First, Matt has said for years that if there's a omniscient omnipotent god then that god would not only know exactly what evidence would convince him, but that god would have the power to provide that evidence. Second, the belief in a god is INDEPENDENT of liking or worshipping it. I'm not going to argue politics, but to make my point i will use the example of Trump. There is currently no person who I despise more in America than Trump. I don't like him, i don't support his policies. But no matter how much i wish it wasn't so no matter how much i don't want it to be, no matter how much my heart is hardened towards that despicable excuse for a human being, regardless of my feelings towards Trump, I 100% acknowledge and believe that he unfortunately won the 2024 election and will be the next President because there is demonstrable evidence that he will be. So regardless of Matt's feelings towards the despicable immoral tribal war god as described in the Old Testament, if there was evidence of its existence sufficient to warrant belief then Matt, myself, and many other Atheists would no longer be atheists, even though we wouldn't worship that God.
@@magnificogi1800Honestly, no, i stopped watching after your comment about Matt saying "God bless you". Was there anything in that last 15 seconds which I missed that would change regarding my comment. My comment was based of your claim that if god would make himself 100% known then that would "drag obedience" from Matt, which is why I stated that belief is INDEPENDENT from obedience or worship. Are you going to address that, or are you going to complain that hadn't watched the "whole" video?
@@JayBandersnatch I think I might actually have missed some of your comment, also maybe I should have changed the title. The thing is I don't think God wants just belief, the demons ''believe''. The question being would God effectively force you to believe in him if he knew you would never want a meaningful relationship with him?
@@magnificogi1800 quick question, are there specific words of which your channel auto blocks in comments because i attempted a cordial response but the comment was deleted, sometimes RUclips does it, sometimes the channel does it.
Exactly. You are correct. If god gave Matt ( or myself ) the evidence needed. We would believe. But that says absolutely nothing about whether we would worship or even like the god. I would need evidence of gods character to determine that. If there is a god, that god is a real fu based on the state of the world.
@@magnificogi1800easy, if I were god I wouldn’t need to fix anything since I’m omniscient and omnipotent and wouldn’t create something that needed fixing in the first place lmao this would be funny if it wasn’t pathetic
@magnificogi1800 well first off, i cant even conceive of any cure that would be worse than allowing pedophiles to SA children. If you think god is actually all powerful and all knowing, yet continues to allow pedophiles to exist, then your god is truly evil. He's sitting there with popcorn watching these events happen...
You need to change your thumbnail, because you debunked precisely nothing. This video was nothing but an incoherent collection of half-arguments and cliches.
If said god interacts with reality, then those interactions are detectable. Then it is reasonable to expect evidence of said god's existence. If your position is: "would God effectively force you to believe in him if he knew you would never want a meaningful relationship with him?" Then you also need to explain why a god who wants to have a meaningful relationship with people would deprive people of that opportunity. You instead are laying the blame on those who currently lack belief in your god claims due to the zero evidence you have for your god.
You can't both claim the moral high ground, create a conscious being AND expect them to worship you without providing solid evidence of your existence. Life is not a purely a gift. To some extent it is an imposition that places a responsibility on those who impose it. We recognize this with mortal parents. Why not God?
This has always been my sticking point too, life as an imposition. IM the one with everything to gain and everything to lose here if my eternal soul is on the line.
My point was that god doesn't just want you to acknowledge his existence, he wants a relationship. I tend to think he would rather not forcibly convert you using tangible, falsifiable, evidence (not sure if that's what you meant by solid) and then have a begrudging resentful slave for the rest of your life. In my mind if you're truly seeking you should probably look for something more subtle. It sounds sacrilegious, but I think it's conceptually similar to flirting. The idea being to send out a signal that if someone is seeking, they will pick up on, and if they're not they can easily ignore it.
@@magnificogi1800 Yeah, if he’s real I want a relationship with him too. But he ISNT. I DID seek, I read the texts, listened to the great apologists, diligently prayed; and I can’t force myself to believe in something so obviously made up as Santa clause. And that’s where the accusations lie; Christian’s (specifically apologists) engage in special pleading to reinforce an emotional belief because it makes them feel good. Special pleading is a logical fallacy and in my experience, no Christian applies the same logic and reasoning to ANY other arena of their life other than this one particular arena.
@@magnificogi1800 Who would be "begrudgeful" if they knew some super being brought them into existence and would guarantee their welfare for acknowledgement? The insane, and ONLY the insane. It's NOT on me to be "seeking". If I create a sentient being capable of suffering the onus is on me to guide them away from choices that cause supreme suffering. It's morally reprehensible to bring some being capable of suffering into the world then leave it on its own to suffer, Your concept of God is an EVIL being. that you worship it should warn your associates.
The god described in the bible (tora, quran) is a fraking monster. Isn't it about time we come to the conclusion these books were written by people? They have some good things in them, but also some horrible things, just like people!
Actually, that is false. Consider Bertrand Russell's "Last Thursdayism," or simulation theory, or even hypothetical existence of any noncontradictory and non-logically impossible entity. We have no way to falsify the hypothesis that they universe didn't come into being last Thursday, along with our false memories about the past; and under this scenario, the expectation of contradictory evidence would be unjustified. Similarly, if we were in a simulation, this, too, is untestable, as everything we could conceivably test would simply fall within the parameters of the simulation. Hence, again, evidence for falsification is an unjustified expectation. Finally, as not all of the universe is even observable, the expectation for falsification of a claim of existence is unjustified because whereas the presentation of a single instance of the entity in question would falsify the claim of NONexistence, since the entity could potentially exist beyond the _observable_ universe, one cannot reasonably expect to falsify this claim (provided it isn't logically incoherent like a square circle or self-contradictory like a married bachelor).
@@JustifiedNonetheless Everything you just said is exactly why no one should believe in a god. Simulation theory is useless because as you said, its untestable lol. What was your point here?
@gogojordanmasterofpolyethy105 "What's your point?" That your assertion that "it is reasonable to expect falsifiable evidence for _anything"_ is obvious and demonstratrably false...as evidenced by three examples on which such an expectation *isn't* reasonable. Presuppositions serve as the foundation for all epistemology. It is inevitable. I logical and intellectually honest individual should be able to recognize and acknowledge that instead of deflecting to some other, irrelevant bullshit.
@@JustifiedNonetheless Reasonable for things worth believeing. Is that enough clarification? I mean your whole point in that big wall of text is exactly why no one SHOULD believe in simulation theory. And why no one SHOULD believe in god. Because it is totally untestable. You are revealing your ignorance on this topic
The bible says by faith are we saved. God set it up, so it takes a little bit of faith but because He loves us and doesn't want anyone to be lost it only takes a very little. He gives us lots of evidence. He doesn't set us up where it requires giant leaps of blind faith. Once you realize this, you'll be amazed at the things people have faith in with far less evidence.
I'm an agnostic atheist and I would never call in to that show if I were you. It's not a fair playing field for a discussion. But yes, of course it is reasonable to have standards for reason and evidence for one's beliefs. To hold that believing something without justification as somehow better is dangerous, silly, and leads to all sorts of catastrophes, woo, and bad outcomes.
I don’t like how disrespectful Matt comes across way too often but at the same time I understand his frustrations…my conclusion is that in order to remain a Christian, one must remain intellectually dishonest/faithful.
It’s VERY reasonable to expect testable evidence, and even one that’s not a miracle. I’d be happy with corroboration from the historical claims but no one additional attests to Paul’s revelation, no one additionally attests to the spirits of the dead walking through the city. And your little speech is nothing but a rhetorical exercise. And yeah, the format is one sided, it’s a call-in show, there are theological call-ins that do the same thing.
Actually, that is false. Consider Bertrand Russell's "Last Thursdayism," or simulation theory, or even hypothetical existence of any noncontradictory and non-logically impossible entity. We have no way to falsify the hypothesis that they universe didn't come into being last Thursday, along with our false memories about the past; and under this scenario, the expectation of contradictory evidence would be unjustified. Similarly, if we were in a simulation, this, too, is untestable, as everything we could conceivably test would simply fall within the parameters of the simulation. Hence, again, evidence for falsification is an unjustified expectation. Finally, as not all of the universe is even observable, the expectation for falsification of a claim of existence is unjustified because whereas the presentation of a single instance of the entity in question would falsify the claim of NONexistence, since the entity could potentially exist beyond the _observable_ universe, one cannot reasonably expect to falsify this claim (provided it isn't logically incoherent like a square circle or self-contradictory like a married bachelor).
@ if it were true the universe was created last Thursday or we existed in a simulation, those would be meaningless revelations. High brow philosophy and rhetorical tricks mean very very little to the majority of the world waking up and working a real job (as far as their perception) and spending real hours (they can perceive) earning money to feed a family (they perceive). You can, in fact, become so meta that you make useless platitudes. I find those premises equally useless in that they can’t be tested or proven or verified and purely rely on blind faith to make them “real.” You’re literally just making the spaghetti monster meme, I can make infinite claims of supernatural hypotheses that are untestable, but what science is, is the testable definable realm of agreed human perception (ie the VAST majority of us recognize red as a color for being red, that wavelength of light has a meaning, thus an observation and thus is a scientific fact). Beyond this, the claims of theological systems like those of Abraham SAY DIRECTLY that this god does interact with our universe, does influence us, is observing use. This new age addition you’re making of him being out of space and time is a recent addition in apologetics as they continually and slowly lose the battle of reason.
@@lukepoplawski3230 The point was to demonstrate that your blanket statement is obviously and demonstrably false. A logical and intellectually honest person should be able to recognize and acknowledge that rather than deflecting to some other irrelevant bullshit.
The answer is yes. At least if you want a good reason to believe in a god or gods. Because just believing in a bunch of entirely unfalsifiable things without justification is a poor pathway to understanding reality.
Actually, that is false. Consider Bertrand Russell's "Last Thursdayism," or simulation theory, or even hypothetical existence of any noncontradictory and non-logically impossible entity. We have no way to falsify the hypothesis that they universe didn't come into being last Thursday, along with our false memories about the past; and under this scenario, the expectation of contradictory evidence would be unjustified. Similarly, if we were in a simulation, this, too, is untestable, as everything we could conceivably test would simply fall within the parameters of the simulation. Hence, again, evidence for falsification is an unjustified expectation. Finally, as not all of the universe is even observable, the expectation for falsification of a claim of existence is unjustified because whereas the presentation of a single instance of the entity in question would falsify the claim of NONexistence, since the entity could potentially exist beyond the _observable_ universe, one cannot reasonably expect to falsify this claim (provided it isn't logically incoherent like a square circle or self-contradictory like a married bachelor).
To be honest I would recommend not debating your religion anymore. Your religion is based on and requires faith. Debates are based in logic and reason. These are polar opposites of each other. Even the analogy you give here of the cop on the side of the road isn't applicable because you are not using logic or reason. Trying to use your faith to make a logical statement would just be a waste of your time.
Your response implies knowledge that it is a fictional character. Yet, I'd almost be willing to be you cling to "lack" of belief rather than committing to the belief in nonexistence.
@JustifiedNonetheless I don't commit to any belief. I commit to what actual evidence supports until superceding evidence comes along and then I commit to that. A total absence of evidence isn't worth serious consideration.
@@ScottByther That still implies that you have evidence for the NONexistence of a deity (and no, absence of evidence still isn't evidence of absence) by which to declare a deity as a fictional character in the first place. So, why hide behind a bullshit concept like "nonbelief." Why not have the balls to say, "you know what? I could be mistaken, but I think no such thing exists." That would the the intellectually honest and non-cowardly response. Don't you think? It's not a knowledge claim, so it's not like you'd have to prove nonexistence. It's simply taking a stand and honestly stating what you *believe* to be the case. But, no, atheists like you feel compelled to say, "I don't think a deity doesn't exist; I just 'lack' belief that one exists," which is a bullshit cop-out, as evidenced by your own actions and statements. Yes, you *do* believe in the nonexistence of the being in question. Otherwise, you would describe it as fictional. So, just admit it.
@ScottByther You're so full of shit. Premise 1) Belief informs willful action. Premise 2) Characterizing something as "fictional" is a wilful action. Conclusion: Therefore, characterizing something as "fictional" implies belief to that effect. This is how logic actually works.
so, have your arguments crushed by Mr Dillahunty so try them again without him. Mmm... perhaps Magnifico Giganticus Dickus should have listened to what he was being told.
Why don’t you go on The Line and present your mixed up ideas of what you think Matt did wrong and let him answer you? Make sure you use the name you have used here, when you phone him.
Pretty sure he did call into one of the shows last weekend, and he did an absolutely terrible job. Or at least someone with the name Magnifico or whatever called in.
@ I hope to find it, if it’s the same guy even. If it is, I wonder if it was after this video that he made, or just on his previous call in to Matt? He sure has a lot to say about Matt’s so called flawed thinking, when he’s the one that makes the logic errors and has fallacious thinking.
People have been asking Matt "what sort of evidence would you accept for God" for over two decades. He wasn't being "squirrely". I think possibly you just perceive it that way because you don't want to accept "I don't know" as an answer...? He said the same thing he always has for YEARS..."I don't know, but God should know"...which is a 100% fair answer. I have never once seen him flinch from answering the question, but sometimes he pauses to think about how he wants to word his answer. Nothing strange or squirrely about that, either. He doesn't need to give up on this idea, because it is simply NOT his problem to solve. It is God's problem, and ostensibly God's follower's problem - if they wish to take it on (which so many have tried and failed). Saying he should give up on this line of (sensible) thinking is like saying your infant child should give up on being fed because it doesn't know how to feed itself. Meanwhile you're standing behind one-way glass watching it starve. Just ludicrous on its face. What does a "meaningful relationship with God" even mean? Relationships are a two way proposition, whether its with a person, an addiction, an instrument, whatever. Everything I've seen with any monotheistic modern god seems to be more like a stalker who's followers threaten you with hell if you masturbate or do some other thing he doesn't like. I've yet to see any sort of proof myself (even while I was a believer) that there is another being involved in a "relationship" other than people saying it is so.
"I don't know what would convince me" is the ultimate bullshit cop-out. Premise 1: According to Popper's formulation of the principle of falsififiability, an assertion is falsifiable, if it is possible to conceive of a means by which it might be disconfirmed _in principle_ (whether it can be disconfirmed _in practice_ or not). Premise 2: "I don't know what would change my mind" is an explicit statement that one cannot conceive of anything that would change one's mind with regard to a proposition. Conclusion: Therefore, "I don't know what would change my mind" is a de facto concession that even if the _content_ of the proposition itself is falsifiable, one's _disposition_ toward the assertion is *not.* In summary, because the principle of falsifiability it contingent upon the subject's capacity to _conceive of_ a means of disconfirmation, a proposition's _actual_ falsifiability is independent from any subject's _attitude_ toward its falsification; ie, it is possible for a proposition to be falsifiable (and indeed, even disconfirmed), yet the subject remain unconvinced of it--think of Flat Earthers, Holocaust deniers, and the like. In the interest of reason and intellectual honesty, one is obliged to conceive of some means by which one's disposition might be disconfirmed *and* be willing to express those terms. Alternatively, if one _cannot_ do so, one ought explicitly express its unfalsifiability.
whether it's reasonable to expect falsifiable evidence for God depends on the specific concept of God being considered. for an interventionist God, there might be potential avenues for investigation. however, for other definitions, particularly those involving a transcendent or non-interventionist God, falsifiability is much more challenging.
Nothing you said makes the existence of a god true.
You seem very uncomfortable about the act of saying "I don't know"
If you can't climb that wall then you aren't really here for the truth.
First, Matt has said for years that if there's a omniscient omnipotent god then that god would not only know exactly what evidence would convince him, but that god would have the power to provide that evidence.
Second, the belief in a god is INDEPENDENT of liking or worshipping it. I'm not going to argue politics, but to make my point i will use the example of Trump. There is currently no person who I despise more in America than Trump. I don't like him, i don't support his policies. But no matter how much i wish it wasn't so no matter how much i don't want it to be, no matter how much my heart is hardened towards that despicable excuse for a human being, regardless of my feelings towards Trump, I 100% acknowledge and believe that he unfortunately won the 2024 election and will be the next President because there is demonstrable evidence that he will be.
So regardless of Matt's feelings towards the despicable immoral tribal war god as described in the Old Testament, if there was evidence of its existence sufficient to warrant belief then Matt, myself, and many other Atheists would no longer be atheists, even though we wouldn't worship that God.
Great reply.
did you finish the video?
@@magnificogi1800Honestly, no, i stopped watching after your comment about Matt saying "God bless you". Was there anything in that last 15 seconds which I missed that would change regarding my comment.
My comment was based of your claim that if god would make himself 100% known then that would "drag obedience" from Matt, which is why I stated that belief is INDEPENDENT from obedience or worship. Are you going to address that, or are you going to complain that hadn't watched the "whole" video?
@@JayBandersnatch
I think I might actually have missed some of your comment, also maybe I should have changed the title. The thing is I don't think God wants just belief, the demons ''believe''. The question being would God effectively force you to believe in him if he knew you would never want a meaningful relationship with him?
@@magnificogi1800 quick question, are there specific words of which your channel auto blocks in comments because i attempted a cordial response but the comment was deleted, sometimes RUclips does it, sometimes the channel does it.
Exactly. You are correct. If god gave Matt ( or myself ) the evidence needed. We would believe. But that says absolutely nothing about whether we would worship or even like the god. I would need evidence of gods character to determine that. If there is a god, that god is a real fu based on the state of the world.
Here a question if you were God how would you conceivably fix the world without making the cure worse that the disease?
If I were all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving, that seems like a walk in the park.
@@magnificogi1800easy, if I were god I wouldn’t need to fix anything since I’m omniscient and omnipotent and wouldn’t create something that needed fixing in the first place lmao this would be funny if it wasn’t pathetic
@@magnificogi1800 the funny thing is you really think you have a point and didn't spit out word salad
@magnificogi1800 well first off, i cant even conceive of any cure that would be worse than allowing pedophiles to SA children. If you think god is actually all powerful and all knowing, yet continues to allow pedophiles to exist, then your god is truly evil. He's sitting there with popcorn watching these events happen...
You need to change your thumbnail, because you debunked precisely nothing. This video was nothing but an incoherent collection of half-arguments and cliches.
If said god interacts with reality, then those interactions are detectable. Then it is reasonable to expect evidence of said god's existence.
If your position is: "would God effectively force you to believe in him if he knew you would never want a meaningful relationship with him?" Then you also need to explain why a god who wants to have a meaningful relationship with people would deprive people of that opportunity. You instead are laying the blame on those who currently lack belief in your god claims due to the zero evidence you have for your god.
You can't both claim the moral high ground, create a conscious being AND expect them to worship you without providing solid evidence of your existence. Life is not a purely a gift. To some extent it is an imposition that places a responsibility on those who impose it. We recognize this with mortal parents. Why not God?
This has always been my sticking point too, life as an imposition. IM the one with everything to gain and everything to lose here if my eternal soul is on the line.
My point was that god doesn't just want you to acknowledge his existence, he wants a relationship. I tend to think he would rather not forcibly convert you using tangible, falsifiable, evidence (not sure if that's what you meant by solid) and then have a begrudging resentful slave for the rest of your life. In my mind if you're truly seeking you should probably look for something more subtle. It sounds sacrilegious, but I think it's conceptually similar to flirting. The idea being to send out a signal that if someone is seeking, they will pick up on, and if they're not they can easily ignore it.
@@magnificogi1800 Yeah, if he’s real I want a relationship with him too. But he ISNT. I DID seek, I read the texts, listened to the great apologists, diligently prayed; and I can’t force myself to believe in something so obviously made up as Santa clause. And that’s where the accusations lie; Christian’s (specifically apologists) engage in special pleading to reinforce an emotional belief because it makes them feel good. Special pleading is a logical fallacy and in my experience, no Christian applies the same logic and reasoning to ANY other arena of their life other than this one particular arena.
@@magnificogi1800 Who would be "begrudgeful" if they knew some super being brought them into existence and would guarantee their welfare for acknowledgement? The insane, and ONLY the insane. It's NOT on me to be "seeking". If I create a sentient being capable of suffering the onus is on me to guide them away from choices that cause supreme suffering. It's morally reprehensible to bring some being capable of suffering into the world then leave it on its own to suffer, Your concept of God is an EVIL being. that you worship it should warn your associates.
2:55 "He says he's seaking truth, uh, um ...I don't know what that is..." That, my friend, is precisely your issue.
The god described in the bible (tora, quran) is a fraking monster. Isn't it about time we come to the conclusion these books were written by people? They have some good things in them, but also some horrible things, just like people!
Yes, its reasonable to expect falsifiable evidence for anything. What are you on about? This rant was wild and I'm shocked you uploaded this
Actually, that is false. Consider Bertrand Russell's "Last Thursdayism," or simulation theory, or even hypothetical existence of any noncontradictory and non-logically impossible entity.
We have no way to falsify the hypothesis that they universe didn't come into being last Thursday, along with our false memories about the past; and under this scenario, the expectation of contradictory evidence would be unjustified.
Similarly, if we were in a simulation, this, too, is untestable, as everything we could conceivably test would simply fall within the parameters of the simulation. Hence, again, evidence for falsification is an unjustified expectation.
Finally, as not all of the universe is even observable, the expectation for falsification of a claim of existence is unjustified because whereas the presentation of a single instance of the entity in question would falsify the claim of NONexistence, since the entity could potentially exist beyond the _observable_ universe, one cannot reasonably expect to falsify this claim (provided it isn't logically incoherent like a square circle or self-contradictory like a married bachelor).
@@JustifiedNonetheless Everything you just said is exactly why no one should believe in a god. Simulation theory is useless because as you said, its untestable lol. What was your point here?
@gogojordanmasterofpolyethy105
"What's your point?"
That your assertion that "it is reasonable to expect falsifiable evidence for _anything"_ is obvious and demonstratrably false...as evidenced by three examples on which such an expectation *isn't* reasonable. Presuppositions serve as the foundation for all epistemology. It is inevitable. I logical and intellectually honest individual should be able to recognize and acknowledge that instead of deflecting to some other, irrelevant bullshit.
@@JustifiedNonetheless Reasonable for things worth believeing. Is that enough clarification? I mean your whole point in that big wall of text is exactly why no one SHOULD believe in simulation theory. And why no one SHOULD believe in god. Because it is totally untestable. You are revealing your ignorance on this topic
@@JustifiedNonetheless presup is the most ignorant and useless topic. I can't believe I wasted time replying to a presup argument.
"Short" response on my live section!
I’m sorry but what did you debunk exactly???
The bible says by faith are we saved. God set it up, so it takes a little bit of faith but because He loves us and doesn't want anyone to be lost it only takes a very little. He gives us lots of evidence. He doesn't set us up where it requires giant leaps of blind faith. Once you realize this, you'll be amazed at the things people have faith in with far less evidence.
I'm an agnostic atheist and I would never call in to that show if I were you. It's not a fair playing field for a discussion.
But yes, of course it is reasonable to have standards for reason and evidence for one's beliefs. To hold that believing something without justification as somehow better is dangerous, silly, and leads to all sorts of catastrophes, woo, and bad outcomes.
I don’t like how disrespectful Matt comes across way too often but at the same time I understand his frustrations…my conclusion is that in order to remain a Christian, one must remain intellectually dishonest/faithful.
wild that you still have this video up
It’s VERY reasonable to expect testable evidence, and even one that’s not a miracle. I’d be happy with corroboration from the historical claims but no one additional attests to Paul’s revelation, no one additionally attests to the spirits of the dead walking through the city. And your little speech is nothing but a rhetorical exercise.
And yeah, the format is one sided, it’s a call-in show, there are theological call-ins that do the same thing.
Actually, that is false. Consider Bertrand Russell's "Last Thursdayism," or simulation theory, or even hypothetical existence of any noncontradictory and non-logically impossible entity.
We have no way to falsify the hypothesis that they universe didn't come into being last Thursday, along with our false memories about the past; and under this scenario, the expectation of contradictory evidence would be unjustified.
Similarly, if we were in a simulation, this, too, is untestable, as everything we could conceivably test would simply fall within the parameters of the simulation. Hence, again, evidence for falsification is an unjustified expectation.
Finally, as not all of the universe is even observable, the expectation for falsification of a claim of existence is unjustified because whereas the presentation of a single instance of the entity in question would falsify the claim of NONexistence, since the entity could potentially exist beyond the _observable_ universe, one cannot reasonably expect to falsify this claim (provided it isn't logically incoherent like a square circle or self-contradictory like a married bachelor).
@ if it were true the universe was created last Thursday or we existed in a simulation, those would be meaningless revelations. High brow philosophy and rhetorical tricks mean very very little to the majority of the world waking up and working a real job (as far as their perception) and spending real hours (they can perceive) earning money to feed a family (they perceive). You can, in fact, become so meta that you make useless platitudes.
I find those premises equally useless in that they can’t be tested or proven or verified and purely rely on blind faith to make them “real.” You’re literally just making the spaghetti monster meme, I can make infinite claims of supernatural hypotheses that are untestable, but what science is, is the testable definable realm of agreed human perception (ie the VAST majority of us recognize red as a color for being red, that wavelength of light has a meaning, thus an observation and thus is a scientific fact).
Beyond this, the claims of theological systems like those of Abraham SAY DIRECTLY that this god does interact with our universe, does influence us, is observing use. This new age addition you’re making of him being out of space and time is a recent addition in apologetics as they continually and slowly lose the battle of reason.
@@lukepoplawski3230
The point was to demonstrate that your blanket statement is obviously and demonstrably false. A logical and intellectually honest person should be able to recognize and acknowledge that rather than deflecting to some other irrelevant bullshit.
The answer is yes.
At least if you want a good reason to believe in a god or gods. Because just believing in a bunch of entirely unfalsifiable things without justification is a poor pathway to understanding reality.
Actually, that is false. Consider Bertrand Russell's "Last Thursdayism," or simulation theory, or even hypothetical existence of any noncontradictory and non-logically impossible entity.
We have no way to falsify the hypothesis that they universe didn't come into being last Thursday, along with our false memories about the past; and under this scenario, the expectation of contradictory evidence would be unjustified.
Similarly, if we were in a simulation, this, too, is untestable, as everything we could conceivably test would simply fall within the parameters of the simulation. Hence, again, evidence for falsification is an unjustified expectation.
Finally, as not all of the universe is even observable, the expectation for falsification of a claim of existence is unjustified because whereas the presentation of a single instance of the entity in question would falsify the claim of NONexistence, since the entity could potentially exist beyond the _observable_ universe, one cannot reasonably expect to falsify this claim (provided it isn't logically incoherent like a square circle or self-contradictory like a married bachelor).
To be honest I would recommend not debating your religion anymore. Your religion is based on and requires faith. Debates are based in logic and reason. These are polar opposites of each other. Even the analogy you give here of the cop on the side of the road isn't applicable because you are not using logic or reason. Trying to use your faith to make a logical statement would just be a waste of your time.
It must not be reasonable because you don't HAVE such evidence... So embarrassing...
It's not rational to expect falsifiable testable evidence for the existence of a fictional character.
Your response implies knowledge that it is a fictional character. Yet, I'd almost be willing to be you cling to "lack" of belief rather than committing to the belief in nonexistence.
@JustifiedNonetheless I don't commit to any belief. I commit to what actual evidence supports until superceding evidence comes along and then I commit to that. A total absence of evidence isn't worth serious consideration.
@@ScottByther
That still implies that you have evidence for the NONexistence of a deity (and no, absence of evidence still isn't evidence of absence) by which to declare a deity as a fictional character in the first place.
So, why hide behind a bullshit concept like "nonbelief." Why not have the balls to say, "you know what? I could be mistaken, but I think no such thing exists."
That would the the intellectually honest and non-cowardly response. Don't you think? It's not a knowledge claim, so it's not like you'd have to prove nonexistence. It's simply taking a stand and honestly stating what you *believe* to be the case.
But, no, atheists like you feel compelled to say, "I don't think a deity doesn't exist; I just 'lack' belief that one exists," which is a bullshit cop-out, as evidenced by your own actions and statements. Yes, you *do* believe in the nonexistence of the being in question. Otherwise, you would describe it as fictional. So, just admit it.
@@JustifiedNonetheless It doesn't imply anything of the kind. You're seeing something that isn't there because you want to. Shocking huh?
@ScottByther
You're so full of shit.
Premise 1) Belief informs willful action.
Premise 2) Characterizing something as "fictional" is a wilful action.
Conclusion: Therefore, characterizing something as "fictional" implies belief to that effect.
This is how logic actually works.
so, have your arguments crushed by Mr Dillahunty so try them again without him. Mmm... perhaps Magnifico Giganticus Dickus should have listened to what he was being told.
So, you're using Matt to get views. You don't even know enough about him to relate his publicly accessible views.
This is clickbait, bud.
Why don’t you go on The Line and present your mixed up ideas of what you think Matt did wrong and let him answer you? Make sure you use the name you have used here, when you phone him.
Pretty sure he did call into one of the shows last weekend, and he did an absolutely terrible job. Or at least someone with the name Magnifico or whatever called in.
@ I hope to find it, if it’s the same guy even. If it is, I wonder if it was after this video that he made, or just on his previous call in to Matt? He sure has a lot to say about Matt’s so called flawed thinking, when he’s the one that makes the logic errors and has fallacious thinking.
@@paddlefar9175 I'll see if I can find the show and I'll let you know when it aired if I get a chance today.
@@paddlefar9175 The Hangup on 1.1.25 Eve and Matt is when he called in.
@@shanewilson7994 👍👍
People have been asking Matt "what sort of evidence would you accept for God" for over two decades. He wasn't being "squirrely". I think possibly you just perceive it that way because you don't want to accept "I don't know" as an answer...? He said the same thing he always has for YEARS..."I don't know, but God should know"...which is a 100% fair answer. I have never once seen him flinch from answering the question, but sometimes he pauses to think about how he wants to word his answer. Nothing strange or squirrely about that, either. He doesn't need to give up on this idea, because it is simply NOT his problem to solve. It is God's problem, and ostensibly God's follower's problem - if they wish to take it on (which so many have tried and failed). Saying he should give up on this line of (sensible) thinking is like saying your infant child should give up on being fed because it doesn't know how to feed itself. Meanwhile you're standing behind one-way glass watching it starve. Just ludicrous on its face.
What does a "meaningful relationship with God" even mean? Relationships are a two way proposition, whether its with a person, an addiction, an instrument, whatever. Everything I've seen with any monotheistic modern god seems to be more like a stalker who's followers threaten you with hell if you masturbate or do some other thing he doesn't like. I've yet to see any sort of proof myself (even while I was a believer) that there is another being involved in a "relationship" other than people saying it is so.
"I don't know what would convince me" is the ultimate bullshit cop-out.
Premise 1: According to Popper's formulation of the principle of falsififiability, an assertion is falsifiable, if it is possible to conceive of a means by which it might be disconfirmed _in principle_ (whether it can be disconfirmed _in practice_ or not).
Premise 2: "I don't know what would change my mind" is an explicit statement that one cannot conceive of anything that would change one's mind with regard to a proposition.
Conclusion: Therefore, "I don't know what would change my mind" is a de facto concession that even if the _content_ of the proposition itself is falsifiable, one's _disposition_ toward the assertion is *not.*
In summary, because the principle of falsifiability it contingent upon the subject's capacity to _conceive of_ a means of disconfirmation, a proposition's _actual_ falsifiability is independent from any subject's _attitude_ toward its falsification; ie, it is possible for a proposition to be falsifiable (and indeed, even disconfirmed), yet the subject remain unconvinced of it--think of Flat Earthers, Holocaust deniers, and the like.
In the interest of reason and intellectual honesty, one is obliged to conceive of some means by which one's disposition might be disconfirmed *and* be willing to express those terms. Alternatively, if one _cannot_ do so, one ought explicitly express its unfalsifiability.
whether it's reasonable to expect falsifiable evidence for God depends on the specific concept of God being considered. for an interventionist God, there might be potential avenues for investigation. however, for other definitions, particularly those involving a transcendent or non-interventionist God, falsifiability is much more challenging.