fsx, I've been watching your videos for most of the day today. I'm very impressed with the progression of your ability to discuss and debate apologists.
I don't think the theist is a troll. It seems to me he sounds like he's trying.. just not very informed. He's just regurgitating what he's heard without investigating it.
Wow this was amazing. so well spoken FSX23. you should make more of these videos. I really agree upon the concept of gods. At first it was the angry man in the volcano. Then it got called a god because it had to be so very very powerfull. And from that point the concept evolved to the needs of people. Thats why we had so many gods and then later since religion was also something fashionable it turned into monotheism. Which we suffer this day. the hosti argument.... really???
I do not believe that this is a troll, but I easily see how it might be. I've probably missed something crucial, because I'm quite scattered at the moment, but I suspected for some of the video that it was actually a puppet. Just one person. I'm not going to go back and look for ventriloquist tells. Much too amused with the google results for archeological food finds. Old damn food.
This perfect god is like a transcendent number. We define it by an algorythm and we think of the algorythm and of approximations, But not of the transcendent number or god itself.
The sad thing is that there is no difference between a "top" religious apologist and someone trolling or running a script. The delivery may be different but the content is the same. Its all shit.
This argument that because time started the creator has to be timeless is not a logical conclusion. It a creator existed and that creator moved within space as he exists then time would be measurable. So time would exist for the creator before time existed for the universe. Further the creator could come into existence create the universe and not exist anymore he can have a limited existence. Does the creator need to be a sentient being? No you speak of a cause for the creation of the universe which could be satisfied by a particle. Let me also say the statement that everything has a cause doesn't apply to the creation of the universe. All our cause relationships involve an object with a cause applied to it to produce a result. The universe was created from nothing so cause effect couldn't happen because the cause had nothing to operate on.
Fsx23, you should start first by asking how your theist defines god. Because it's just useless to discuss if god can be just anything, which your discussion partner just admitted that the god can be a who or a what (personal or just a undefined first cause). Lane Craig for example really likes to jump from a first cause of the universe to the god of the bible. (and from an empty tomb to a resurrection)
Fs23 has done his homework. We can't prove a god started the big bang or god is timeless therefore you can't prove god exist or doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative, god is a negative
![Wolfram Physics Project: Working Session Wednesday, Apr. 29, 2020 [Finding Black Hole Structures]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SbDzqlOLIZA/mqdefault.jpg)
fsx, I've been watching your videos for most of the day today. I'm very impressed with the progression of your ability to discuss and debate apologists.
Theist strategy: State a non sequitar as fast as you can, hoping to get away with it.
I don't think the theist is a troll. It seems to me he sounds like he's trying.. just not very informed. He's just regurgitating what he's heard without investigating it.
Totally agree. For someone incredibly invested in a belief system it is genuinely difficult to imagine an alternative as anything approaching reality.
Rejoice, things we can imagine do exist, I can´t wait to use my Death Star on Ken Ham.
Wow this was amazing. so well spoken FSX23. you should make more of these videos.
I really agree upon the concept of gods. At first it was the angry man in the volcano. Then it got called a god because it had to be so very very powerfull. And from that point the concept evolved to the needs of people. Thats why we had so many gods and then later since religion was also something fashionable it turned into monotheism. Which we suffer this day.
the hosti argument.... really???
A 'WHO' can be a doctor, My favorite was 'Tom Baker'
I'm not sure about this... But I think Honey can stay edible for thousands of years.
I do not believe that this is a troll, but I easily see how it might be. I've probably missed something crucial, because I'm quite scattered at the moment, but I suspected for some of the video that it was actually a puppet. Just one person. I'm not going to go back and look for ventriloquist tells. Much too amused with the google results for archeological food finds. Old damn food.
This perfect god is like a transcendent number. We define it by an algorythm and we think of the algorythm and of approximations, But not of the transcendent number or god itself.
The sad thing is that there is no difference between a "top" religious apologist and someone trolling or running a script. The delivery may be different but the content is the same.
Its all shit.
This argument that because time started the creator has to be timeless is not a logical conclusion. It a creator existed and that creator moved within space as he exists then time would be measurable. So time would exist for the creator before time existed for the universe. Further the creator could come into existence create the universe and not exist anymore he can have a limited existence.
Does the creator need to be a sentient being? No you speak of a cause for the creation of the universe which could be satisfied by a particle.
Let me also say the statement that everything has a cause doesn't apply to the creation of the universe. All our cause relationships involve an object with a cause applied to it to produce a result. The universe was created from nothing so cause effect couldn't happen because the cause had nothing to operate on.
Fsx23, you should start first by asking how your theist defines god. Because it's just useless to discuss if god can be just anything, which your discussion partner just admitted that the god can be a who or a what (personal or just a undefined first cause). Lane Craig for example really likes to jump from a first cause of the universe to the god of the bible. (and from an empty tomb to a resurrection)
Fs23 has done his homework. We can't prove a god started the big bang or god is timeless therefore you can't prove god exist or doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative, god is a negative