Friar Casey Tries to Prove God
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Friar Casey, aka Breaking In The Habit, claims there is proof that God exists. Gee, I wonder what brand new stuff he's going to present?
His video: • Is There Proof God Exi...
My Patreon: / martymer81
If you don't like Patreon, you can also make donations to martymer81(at)gmail.com via Paypal!
My Twitter: @MartymerM81
'Reality is under no obligation to make sense' would be a good t-shirt.
I would buy a T-shirt like that.
The back of the shirt should add "but usually it does, if we pay attention."
I don't like T-shirts with "messages" on them. But that one I would buy.
The issue with that phrase is that apologists can just say the same about God :(
Reality is under an obligation to make sense. Just not an obligation to make sense TO YOU.
Which of the multitude of gods this species has pulled out of its arse?
i just came up with another one myself! if called junjuloplox, is the actual true god and im the prophet, and i can prove it exist, because i can imagine it in my head, and as such, it must exist outside my head because it has to be greater than that. now bow before junjuloplox! (and give me money)
@@arthaiser That's funny, because I use the "Jalamalagan" when I am engaged in these sorts of discussions with theists.
"Ontological arguments are just word games. You can't define something into existence."
I've never heard that said better.
My eyes rolled so far into the back of my head when the good friar said we can imagine god into being, I looked into my mind and saw a god shaped hole.
Well, you can. I have an atheist God. It's whatever the difference is between a universe and a pre-universe. Unfortunately, it answers no prayers, has no intentions, and fits none of the requirements theists demand of their God. It's responsible for localizing a tremendous energy potential in one spot in the cosmos, actuating inflation from a singularity. And it's completely a natural phenomenon. But if the universe can be said to be 'created' that's what would have had to do it. It probably doesn't exist anymore, and won't again until the heat-death of this universe, so there's no point in trying to talk to it, and nothing you can expect from it if you tried.
Unless you are writing a story or programming.
I just bring up the Greatest Possible Anti-Deity Donut, which prevented all gods. (It's gotta exist, right? I defined it as the greatest possible!) Basically I use the theist's own "logic" against them, arguing for an idea that disproves gods.
@@majmage It is a good thing my God isn't limited by logic, or that would be a problem.
A great quote from Matt Dillahunty rebutting a Creationist: "My 'God' is greater than yours, because he did all those things without existing".
Yeah, it kinda funny that christian god can't be required to do anything. Unless apologist needs him to exist. Then he suddenly is required to exist.
@@Self-replicating_whatnot
Exactly
Matt Dillahunty, the king of incredulity
@@RaxxedOut43I was going to dignify your clickbait canard with some attention, but never mind...
@@RaxxedOut43 What argument does he make based on incredulity?
"There can be nothing greater than God..."
Oh yeah? How about... SUPERGOD?!?
"If we assume events are a well founded partial order then there is a prime cause."
"If we assume a greatest possible being exists then a greatest possible being exists"
We don't assume events are a well order. All we can do is witness them and describe them with our words the best we can.
If they are a well order, and it was created, then the creator must have an extremely well ordered creator. That creator sounds extremely well ordered, so it too must have a creator was was well ordered and had to have been created by a well ordered creator. He could not have possibly been well ordered if he too was not created by a creator. That creator must have been extremely well ordered, so it too must have been created. We're going to have to do this for awhile, you see.
@sugarfrosted
And there's no basis for making these assumptions et al. They're pure nonsensicality.
I "assume" that I'm a famous millionaire.😏 But other people don't treat me like that and my check for the Ferrari bounced😉🤷♂️
@@tracewallace23 He edited his comment 10 hours ago, to say "partial order".
Well founded partial order? When we look at Darwinian evolution we see patterns emerge, like the the recurrent laryngeal nerve that wraps around the heart. The pattern tells us the long story from fish to human or giraffe.
The pattern we notice is a chaotic, not well founded or remotely partially ordered. The fact you're happy about it doesn't change the reality of how chaotic it really is. We see the left trying to do its damndest to reverse natural selection in nature. We see Christianity taking the same position, as though humans are all equally and massively important to the well being of humanity. Not everyone is though. In nature, we see how that if you care for a species enough, they become angry greedy dependents that demand more and more. This is no different than the homeless they pay in LA or SF. It's time to look at nature and allow those that do not care for their future happiness to stop propelling their own genes. I say this out of love for those that care for their future health and happiness, not out of hatred for those that get addicted to drugs and become dependents of society. Which group SHOULD inspire us? Which group serves as a warning?
What gets me is the constant use of 'must'. There 'must' be a higher intelligence, there 'must' be a first cause... Must must must must must. Imperative language, a go-to tactic of manipulative abusers.
I think u have touched it with a needle
It's the hallmark of authoritarianism.
"...help your criminal organization stay relevant..." beautifully said.
I do not want to be forced to believe. I prefer to be allowed to know.
catholic and moral in the same sentence is always a zinger
Right!?!
Indeed
Let's face it, 'Christian' and 'moral' in the same sentence is a bit of a stretch - even 'theist' and 'moral' in the same sentence is pushing it
⚡😂
@IanM-id8or well any of the three religions that share this god are extremely amoral. Jewish, Christian, or Muslim... all follow the same amoral rules.
3:45 Yeah, it makes perfect sense to swap an infinate regression for an infinate being.
And yes, read that with an extremely sarcastic tone of voice!
So after 2000 years the best they have got is "suppose there is a god...."
It's been over 2000 years, It's been 3500 years since Judaism was invented, and the god concept has existed thousands of years before that.
What they always fail to realize is that there are religions much older than theirs.
@@tabularasa0606 "is that there are religions much older than theirs."
And that much of theirs is borrowed from those older belief systems, and just hammered a bit, much like Father Ted's car.
Wow! What a blast from the past! I used to watch your videos years ago, but the algorithm shifted and I couldn't remember your username. Lo and behold I'm scrolling today and saw one of your videos come up! Truly I Say Unto You, The All Mighty Algorithm Both Giveth and Taketh Away.
"a banana which is long division"
good one ... reminds me a bit of an exchange between Simon Amstell and Noël Fielding on 'Never mind the buzzcocks':
NF: "Don't make me cut the stuffing out your pillow!"
SA: "What? With a pair a scissors made of glitter?"
NF: "No: with a motorbike made of jealousy!"
This might be one of the most polite but scathing take downs, ever. Nice work!
I have heard this: "God loves you so much though!"
To which I say "first, prove God exists, then we can start to give that god attributions"
Lets just do things one at a time, in order if possible, otherwise it makes no sense.
_"first, prove God exists"_
Dude, weren't you paying attention? Science deal in *evidence,* not proof. They have to first provide *evidence* that their god exists.
Aquibas' "proofs" were my first step out the doord.
I always ask them what the g0d even is. Then comes some rant, then I have to explain the difference between belief and knowledge. And then they can never tell me how they KNOW stuff about the g0d.
I totally disagree. We look at what exists and only attribute those things to a single being when that is required by the evidence. We don't find a "thief" and then see what crimes he can be blamed for. We start with an unsolved crime.
The theist's problem is that they see thefts and conclude there must be a single theif.
@@goldenalt3166
The point your missing with the ops is that before you can declare a dragon burned down your house or the nearest forest, you must first have confirmed something like a dragon to exist.
When we examine an animal attack we don't infer a Tiger attack prior to discovering the large cat species itself. Just cause the wounds may be concordant with Tiger claws doesn't mean a Tiger must have done it.
Do you understand the point now?
You cannot infer God's hand work in anything Period prior to the clear confirmation of a God. It doesn't matter what you define as evidence, be it the universe et large of apparent design in biology.
It makes no difference and presuming something is evidence doesn't make it so.
Especially when what you propose exists doesn't have evidence that it does and you're shoving anything and everything that merely appears consistent with what you hope to prove. It's an Useless Arbitrary exercise in willfull ignorance and wishful thinking.
It's defining something Into existence with extra steps because merely stating it exists per default didn't do it for you. 🤦♂️
Logical arguments? An assumption presented by assertion buttressed by fallacies and circular reasoning is 1) not a logical argument or 2) is it evidence. Friar Tuck knows not what he is speaking.
Every British person of a certain age sees this guy and immediately wants a bag of crisps.
Lol, Indeed.
My favorite rebuttal to the Ontological argument is The Messianic Manic's (TMM) argument known as "the Realicorn." Basically, the "realicorn" is identical to the mythical unicorn, except the "realicorn" actually exists, according to the definition of "realicorn." So, you cannot deny the existence of the "realicorn" because it exists by definition.
TMM explains a bit more in his video "Refuting the Ontological Argument."
Something to add to that is that the Ontological argument assumes that "existence" is somehow "greater" than "nonexistence" without properly justifying that claim or defining it. By that logic, I could essentially argue that Cthulhu MUST exist just because his existence is greater than his nonexistence, even though that really wouldn't be good news for humanity, but I'd have a harder time thinking of a "greater" being than Cthulhu if he actually existed, considering the raw power he holds.
Well if it isn't Obi-Wan Kenobi AKA Augie Ben Doggie.
Hardware Wars for the win!
A God of the gaps can just as easily be filled with the notion that the Universe Herself is the deity.
Or, indeed, that my left foot is.
Personally, I have a small teddy bear that I suspect may be the creator of the universe ;-)
We already have a word for "universe". No need to syick another on there with extra baggage.
@@jursamaj Why call Charles King then? He has a perfectly good name: Charles. Same argument. It's a matter of respect.
@IanM-id8or Do you have evidence your teddy bear created itself? There is with the Universe.
Yeah, but why call it God
8:00 are we just saying God+1?
It's the "what's the biggest number" discussion all over again
If God exists and created everything, why did He create the Devil, and let him get away with influencing people in an anti-God way?
Every sci fi hero needs his nemesis so the show can go on. The bad guy never dies so there are more chapters to the story. Haha
Well god was bored so created his own horror movie; even sadistic gods must get their entertainment somehow.
what i want to know is, who or what created god?
@@Dan_C604
Satan is the hero, he is the one that tries to overthrow the evil dictator.
Hail Satan!
@@mrxmry3264nothing did. In ontology we would call him a necessary thing. Kinda like truth. Truth exists because if truth did not exist the statement truth does not exist would be true. That's a paradox so truth must exist because it is impossible for it not to exist. God is similar. He did not need to be created the same way things like matter would have to be. The same way for a painting to exist it must be painted but for a person to exist they don't need to be painted into existence. It's a category error to say God had to be created.
One of your best yet..loved it.
Everything must have a cause... Except God apparently.
Heard these a gazillion times, I really like your take on it, well done! 😊
I don't normally go and leave comments on the original video, but the audacity of a Catholic of all people to try to use "r@pe is bad" as an argument for god is so disgusting that I had to let him know my feelings. I doubt he'll read it before deleting it, but still.
It's like saying smoking is bad for your health, while chain smoking three packs a day.
To be fair he's a friar, not a priest. One doesn't need seminary to be a friar, heck one doesn't even need to believe in a god to be friar. Think of them as bhuddist monks, but instead of bhudda they have jesus as central figure. They want to live as jesus (allegedly) did, in poverty and of charity. I've so much more respect for friars than priest, because the latter know the bible makes no sense and lie about it, while the former just want to be left alone in contemplation.
this is perfect timing cause Casey's friend Frank Tuttle, also a friar, has been defrocked for sexual abuse, the story broke literally 2 days before this video came out
The guy's name is Patrick Tuttle and he's from Macon.
9:45
Yay for the oven mitten face palm. :D
It is important to wear protection!
That Face slap at 2:53 LOL!!!! I couldn't agree more!!!!! LOL!!!!
Faith is what allows for Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, and Scientology. If you go around with faith you are open to being conned. Put another way, you are open to worshipping the wrong god, which gods take personally.
The biblical Hebrew god Yahweh that Friar Casey believes in is invisible and beyond his comprehension. Nevertheless, he knows all about "him".
"Therefore, God must exist in reality."
No, you cannot imagine objects into existing by adding "but also they're real" to your imaginary object's properties. You're still just describing your imaginary object, and imagining that it is real. Believing harder that I have a real apple in my hand will never let me take a bite out of it.
I love seeing these religious people arguing that nothing (including them) is real. If the only reason anything existed is because of some magic invisible deity, that would mean that nothing really exists. It'd effectively make us fictional characters in someone's MMORPG, and we wouldn't be any more real than the characters in Lord of the Rings. And yet these idiot religious people are arguing passionately for their non-existence. It's hilarious.
Same tired old arguments with a new face.
He is the poster boy for bad habits. 😎
God exists. It exists inside the brains of people who believe in it. This is the only factually correct thing our robed friend said.
God is a label for a concept of an entity that serves to mitigate some of people's physical needs. Examples are the need to have an explanation, however bad, for things we don't know, or the need to feel protected and appreciated, or the need to label one's opinions and beliefs as fact. These needs are as physical as the need to breathe or eat. They aren't as urgent, but they are as physical, being needs of people's brain. And each God believer has their own God, inside their own brain.
We have direct evidence of this. When people are asked to give their opinion (say, on moral issues) a certain part of their brain activates. When people are asked to give the opinions of another person, real (like Trump or Biden or Mother Teresa) or fictional (like Voldemort or Gandalf or Sherlock Holmes) another part of their brain activates, which is different than the first. However, when those people are asked about God's opinions, the part of the brain that reflects their own opinions activates again. For people who say that God is a person, their own brains prove them wrong.
The problem arises when people claim that their God exists outside their brain. Usually they do this by expanding the definition of the verb "to exist" in a way that makes the claim unfalsifiable.
The problem becomes much worse when people demand that others comply with what their God wants, which is proven to actually be what they themselves want.
Loved the video. The "banana that is long division" was spot on.
My God would be a greater God than Friar Casey’s God because my God wouldn’t have put the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden in the first place or even if he did my God wouldn’t have given the serpent the ability to speak or he wouldn’t have created the bloody serpent or even if my God had allowed Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge he would have kept his promise that Adam and Eve would have died after they ate the fruit because my God isn’t a liar.
I can easily imagine a god greater than yours: my god is exactly like yours, but he always beats your god at checkers.
"Everything needs a cause -> The universe needs a cause -> God is the cause
Not everything needs a cause -> God doesnt need a cause"
How can anyone hear this and think thats a good argument? It takes in two premises which are the exact opposite of each other.
Of course his video is just another PRATT because they refused to believe their points have been refuted.
Just be prepared if/when he or some other person who agrees his reasoning hears you say, "governed by laws," and then comes in with the lawgiver argument.
In other words, keep that glove around before explaining yet again that laws are descriptive of observed behavior not prescriptive.
I had to laugh- darkly- at the idea that rape is universally abhorred. For much of history, rape was a crime of property: it was fine to force one's wife or even child, but it was crime to force the wife or child seen as belonging to another man. It was only during the 20th Century that we came to accept across the board that the forcing of a victim was what defined rape, regardless of any property relationship. And of course, even now the Catholic Church (who were quite late to the party when it came to accepting marital rape) continues to cover up the rape of children by its ordained officers, and to try to prevent external prosecution even when they admit that an individual priest is guilty.
No, rape was not universally condemned until very recently, Friar. Stop talking such bollox.
I dont remember who i heard this from, but apologetics isnt a recruitment tool, its a retention tool. As long as it keeps believers confident in their beliefs, these arguments are, unfortunately, going nowhere
A hypothesis is a testable statement. Unfalsifiable statements are therefore not hypothetical ones, so their claims don't even count as that. It is nothing but conjecture and speculation from them, all rooted in logical fallacies.
Isn't all science. After all the idea that your senses are telling the truth about the world is unfalsifiable and unprovable. Wouldn't that make all hypothesis about the physical world not hypothesis.
@@mitslev4043 "After all the idea that your senses are telling the truth about the world is unfalsifiable and unprovable."
Yeh, for that reason we use INSTRUMENTS to MEASURE things. We don't rely on our senses alone, because we know they are fallacious. As you are. Oh no, you're not fallacious, just wrong. Again. As always has been the case. Better, I guess...
Literally this ended with him going on saying it's ALL an argument. You defined this in the first 2 minutes. An argument is not proof of anything.
If God is perfect, no creation is necessary. There are creations, therefore god is not perfect or does not exist.
Friar Casey likes to cosplay his little fantasy
Got to love 30 seconds into his video about evidence he tells us in the absence of evidence.
PS: "Him," snort. Friggin' Proto-Indo-Europeans with their man-culture.
“According to christianity there is only one God”.
First commandment enters the chat…
It gets worse. The command against idols admits that not only are there other gods, but they can be made by men.
Damn you two are ignorant
@@williambarnes5023 christianity is a Semitic religion, it is by nature a polytheistic religion, only since Judaism one of them gained dominance and made everyone forget about all others , “for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.”
@@williambarnes5023 and mankind has made 1000s of gods. yes, that's right, god didn't make us, we (or rather our ancestors) made him and all the other god fairytales out there. i dunno about anyone else, but i'm several decades too old for fairytales.
@@williambarnes5023Indeed, "You shall have no other gods before me" even allows for having other gods.
The smiling mask casey wears covers a complete lack of empathy. He knows precisely what horrors what he’s defending.
To be fair he's a friar, not a priest. Those are so much different places of power (or lack of). Think about franciscan friars like bhuddist monks, but instead of bhudda they have the (alleged) Life-O'-Jesus (tm) as central figure and inspiration. In brief, priests wnats power over people by authority, friars just want to be left alone contemplating. Heck, one doesn't even need to believe in god to be friar, even if it's "strongly recommended".
I don't like reading in a video when the speaker is speaking. it's somewhere in between distracting and irritating.
On the positive side, I love the face palm/slap at 2:55. Perfect timing.😊
Marty, from what you know of physics, would you argue for an infinite regress kind of timeline? I think I would HAVE to, since "time before time" makes no sense, or is just, ya know, time. Even if it's cyclical or elastic (Big Bounce kind of thing), that's still infinite.
What scares me is how something as stupid as the ontological argument has persisted for so long. Humanity is doomed.
I don't think it's ever convinced anyone though. It's just smoke and mirrors that makes some people believe that they have a sound basis for believing what they were told to believe as children.
Well because it's not stupid. It's a very good argument. It's just that most people don't understand it. Most people don't understand ontology in the first place. It's like someone whos never seen math say a complex equation is wrong. They simply don't understand it. In fact that's kinda exactly the case. Things like truth logic and mathematics are all proven through the same ontological arguments.i use to think it was dumb to until I took the time to understand it. Also the language barrier. Philosophy uses the same words to mean very different things at times. It's hard to watch this video cause he really doesn't even understand what the argument is saying. But not totally his fault. In philosophy most of the words you think you know are redefined or become very specific.
@@mitslev4043 Philosophy cannot prove the existance of any deity.
@@iseeundeadpeople9 why not? Is there any evidence logical or empirical that says philosophy can't?
@@mitslev4043 If you want to show something exists, you still need evidence. Playing around with word definitions doesn't make something pop into existence.
Frier Casey tries to prove God exists, and I try again to invent a perpetual motion machine. I'm pretty confident that I will succeed first.
Maybe not. It seems that the universe has a finite life expectancy. This could mean that neither gets it done before the end of time.
You derserve so much more subs
no proofs, just the typical shotgun widespread of "here, refute all these different things and if you get stuck once god wins" or something. the same tactic flerfs use.
It's an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. If we don't have an explanation, then "it must be leprechauns" is clearly justified.
Very good. You gave me a lot of explanations I can use in the future.
The biggest flaw in the Cosmological Argument is that I need no reason to say that the universe itself is this "uncaused cause", and godbotherers have way to say no without being hypocritical.
Not really. The universe doesn't have any property that would make it an ontologically necessary thing as opposed to a contingent thing. God is ontology necessary so no creation needed. The same reason logic or mathematics don't need to be created.
@@mitslev4043 " God is ontology necessary so no creation needed" because I sayd so. Good evidence there, your word alone. Hey wait, wouldn't I be the foolishest fool of foolinghton by taking one person on theyr word alone on extraordinary claims? Yeh, my mother told me so once. Sorry, I always do what my mother says, evidence or GTFO.
"The same reason logic or mathematics don't need to be created."
Oh, look: the two things WE HUMANS INVENTED! Yes, we humans created those. Are you ever tired of being wrong?
@@mitslev4043
Yes really. And by really I mean IN REALITY.
In reality we occupy a universe of some kind, even if it's limited to the capacity for our own observational existence.
Your hypothesis of a god lacks this observed property of existing.
Of course, if you're content with a CONCEPTUAL god, which has only conceptual existence, than have fun. I have conceptual leprechauns too, at that rate.
@@kregorovillupo3625 you do realize most of the world claims God exists right? You say you want evidence. What kind? But I would also like evidence for your world. Everything we know about the universe we know because of our senses. If our senses are wrong then everything we know about the outside world is also wrong. Science other people even that the world exists in the first place. What evidence do you have that would prove that the world around you is real as opposed to you being in the matrix?
You really thing humans invented mathematics and logic? Are you really going to tell me that before humans existed things did not work logically. If this is the case why even believe things like evolution or physics as it applies to things before humans came along. They are most likely false as any number of things could have happened. After all no logic so it did not have to make sense. But I guess an number of things couldn't have happened. No mathematics before humans invented it therefore there were no numbers of things. There was not one thing in reality because the number one did not exist.
@@starfishsystems isn't the observed property done through logic. And by the logic of being confined to one own observation all things are conceptual. Your senses don't give you a true view of the world. After all there is no blue in physical world. There is the wavelength that makes you see blue but that doesn't explain the color in your head. There is a common thought experiment that asked is the blue you see in your mind the same as the blue I seen.
But I have to ask why can things we observe conceptually not exist? For example logic exists. It is conceptual and has no physical component. Yet even if no one was around to conceive of it the universe would still work logically. Doesn't this mean logic must exist in some way. That own concept of logic is only describing something that exists yet can not be physically observed but only conceptually observed.
Martymer's wife the next day:"Honey, did you use my oven mittens again?"
Always a pleasure Martymer.
The "moral" argument is an oxymoron. Moral is, by definition, dependant on different cultures. Each culture has some set of morals, and each set can, and will be, blurry at best, and everchanging. Because cultures are made of humans and humans change.
There can't be an "universal moral" of any kind, because that's a contradiction. The people arguing in favor of this are either people trying to manipulate a large group of people, as a way to legitimize their already stablished position of power. Or people already in the group of the manipulated, who are internalizing the excuse made from the top to control them
I disagree. Can you prove that "moral" is by definition dependant on different cultures. I suggest that there is an absolute morality we just haven't figured out yet. My suggestion is more realistic than yours.
@@kensmith5694 It's the literal definition of morality. It can't be any more basic than that. A "universal" morality is just an a posteriori term made to have something to base the concept of a god to it. In other words, circular reasoning. For there to be an "universal" morality, there must be a single, homogeneous and clear culture. The fact that you and I obviously have different cultures unequivocally proves there isn't. So you and I prove there can't be a "universal" morality
Nice bathrobe, though
Typical boring eye-roll-inducing theist who inexplicably cosplays as a 1500s monk: "I can prove God! Watch: I can't prove God. Ta-dah!"
Seriously, has anyone, anywhere, anytime been convinced by Anselm’s “argument”?
Always practice good facepalm safety when consuming apologetics.
martymer81: hi everyone.
everyone: HI DR MARTY!
I can imagine a being that eats gods. So by Casey's "logic", that being now exists. Guess we don't have gods anymore. ^^
The ontological argument is just soooo stupid, one wonders why they keep making it.
so I guess with the cosmological argument I can prove that we were created by women and not a deity.
Yup, as if a "being"(of ANY sort) "deliberately" creating a universe where ALL of its inhabitants MUST literally eat each other(often alive & slow mind you) just to survive isn't a hard, HARD sell. 🤣
The moral idea is so weird.
a) coldblooded killing is immoral? I beg to differ. Wars are not always imoral but soldiers generally kill coldblooded as they genrally demonise or dehumanise their enemy. Their killing is not hindered by compassion.
So no coldblooded killing is not always immoral.
I suspect he wanted to use a different term than murder as murder is already a moraj jugement meaning not justified killing - but coldbloodedness doesn't say anything about it's moral judgement, just about the state the person doing the killing is in.
So he (in my understandment) fails in this argument.
b) rape is wrong - yes most cultures agree rape is wrong. The issue isn't that people think that rape is wrong, the issue is that what constitues rape is so widly different that we can very well say that this is NOT a universial held human moral value.
I was old enough to have had sex (just about) during a time where sex without consent with ones wive/husband did not constitute rape.
I did have sex with a girlfriend where rape as per definition wasn't able to be done to a man by a woman - as for rape it needed to be penetration.
Yes at both times rape, was ilegal - but what constituted rape was narrowly defined in a way to allow sex against ones consent under certain circumstances and not be classified as rape.
I do not even go down the absurdity that a catholic tries to bring up rape as something bad.
And to realy hammer it down. The bible ( as well as the torah and the q'ran) talks about how giving your daughter to be fucked by someoneelse is absolutly fine. And yes without askeing the daughter. Which means the bible directly allows sex against a persons consent if said person is a woman and handed over by the father.
So my little catholic priest, your own book doesn't think rape to be wrong - or maybe is it that you think rape is acutally something else than sex against someones explicit consent?
________________________
But just for fun, until very recently teh catholic (internal) law was even if they knew about rape conducted by one of their clergy members, the rape was not to be persecuted nor handed to official state law enforcement. It was not untill 2010(!) that an internal vaticanian decree was issued that forces priests to report rape to the police. IT WAS NOT UNTIL 2019 THAT PRIESTS COULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY CHURCH LAW IF THEY DISCARDED THE 2010 DECREE.
So no mister catholic wannabe interlectual - don't tell me you always thought rape to be wrong, and if you thougt it to be some small little infraction - Which actually alines with your theology much more seeing children as nothing more as property to adults (their parents).
____________________________________
So the both examples brought forth, coldblooded killing and rape do not fit the idea of morality anybody actually held if you actually take what he is saying seriously and do not asume a lot of he might mean.
No coldblooded killing is not immoral - killing is not immoral. the coldbloodedness of a killing doesn't quality as a moral judgement but the state of mind.
Rape beeing wrong is not universially held to be wrong, because what constitutes rape varies very much. As we have no universially working definition of rape, saying rape is wrong falls flat.
6:57 *_*cough cough_*
I define 'existing' as objectively worse than 'not existing'. ergo, a perfect being, by definition, can not exist.
Am I doing this right?
"R-4pe is a abomination" ... DUDE ... seriously?
In fact, my god is greater than his god. My god created his god, then forced his god to do all the work of creation. My god then concealed knowledge of herself, even from his god, so that she would not have to deal with whiny hoomins. My god does nothing all day but eat, sleep, and consume catnip. Obviously, since my god created his god and then hid herself, my god is greater than his god. All Hail Sweetie!!!!!
In Catholic CE [advanced Sunday School] I didn't get this far. To me 1+1 = 2 and 1+1+1 = 3 not 1, I asked the priest if the Trinity was related to Freud's tripartite personality theory. He appeared to suffer an asthma attack, said, "Don't ask such questions," then hurried away. These tired old nonsensical arguments are losing effect where I live. Massachusetts is one of the most Catholic US states by population stats, but is one of the most highly educated states and one of the three least religious states. Like some parts of Scandinavia, people go to church for traditional ceremonies like weddings and funerals, but believe little if any of the doctrine.
Keep up the much needed good work.
To think there's people with PhD's in regurgitating ancient debunked arguments, :s.
Morailty.
God creates Man (Adam), in a naked state, after creating animals in sexual pairs.
After a period of time, God agrees to make a female for Adam (and apparently according to the older tale, mucks it up two times )
Then he has them wandering the Garden, in a nakled state, whilst he walks with them, warning them NOT to eat of the tree which gives them knowledge of right and wrong, i.e. morality.
Then Eve eats the fruit, and Adam follows suit.
As a result they become a ware that they are naked, and that being so is... 'wrong' As such they hide their nakedness from God.
God becomes angry vthat they hjave eaten the fruit, and hence learnt for themselves the concept of right and wrong, and are now hiding themselves from him.
Um.. where does Morality actually come from then?
Wonder how Jehovah would react to jeffery pointing this little condrum out to him. Especially in termns of initially only wanting a naked Adam on his own. Very... Um!!!!!!
OIh.. and hope Jordan did not mind using his special oven glo0ve for this video.
Cosmological argument, Christian-style: Something caused our current observable universe, it was the Bible god we believe in, therefore this god exists.
And that's not a straw man.
I think all these arguments are bad, but I'm so fundamentally disagree with the teleological argument that I can barely stand it.
Ideas and/or concepts are much more pure in composition than anything in reality.
I think ANYTHING that exist in reality is LESSER than the idea of it, not greater, so the teological argument fail miserably not even before it leave the starting blocks, it breaks it's legs while it warm up!
"The ontological argument is the strongest."
And just like that, you've proven how weak your entire point is.
1:20 >"Arguments are not evidence"
Obviously wrong. Evidence is “anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true”, which an argument is, provided it is valid and sound.
>"In science, we don't call the presentation of an argument, "proof""
It doesn't matter what you call it, especially given that scientists aren't in agreement on what you're claiming. Certain hypotheses can be proven while most others can only be judged to reside within some defined degrees of confidence. Calling it "proof" would be appropriate only in cases of the former.
>"we call it a hypothesis”
Also wrong. An argument isn't a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a testable prediction or proposition. An argument neither has to be a single proposition nor scientifically testable.
I know he's going to claim the Catholic jokes are a low blow, but there are countless examples of his claim unfortunately being false. Go back 100 years to tell a guy, his wife has to consent to sex, & he'd think you're insane. The idea that marriage doesn't require a woman to be constantly sexually available & thus it's even possible for her husband to rape her is a sadly modern idea. Plenty of very conservative religious movements still deny it. And it doesn't get any better if you keep going back. I'm sure we all remember how the Bible gives permission to use slaves for sex, i.e. god-approved rape.
Hi Martymer; I came to your feed after watching Dr. Becky discussing the latest findings about the "Crisis in Cosmology" - a genuine issue resulting from two different methods for determining the time since the so-called "big bang". To go from such a discussion on real cosmology to his pathetic attempt at science - is jarring.
Overall; my response to his opening is much the same as yours - all these failed arguments... again??? 🤪😪
At the cosmological argument, you forgot to mention that: "If everything that exists has a cause for it's existence, then who created God?" I think that will shut 'em up for good.
For supposedly being the most compelling argument for the Christian interpetation of the religious experience, the Cosmological Argument has very many gaping assumptions and leaps of logic that it just takes as self-evident a pririori and makes no effort to support.
How do you know the universe is a series of causually related events and that the apperance that there is sequential time is only a product of your psychology? (Just think of how General Relativity obliterated the notion of an objective time independent of a subjective observer, the existance of which had previously been unshakeable common sense. Even if the Cosmological Argument were more airtight, I would sooner be convinced that our concepts of time and causality are deficient than that the Chistian interpretation of God is real. Thst's just healthy use of Occam's razor.)
Why _must_ there be a first cause?
How do you know causality doesn't regress infinitely into the past? (Did you invent the time machine and go back to the beginning of time and watch God create the universe? Even science doesn't assert to have irrefutable proof that the universe originated from the big bang.)
Why _must_ the resolution of the paradox so contrived be a being, thus implying conscious intelligence?
How does God being casuality resolve the supposed paradox of infinite regress? (Does God, as causality, just retroactively _decide_ that He's done regressing into the past and sort of . . . stop? There are all kinds of processes which are technically me but whcih I have no direct contorl over: I can't will my heart to stop. So how would god _being_ causality intuitively provide the means to allow causality to stop it's own infinite regress?)
Why _must_ the first cause that created the universe also be a bearded tyrant on a cloud who's personally invested in the sexlife of every human on earth and will condemn anyone who lies with a person of the same sex to infinite perdition because such victimless crimes just offends Him for reasons that are never explained.
Christian's report the cosmological argument as convincing because it's tautological and therefore transparently nonsensical if you aren't convinced of God's existance already, but appears infallible if you were convinced of God's existance in the first place.
It's not the best argument for converting atheists. It's the best argument for preaching to the choir.
At the start, you seem to be saying that all knowledge should come from falsifiable hypotheses and empirical data. So you naturally conclude that we don't have any hard evidence for a cosmic craftsman, and you dismiss the hypothesis. Fair enough. But then the rest of the video is spent arguing why Fr. Casey's arguments aren't convincing ... which would seem to grant that philosophical discussion is meaningful. And if that's the case, then the discussion could be much more productive, about, say, whether a infinite regress per se is absurd, or whether finite and composite things are insufficient and require a simple, purely actual cause to sustain and explain their existence.
Frere Tuck defends a 2000 year old worldview. Yep, that makes sense.
"BUT MUH HOLEE BUUK!!" - @CoolHardLogic
The Kalam Cosmological argument is terrible, and yet it's among the best arguments for god. Let that little chestnut suffuse through your spiritual being.
There a few things that Friar Casey proves here, and that he pretty much always proves : He proves that he don't have a point, only wishful and magic thinking and parroting other apologist. Then, it's a copious serving is fallacies.
ohh that first comment at :25 seconds.. that was golden, please continue...
The fact alone he tries to puts ontological, moral and theological arguments equal to scientific proof, you know how this will go.🤦♂️
"There are some individuals in this world who disagree with these precepts, and even more that blatantly ignore them. This does not disprove the existence of natural law..."
But it does disprove that those things you said are not part of that natural law. To clarify, you cannot choose to ignore the speed of light restriction. It is a natural law. You can disagree with it all you want. The space cops will never come pull you over for going 1.5c in a 1c zone. That's because, as a natural law, you can't break it in the first place. Reality does not require your consent to enforce itself upon you.
God exists in the same way we don't yet understand how consciousness functions in human beings. Once we figure that out we will cease to be creatures imbued with soul and finally devolve back into bio-mechanical automatons. People like this man who insist on a physical god present in the universe (instead of being inside ourselves) are actually hastening our demise.
Just FYI. Do take care of yourselves out there.
standard apologetics. word salads, false physics, false logic, appeals to emotion, etc.
nicely made points, but to these grifters truth is the problem
1:15 why is scientific evidence the only evidence? what about philosophical evidence?
2:28 surely evidence is a part of arguments; premises are evidence towards a conclusion. so we may start with a hypothesis that god created the universe, for example, and reason that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, so the universe has a cause, and then attribute this cause with god. Im not saying this is a good argument, im just giving a potential example where an argument can be used as evidence for a conclusion.
3:42 are the apparently uncaused quantum events uncaused, or are they just indeterminately caused?
4:25 do you have proof / evidence of this claim?
5:30 if by nature you mean the nature of the universe, why could there not be time beyond our universe that the nature of our universe began in?
5:54 why?
6:26 maybe i am misunderstanding but if we are granting that the universe has a cause, we do not have to prove god to attribute the causation of the universe to him. What is shown is that the universe has some sort of cause and god is a potential candidate for the cause of the universe. the only thing that could've caused the universe is god, so god exists. God does not already have to exist to be a potential candidate for a cause?
7:14 ontological arguments dont define things into existence, they look at the nature of some being and state that the nature of that thing would be contradictory if it has not necessarily existed for eternity.
7:34 ontological arguments are more like saying: If i had a suitcase it must have £10,000 in it, there is my suitcase, so my suitcase has £10,000 in it. The argument only works if the first premise is definitionally true: if i had a suitcase, it would have £10,000 in it. You can disagree with the definition of God, but getting from god's nature to gods existence, they would argue, comes from logical necessity.
7:44 definitions may not have an effect on reality but they may be said to describe reality.
11:27 why should morality be based on consequences and desirability of an outcome?
11:31 why? even if people disagree on what is right and wrong, why is that an argument against objective morality?
11:42 but surely if god is perfect--as is his definition--his rules would be perfect no?
13:02 i think by intelligence he means non-intelligent beings moving towards an objective telos, which he says would require some intelligence beyond the world to direct.
13:19 i think what he means is that un-intelligent objects such a plants act towards an end, which may be gaining energy through photosynthesis, which requires some intelligence behind it.
The cosmological argument is as laughable as William.Laim Craig, I can grant them a first cause, I can call it God, but a lot of work still remain to claim any kind of sentience, let alone the random crazyness of Jehova.
If I didn't look at the date of the original video, I'd have assumed it was from 2010 or something.
So far Fried Brain Case aka Breaking Wind Habitus has never come up with a coherent sentence containing coherent thoughts. Feel sorry for the dude.
I ate the banana which is long division yesterday. Luckily only middle school kids have noticed. Everyone else uses their calculator.
3:23 apart from your god, obviously. It doesn't need a cause because special pleading