@Cougar139tweak You're making a category error here. If something is immune from measurement, then not only is it impossible to determine if it exists or not, but since it has no effects, by definition, it's existence is irrelevant. In order for a supernatural transcendant existent object to be relevant in any way, it would have to have some manifestation or effect, in which case it would no longer be supernatural or transcendant. Anything existent manifests existence in some way.
Good point Tracie-- arguing for the "existence" of anything transcendental, which has no manifestations in "existence", makes a joke out of the meaning of "existence"! And Matt makes an even better point about anything transcendental-- there is no reason/evidence to choose any explanation/theory over another or at all... aka the default is dis/non-belief, i.e. burden of proof is on the claimant.
I like the "the dice are corporeal" concept Corporeal dice can be seen by people regardless of belief. Noncorporeal dice exist because of imagination (you said there were undetectable die in there so now i think there are undetectable die in there) In the last jar there is nothing. Without asking anyone, everyone can agree there are die in one jar and none in the other. Only through belief can people treat the empty jar as if it had material in there. The noncorporeal exists only in the minds of people - our society is all people. Here's another fallacy "Therefor, as long as enough people believe there are dice in there, there are dice in there." - Jordan Peterson
Not only is "supernatural, transcent dice" redundant, but it's incoherrent; dice are material, and are therefore contingent on space an time. They cannot be transcendent.
It's really a pretty easy matter: All definitions for gods include the quality of nonexistence. - Do gods exist? - No. - How do you know? - By definition. End of debate. Let's go get lunch.
There are 3.14 and -3.14 supernatural dice (not mutually cancelling, but expressed as the absolute quantity |π|). The transcendent dice are in NONE of the jars, in ALL of the jars at once, and in the RIGHT-HAND jar only. Their transcendent powers unify the three manifestations into a single diehead through a process far too complex for human intellect to comprehend.
There is actually four jars there, one is just supernatural and transcended. I bet the supernatural transcended dice are in it! You of little faith, who cannot see the forth jar! lol
Accidental irony at 7:23 "because of what we do know about dice, and about jars, we do know that one of the guesses is beyond the limits of what could possibly be there" Here is the kicker, dice can't be transcendent. A "dice" is an empirical object. A transcendent dice... is a "non-empirical, empirical object". I don't believe in transcendent dice for the same reason I don't believe in square circles. that doesn't mean all things non-empirical do not exist. (the self, law of logic, God? etc)
@Cougar139tweak The question is whether or not it is possible, even in principal, to detect the object in question. Were people justified in believing in germs before the ability to detect germs existed? No. But no one has ever been justified in believing that hexes caused disease. Were people justified in believing the world was spherical before trigonometry and related mathematics? No. But no one has ever been justified in believing the world is flat.
Exactly. You can't start an argument with something that has no manifesting properties or qualities and then just start making up wild stories about it. LOL Why do we have to argue about something that does not exist anyway?
Here's the problem... According to most theists the word exists encompasses things that have the same properties, of things that don't exist. They believe non physical, invisible, intangible, non temporal, non spatial things exist. After all they say their god has these properties and they say he does exist. But you know what else is "non physical, invisible, intangible, non temporal, non spatial"? Non existent things (things that don't exist)! So their category of "Existent things" includes things that have the same properties as "Non existent things". So how do you tell the difference between something "THAT DOES EXIST", but is "non physical, invisible, intangible, non temporal, non spatial", and something that just doesn't exist?
One thing this one grasps well is when she rolls the 25 die and the chances of them faliing in that particular sequence and in that particular pattern would be "near impossible" but it HAS to fall in some way. I think more focus on that point would have been much more persuasive, Still glad they're trying, it's hard to prove a negative. Garden fairies can't be disproved, but I'm 99.9% sure they are BS. BTW nice to have a forum and sometimes we need to sharpen our teeth on each other.
It would have been better if Matt knew how to play along and allow Tracie's demo to be demonstrated. His dopey comments and answers made it a bit more plodding than intended. Nevertheless, I absolutely love this analogy and admit to having stolen it for my own uses. Tracie is brilliant and without a doubt she is my favorite ACA member.
Matt at 5:13 "one of them now has a soul..." LOLOL! But Tracie, there ARE people who slam the brakes on at green lights - my mother was one, before she finally lost her license. And she was an atheist too.
What about them? We can measure them, meaning that we know there is something there/a force present. So it isn't transcendent. And what about the brain? Science is proving to me more accurate in exploring and explaining the brain these days. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 50 years we understand it near completion.
@KazeKirin My assertion is just that the Jar construct is flawed, not the thinking behind it. Bertrund Russells teapot is much better as you can never confirm or deny the proof of or against. Do you now anything about "Super natural dice"? simply insert sub-atomic particles or hole flow in electrons? just insert these terms into "Supernatural Dice" and you will understand my logic. This construct is broken but I agree with the logic.
Hmm, I don't think Tracie can see her own specific thoughts manifest in front of her eyes as she drives a car, for example, but I assume she has no problem believing she had specific thoughts. And you know what? I can't see her thoughts either. Now, she may tell me what her specific thoughts were while driving that car, and at that very moment she shares those thoughts, I know they were at least manifested at the time she verbally shared them, but I can't say with certainty what her thoughts were while driving the car. And even though I can't see those thoughts she had while driving the car, I am sure Tracie BELIEVES she had those specific thoughts. Should I not believe her merely because I couldn't see her thoughts while driving the car? Should she stop believing she had those thoughts? Could I legitimately call her a fool for believing she had those thoughts? I wonder?
Those who don't believe there are not 42 supernatural dice in the jar are going to hell. Edit: and those who do believe in supernatural dice, but think it has more or less than 42 are not "true" supernatural dice believers, and those who thought there were 42 dice, but are now not sure, we're never supernatural dice believers. Only those who believe there are 42 supernatural dice in the jar can go to heaven to worship the dice maker.
Does anyone know on which episode Tracie called in to the show with a similar idea of something with no existent qualities being no different from nothing?
@Cougar139tweak Russels Teapot doesn't prove the same thing that this fallacy model set out to prove tho. And while the celestial teapot isn't disprovable in an absolute sense, there is good arguments against it and no positive arguments for it like the existence of God has (moral, teleological, cosmological etc).
If existence means something then how do you account for the something out of nothing aspect. Where did the universe come from? The Big Bang? How did that material come together in the first place? Also, how did that material come into existence in the first place?
You incorrectly state that big bang cosmology says the universe came from nothing. Big bang cosmology is a model of universal expansion once it is here, not the origin of the universe. We don't know what the origin of the universe is yet (and I stress "yet") or if the origin of the universe is even a meaningful question. Maybe it has always existed in some form or another. We simply don't know. Instead of asserting an answer that we know is false, we seek the truth and wait for evidence.
@HarrysSecret Sure you were.........if so my apologies, if query was made in the second form instead of the first I would have guided you to one (first appeared to be sarcastic) however links are taboo here on good ol You tube.
@Epydemic2020 Agreed!!, The Russell's Teapot is a better example as it is just impossible to disprove, however this one is debunkable and the thought itself is bankrupt with the "non-empirical, empirical object" arguement, no reason to reinvent the Teapot so to speak.
Matt is on the "special" "e-mailing list of supernatural transcendent dice [which work in mysterious ways]"; he has all the answers trust him on everything [and give him lots of money].
I suppose a person of belief would say that the manifestation of belief in corporeal reality would be their compassionate or Christian actions as dictated by God moving their heart or mind. I know that is an argument from personal experience but I'm guessing that would be what an argument would consist of.
I wonder what kinda of tea is in Russel's teapot, and if the sun boiling it increased its flavor. I ask santa to patch me in with god, sheva, and thor so they can tell me.
@AlwaysDisagreeing Surely you must realize that disbelieving in square circles and non-empirical empirical objects makes no comment on whether or not God or the supernatural exists tho. This fallacy model is fallacious.
I got a fallace model for Tracie Harris! :D She is BANGERANG! (I'm sure this is the 100th time someone's made that joke, but still...totally serious. In. Love.)
@jxaxmxixn But we have a reason to think they may exist, we have evidence to pursue those lines of thinking, not just a made up floating abstraction. But to then make the next claim that any absurd claim is worthy of consideration, because other dimensions may " with a BIG May exist" and to take the leap that every absurd claim is now worthy of consideration is completely illogical. Don't you have to know what God actual is in order to believe or disbelieve?
You do understand why it is logically inconsistent to say "Nobody knows how this happened, therefore I know that god made this happen". You can see the fault in that, can't you?
@Cougar139tweak Oh ok. I was looking for a decent forum to meet other atheists for stimulating debate and learn more. I see I asked the wrong person. Sorry to have bothered you.
@HarrysSecret Forum... definition - A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. HarrysSecret..... definition - Troll
that's kind of a pissy thing to say and against the progress of atheism don't you think ArrogantAtheist? but then again you've already stated your claim i guess =P
w w w . nizkor. o r g /features/fallacies/ for more information on fallacies and with a definition and an example of it:Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam Description of Appeal to Authority An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.
man matt was in a really humorous mood here.
Was Matt speaking tongues in the intro?
I came here for tracie's hairstyle - i got reason as well :D
Love this show
This is the AE that got me into Tracie. I never miss a AE. She is the most wonderful Sceptic.
This dice model is absolutely perfect for demonstrating divine hiddenness!
@Cougar139tweak
You're making a category error here.
If something is immune from measurement, then not only is it impossible to determine if it exists or not, but since it has no effects, by definition, it's existence is irrelevant. In order for a supernatural transcendant existent object to be relevant in any way, it would have to have some manifestation or effect, in which case it would no longer be supernatural or transcendant. Anything existent manifests existence in some way.
i like when tracie tugs on her jacket saying 'and i know some things about myself' lol
Good point Tracie-- arguing for the "existence" of anything transcendental, which has no manifestations in "existence", makes a joke out of the meaning of "existence"!
And Matt makes an even better point about anything transcendental-- there is no reason/evidence to choose any explanation/theory over another or at all... aka the default is dis/non-belief, i.e. burden of proof is on the claimant.
I like the "the dice are corporeal" concept
Corporeal dice can be seen by people regardless of belief.
Noncorporeal dice exist because of imagination (you said there were undetectable die in there so now i think there are undetectable die in there)
In the last jar there is nothing.
Without asking anyone, everyone can agree there are die in one jar and none in the other.
Only through belief can people treat the empty jar as if it had material in there. The noncorporeal exists only in the minds of people - our society is all people.
Here's another fallacy "Therefor, as long as enough people believe there are dice in there, there are dice in there." - Jordan Peterson
Excellent analogy that goes over damn near every theist's head but is obvious to the rest of us.lol
Not only is "supernatural, transcent dice" redundant, but it's incoherrent; dice are material, and are therefore contingent on space an time. They cannot be transcendent.
It's really a pretty easy matter: All definitions for gods include the quality of nonexistence.
- Do gods exist?
- No.
- How do you know?
- By definition.
End of debate. Let's go get lunch.
There are 3.14 and -3.14 supernatural dice (not mutually cancelling, but expressed as the absolute quantity |π|). The transcendent dice are in NONE of the jars, in ALL of the jars at once, and in the RIGHT-HAND jar only. Their transcendent powers unify the three manifestations into a single diehead through a process far too complex for human intellect to comprehend.
There is actually four jars there, one is just supernatural and transcended. I bet the supernatural transcended dice are in it!
You of little faith, who cannot see the forth jar! lol
Accidental irony at 7:23
"because of what we do know about dice, and about jars, we do know that one of the guesses is beyond the limits of what could possibly be there"
Here is the kicker, dice can't be transcendent. A "dice" is an empirical object. A transcendent dice... is a "non-empirical, empirical object".
I don't believe in transcendent dice for the same reason I don't believe in square circles. that doesn't mean all things non-empirical do not exist. (the self, law of logic, God? etc)
Q: How many cups can you brew from one can of homeopathic coffee?
A: How many do you need?
@Cougar139tweak
The question is whether or not it is possible, even in principal, to detect the object in question.
Were people justified in believing in germs before the ability to detect germs existed? No.
But no one has ever been justified in believing that hexes caused disease.
Were people justified in believing the world was spherical before trigonometry and related mathematics? No.
But no one has ever been justified in believing the world is flat.
I love Tracie's easy to understand explanations.
"There is clearly a hundred million..."
aglasser more like 4 trillion lol
Exactly. You can't start an argument with something that has no manifesting properties or qualities and then just start making up wild stories about it. LOL Why do we have to argue about something that does not exist anyway?
Here's the problem...
According to most theists the word exists encompasses things that have the same properties, of things that don't exist.
They believe non physical, invisible, intangible, non temporal, non spatial things exist. After all they say their god has these properties and they say he does exist.
But you know what else is "non physical, invisible, intangible, non temporal, non spatial"? Non existent things (things that don't exist)!
So their category of "Existent things" includes things that have the same properties as "Non existent things".
So how do you tell the difference between something "THAT DOES EXIST", but is "non physical, invisible, intangible, non temporal, non spatial", and something that just doesn't exist?
Nevermind. I emailed them. She made it up herself.
One thing this one grasps well is when she rolls the 25 die and the chances of them faliing in that particular sequence and in that particular pattern would be "near impossible" but it HAS to fall in some way. I think more focus on that point would have been much more persuasive, Still glad they're trying, it's hard to prove a negative. Garden fairies can't be disproved, but I'm 99.9% sure they are BS. BTW nice to have a forum and sometimes we need to sharpen our teeth on each other.
This is the best episode I've seen.
there are exactly pi transcendant dice! Nature elements are limited to natural cuantities, but supernatural stuff can have irrational quantities!
It would have been better if Matt knew how to play along and allow Tracie's demo to be demonstrated. His dopey comments and answers made it a bit more plodding than intended. Nevertheless, I absolutely love this analogy and admit to having stolen it for my own uses. Tracie is brilliant and without a doubt she is my favorite ACA member.
Matt at 5:13 "one of them now has a soul..."
LOLOL!
But Tracie, there ARE people who slam the brakes on at green lights - my mother was one, before she finally lost her license. And she was an atheist too.
ss314, your intros are getting better and better.
5.06 that was such a funny tone lol
Yes, she did. But I think she can be forgiven. Because she's awesome.
What about them? We can measure them, meaning that we know there is something there/a force present. So it isn't transcendent. And what about the brain? Science is proving to me more accurate in exploring and explaining the brain these days. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 50 years we understand it near completion.
oh sorry.... stupid me for not spelling correctly... What I meant was BRANE and not BRAIN.
Although Matt does not need a co-host, Tracie is the best co-host he has. She's good. :)
@KazeKirin My assertion is just that the Jar construct is flawed, not the thinking behind it. Bertrund Russells teapot is much better as you can never confirm or deny the proof of or against. Do you now anything about "Super natural dice"? simply insert sub-atomic particles or hole flow in electrons? just insert these terms into "Supernatural Dice" and you will understand my logic. This construct is broken but I agree with the logic.
Hmm, I don't think Tracie can see her own specific thoughts manifest in front of her eyes as she drives a car, for example, but I assume she has no problem believing she had specific thoughts. And you know what? I can't see her thoughts either. Now, she may tell me what her specific thoughts were while driving that car, and at that very moment she shares those thoughts, I know they were at least manifested at the time she verbally shared them, but I can't say with certainty what her thoughts were while driving the car. And even though I can't see those thoughts she had while driving the car, I am sure Tracie BELIEVES she had those specific thoughts. Should I not believe her merely because I couldn't see her thoughts while driving the car? Should she stop believing she had those thoughts? Could I legitimately call her a fool for believing she had those thoughts? I wonder?
I think Tracie preceeds Matt actually. Matt is the co.
Those who don't believe there are not 42 supernatural dice in the jar are going to hell. Edit: and those who do believe in supernatural dice, but think it has more or less than 42 are not "true" supernatural dice believers, and those who thought there were 42 dice, but are now not sure, we're never supernatural dice believers. Only those who believe there are 42 supernatural dice in the jar can go to heaven to worship the dice maker.
Tracie's Model is awesome. This is my favorite video :)
rvw629, she IS good! She's quick witted too, not letting callers get away with slipping in presuppositions any more than Matt does.
Does anyone know on which episode Tracie called in to the show with a similar idea of something with no existent qualities being no different from nothing?
@Cougar139tweak
Russels Teapot doesn't prove the same thing that this fallacy model set out to prove tho. And while the celestial teapot isn't disprovable in an absolute sense, there is good arguments against it and no positive arguments for it like the existence of God has (moral, teleological, cosmological etc).
This is making me wanna play Farkle.
If existence means something then how do you account for the something out of nothing aspect. Where did the universe come from? The Big Bang? How did that material come together in the first place? Also, how did that material come into existence in the first place?
Tracie is so damn brilliant she blows my mind.
Is that a Flying Spagetti monster on the desk :-D
great opening. loved it
This is a really good video apart from all the bad bits which existed on it but simply didn't manifest.
Someone may be handing out flyers at the Creation Museum to go and "Dislike" these videos. Hmm... :)
You incorrectly state that big bang cosmology says the universe came from nothing. Big bang cosmology is a model of universal expansion once it is here, not the origin of the universe. We don't know what the origin of the universe is yet (and I stress "yet") or if the origin of the universe is even a meaningful question. Maybe it has always existed in some form or another. We simply don't know.
Instead of asserting an answer that we know is false, we seek the truth and wait for evidence.
@HarrysSecret Sure you were.........if so my apologies, if query was made in the second form instead of the first I would have guided you to one (first appeared to be sarcastic) however links are taboo here on good ol You tube.
@Epydemic2020 Agreed!!, The Russell's Teapot is a better example as it is just impossible to disprove, however this one is debunkable and the thought itself is bankrupt with the "non-empirical, empirical object" arguement, no reason to reinvent the Teapot so to speak.
Matt is on the "special" "e-mailing list of supernatural transcendent dice [which work in mysterious ways]"; he has all the answers trust him on everything [and give him lots of money].
I suppose a person of belief would say that the manifestation of belief in corporeal reality would be their compassionate or Christian actions as dictated by God moving their heart or mind.
I know that is an argument from personal experience but I'm guessing that would be what an argument would consist of.
You're right. I think I was confused about their format 2 months ago when I first started watching TAE.
I wonder what kinda of tea is in Russel's teapot, and if the sun boiling it increased its flavor. I ask santa to patch me in with god, sheva, and thor so they can tell me.
anyone know where she gets the dice metaphor? Is it hers?
Love this model.
I've seen them refer to it before, but never actually seen them present.
P.S. Matt is clearly having a lot of fun with this.
@AlwaysDisagreeing
Surely you must realize that disbelieving in square circles and non-empirical empirical objects makes no comment on whether or not God or the supernatural exists tho. This fallacy model is fallacious.
I got a fallace model for Tracie Harris! :D She is BANGERANG!
(I'm sure this is the 100th time someone's made that joke, but still...totally serious. In. Love.)
Simply Brilliant! Has any theist tried to counter Tracie's demonstration?
Good stuff!
@rvw629 And I would argue that he DOES need a co-host. It blances it out.
Good video. Great co-hosts. BUT did she use "die" in the plural??? It's DICE.
Have I ever mentioned that I fucking love Matt!
The intro made a good point. But the thing is we might be able to get something out of you. Maybe we can assume what you meant. Which was nothing.
Thanks!
Yeah def. Tracie and Matt are definitely my favorite hosts. I think the two of them have given me most of my best arguments... Lol
Its awesome when Matt is mischievous XD
@Cougar139tweak There's a forum?
where is this forum you speak of?
and what did that priest do do you then?
Don't forget Mohammad the coffee mug.
ChairmanKiel, not the human brain...
Yeah, but they brought in a bible instead of 3 jars.
Tracie Harris is so damn awesome.
Awesome... I am now going to carry these three jars around with me everywhere.
@jxaxmxixn But we have a reason to think they may exist, we have evidence to pursue those lines of thinking, not just a made up floating abstraction. But to then make the next claim that any absurd claim is worthy of consideration, because other dimensions may " with a BIG May exist" and to take the leap that every absurd claim is now worthy of consideration is completely illogical.
Don't you have to know what God actual is in order to believe or disbelieve?
Tracie looks like Carl Sagan!!
@burningeko - I think so too. I think she is fab!
Yes! The cow Moohammad is keeping him company.
oh physics stuff... sorry to confuse you...
Go Tracie!!!
You do understand why it is logically inconsistent to say "Nobody knows how this happened, therefore I know that god made this happen".
You can see the fault in that, can't you?
Sorry to be the grammar Nazi in the room, but more than one die are "dice" - plural.
Very Superstitious! Nice!
You always pick the choice comments from the hosts.
@Cougar139tweak Oh ok.
I was looking for a decent forum to meet other atheists for stimulating debate and learn more.
I see I asked the wrong person.
Sorry to have bothered you.
@queenastilon hahaha....
"You're messing up my model!"
@HarrysSecret Forum... definition - A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
HarrysSecret..... definition - Troll
lol @ tracie's intro thing
that's kind of a pissy thing to say and against the progress of atheism don't you think ArrogantAtheist? but then again you've already stated your claim i guess =P
?????????????????? Alright......
@alianchild No joke! There's probably no Heaven...but if there is, Tracie Harris can lead a man right to it!
By your own demonstration, you claim that all things need to come from something else.. So where did god come from?
do you believe ghjaka jkhauh uahuah ou akaka?
@rvw629 I KNOW RIGHT !?!?!?! :) happy 2 year old comment.
w w w . nizkor. o r g /features/fallacies/ for more information on fallacies and with a definition and an example of it:Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
@somewhatd Aaaaah, but you see, God loves everybody, including Tracy, and so from your premise, God must exist. ;)
(devil's advocate)
@YetAnthony Not exactly Richard Dawkins, don't waste your time on these bozos
jxaxmxixn , not very good at explaining what they mean....
mga adis adis