evidence for God,
- Addressing logical inconsistencies in theistic beliefs,
- The problem of evil and other philosophical challenges to the existence of God.
00:51:17 *🌌 The Nature of God and Evidence*
- Discussion on what constitutes evidence for God,
- Argument that belief should be withheld until sufficient evidence is presented,
- Questioning the definition and nature of God.
00:53:09 *🔍 Metaphysical Claims and Solipsism*
- Exploring the realm of metaphysical and philosophical claims,
- Comparing belief in God to belief in other consciousnesses,
- Emphasizing the difference between empirical proof and belief.
00:57:31 *📖 Definitions and Semantics of Metaphysics*
- Debating the definition of metaphysics,
- Distinguishing between philosophical and colloquial definitions,
- Discussion on the importance of clear definitions in philosophical debates.
01:02:35 *🚀 Near-Death Experiences as Evidence*
- Examination of near-death experiences and their interpretations,
- Argument that such experiences are likely brain-related phenomena,
- Discussion on the reproducibility and empirical study of these experiences.
01:10:31 *🌍 Archaeological Evidence and Biblical Claims*
- Claims of archaeological evidence supporting the Bible,
- Discussion on the existence of historical figures like Jesus,
- Critique of using the Bible as the sole source of evidence for such claims.
01:14:52 *🗣️ Morality and Religion*
- Debate on whether living a good life is contingent on believing in God,
- Discussion on the Ten Commandments and the morality depicted in the Bible,
- Argument on the origins of morality and its subjective nature.
01:16:34 *📜 Biblical Morality and Modern Ethics*
- Questioning the morality of biblical teachings, specifically regarding homosexuality,
- Discussion on how moral standards have evolved since biblical times,
- Comparison between religious and secular sources of morality.
01:18:44 *📚 Subjective Morality and the Bible*
- Exploration of subjective vs. objective morality,
- Critique of using the Bible as an absolute moral guide,
- Argument for deriving morality from real-world experiences and observations.
01:21:31 *🔍 Evaluating the Bible's Moral Framework*
- Discussion on the implications of adhering strictly to biblical morals,
- Argument on the flexibility and adaptability of secular ethics,
- Critique of the Bible's approach to topics like slavery and violence.
01:22:47 *🤔 Cherry-Picking the Bible*
- Addressing the concept of cherry-picking favorable verses,
- Discussion on the consistency and contradictions within the Bible,
- Argument on the difficulty of maintaining the Bible as a source of objective morality.
01:23:55 *🧩 Historical Context and Biblical Instructions*
- Examination of the historical context of biblical teachings,
- Argument on why certain biblical instructions, like those on slavery, are problematic,
- Discussion on why a moral God would allow or instruct such practices.
Made with HARPA AI
Mike, stop saying it was a stick. It was TWO sticks.
😂😂😂
My hands are perfectly located at the end of the arms.
Glad you’re back Mike 💚
Thank you Mike! I really enjoy content! Sorry for all those viewers that are so immature!
1:01:15 “im a linguist, so dont come at me with semantics”.
Her school is either not credited, she didnt pay attention or she should get her money back, because she clearly doesn’t have a grasp on linguistics.
And I couldn't find a definition of metaphysics that matched hers, even in Webster
Mike: -_-
Them: 😡 😡
Mike, carbon dating doesn't work on rocks not because of half-life but because there is no carbon in rocks.
lol what? there is plenty of carbon in various rocks, carbon dating is mainly used for living things since there's a predictable amount of carbon in living things and rocks are outside of the domain that carbon dating can be used within
@@mikebrigandi_ while some minerals contain carbon, it's not that carbon which can be used for carbon dating - it's not because "predictable amount", but because C14 is a result of cosmic radiation on C12 in CO2 - i.e. it can be only fixed by plants.
This is amazing.
When will you be unbanned?
All of these Christians using foul language smh
Debates are back 🎉
- Medical miracles -
“You have Binitus, it’s an incurable disease”.
“You are cured, it’s a miracle!”
Next person
“You have Binitus it’s an almost incurable disease”
“You are cured it’s a miracle!”
Next person
“You have Binitus, it’s a curable disease”
First person - “But i thought i was a miracle..😩”
Every disease was incurable at one point, and the first person to get cured would attribute it to a miracle.
Where the hell you been Mike?
guys welcome to "arguments from incredulity and category errors" youtube channel
Says the guy who believes in talking donkeys 🫏
Yahooo mike is back!!
AYO MIKE IS BACKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
Logic, truth, good, evil, mind, and knowledge are also imaginary.
“Truth is imaginary” is self refuting
@@dubbstepl273 Consequences of an atheistic worldview sure do suck
@@ninjaofspadeswhat is logic in a theistic worldview?
@@Unholy_11 only way to justify it. Logic is only perceptable with the mind, yet if there is no mind, it persists. This points to a universal mind that holds the laws in place. Same for all laws of the universe. We wouldn't want to be circular unless there were some force outside of the universe that makes it so.
@@ninjaofspades so can your god change these ‘laws’ at any time?
“God is imaginary, prove me wrong.”
You start with an assertion, and then shift the burden of proof from yourself to an opponent. It is your duty to furnish the logics behind your assertion not the other way around…
Don’t be intellectually dishonest, it’s a bad look.
3:33 You are making a mistake that Dawkins himself wouldn’t. You are trying to force a scientific framework to test hypothesis against for a philosophical problem…
If you’re going to debate people, make sure you do it in good faith. You’re making the Athiest community look intellectually inept here with your very juvenile understanding of the concepts you are trying to bulldoze through.
You aren’t ready for a real debate which is painfully obvious within the first 5 minutes, and perhaps that’s why you pick on random kids from the internet.. This kind of debate format only works as a source for entertainment rather than actual intellectual discourse with challenging ideas.. although I suspect you have set it up this way on purpose. It’s easier to defeat a strawman after all.
Shameful. Do better.
@@slyguy8943 I do defend the claim that god doesn’t exist. It’s to get more people in so we can talk though. 2. Can you provide the exact example for where I stated there needs to be empirical evidence for a philosophical claim?
@@mikebrigandi_ You have misunderstood entirely. I linked the time stamp to your outrageous assertions.
You said, and I quote. “It’s not testable in any way.” Well not scientifically, and of course it isn’t… because dealing with the existence of God is not a scientific problem it’s a philosophical problem.
Your grasp of Ontology and epistemology is glaringly obvious here.
Instead of picking on random children from the internet, you should debate someone credible who won’t let your fallacies stand up without being called out..
The mistake you made, that I rightly pointed out. Is you have forced the framework for proof, into a system that by design is incapable of even testing for that proof.
It would be like me saying I can’t test the theory of gravity because I can’t prove it philosophically.
It’s obviously bad logic by anyone who would sit down to think critically about it for longer than 10 seconds. You can do better.
@@slyguy8943 I was referring to God or theism which often times includes empirical claims of Noah’s ark, talking donkeys etc. of course if one is making a specific analytical claim there wouldn’t be empirical evidence for that however that wasnt the context. but nice try there.
@@mikebrigandi_ What you’re doing now is called semantics or moving the goal post. Nice try there [sic]
Not to mention, your further assertions assume your premise as a correct platform to base your further claims on. Since your premise is flawed, you cannot extrapolate from that position without first correcting it logically.
You may get away with that nonsense with random kids on the internet, but anyone who has spent a significant amount of time hearing both sides of this debate is not going to be easily fooled by your bad faith tactics..
You can do better.
@@slyguy8943 which premise is flawed?
The person at 58:00 has no clue what she is talking about. Dictionaries define how to use words in sentences, it doesnt at all describe the concepts behind those words.
Asking for a definition is not the same as asking what something is and visa versa.
For example, i can ask you to define what “hit” is, You then would use a dictionary.
Now if i asked you “what is hit”, you then would have to go outside the diction to describe the concept.
wow, he was so scared with that woman towards the end, didn't let her talk hahahah
Can you kindly explain where i was wrong?
@@mikebrigandi_you don't understand that faith is unavoidable in all contexts, not just with God. You have faith that the most fundamental aspects of physics are reliable and stable to do science. There is no logical way of assuring this to be the case, you just assume it. Induction is not logical; it is faith-based. You also don't understand how to do meta-analysis. When you do science or philosophy, you don't just look at everything on the pragmatic surface level to see if it is valid. The validity of an endeavor or phenomenon is rooted in its coherence, not in it's tangibility. Just because you can't touch or sense something doesnt mean it doesn't exist.
Also, as usual your argument for morality holds no water since it is subjective. No such thing as morality if it could just be made up. If it's made up then it could be ignored at the same time.
@@davefrage125Wrong, faith only pertains to religion and spiritual matters.
Faith doesnt exist in science, because not only do scientist believe nothing is 100% certain, but they are open to changing their positions as new data arises in the fountain of human knowledge. Their positions can also be demonstrated with facts, evidence, logic and reason.
Theist dont change. They stay static in their belief. They dont have facts, evidence, logic or reason when it pertains to their god or supernatural concepts.
Tell me, how do you get out of the tangible? Demonstrate something that is beyond the physical?
As for morality, its foundations are completely subject to a contract between three or more entities, that create enforceable objective laws or rules between them.
Your god concept doesn’t get you out of a subjective foundation and even further it cant even get you to enforceable objective rules or laws. No god has ever enforced their commandments, dogmas, rules, codes, or laws. Its always been humans pretending a god is guiding their actions.
Youre just OBJECTIVELY wrong on every point you brought up. Nice try though, but theist can never muster up logic, reason, evidence or facts to back their claims on these topics. 😁😉😘
@davefrage125 We have repeatedly observed the fundamental aspects of physics, it's not assumptions.
Morality is subjective. Yes you can ignore the moral opinions of other people, morals would still be subjectively true even if its made up
@@zulunet3285 look up problem of induction. also read about philosophy of science.
If morality is subjective what does it mean for something to be immoral or moral? Merely thinking that something is immoral is the reason WHY it is immoral? So you would say something along the lines of - "I think x is wrong"= "x is wrong"?
Additionally, if morals are not made up, where do they come from?
“I used to be atheist” is the same as “I used to be vegan” ppl who say these things have a tendency to lie.
Mike returning > Jesus returning
I hope Mike is Okay ❤❤