And this train wreck is exactly where the presup argument leads - abject nonsense and self-contradiction. What was refreshing was that it was respectful and amicable. Certainly worth watching.
I have watched only a third of this video and I have facepalmed myself from the absurd and nonsesical line of thinking these two guys have expoused to the point I've given myself a nosebleed. Can't wait for the rest of this, I'll just have to sit on my hands.
I'm playing a drinking game with this video where I drink every time these Christians say something nonsensical, I'm an hour in and I've been hospitalized twice.
The answer to any question about god is both "yes" and "no" -- complete logical contradictions. That's the great thing about god, he can do/be anything at anytime at the convenience of his minions. Believers are under a spell that they don't have the courage or intellectual honesty to reason themselves away from. They believe what they want to believe, irrespective of the reality that the belief is senseless and self-refuting.
Dont David and Joe understand that it really should NOT be this complicated. That's the whole point of this. Belief in a deity should not have to go through all these hoops to understand it on a basic level.
Someone help me understand this: If the events of Adam and the Garden of Eden specifically foreshadow Jesus' coming, wouldn't that mean the fall of man was apart of God's plan? If there's anything in the Bible that can be said to most definitely be apart of the grand plan it's that Jesus would come as a savior. Without the Fall, Jesus is irrelevant, isn't he? Doesn't that mean God planned on our fall all along?
The way we confer knowledge is with our peers. Like how scientist peer review papers. And I hate how the presuppositions of the apologists say that since they know god, god can reveal stuff to them. So that means no thought is original and that god just funnels them into humans? In any case, the secular way of verifying knowledge is through peer consensus through empirical evidence and experiments. Not conferring to a higher power for some kind of justification.
Even if Morality is indivisible God himself: the bible annotating that such morality is perfect says nothing on the content of the morality. For all we know the god-morality is not* the most moral, but still perfect. Defining it or god as perfect is not justifying it, just asserting it.
If there is no whiteboard with Venn diagrams, I refuse to watch this. P.S. clean out the air ducts on your PC with compressed air it should help with the temp problems.
Does any type of qualifier that is applicable to a group imply that they have some kind of unified world view? Do right handed people have a different world view than left handed people? At some point you have to be able to discern the limitations of a qualifier and not reach beyond it's meaning. That's the biggest problem I see in debates like this, is trying to group Atheists as a single entity with a unified 'world view'. The limitations of atheism, and fsx23 pointed that out very early on, is that they lack the belief in a god. That's it. Pushing it further and bringing in morality is fallacious as Atheism has nothing to do with morality... But that's apparently extremely hard to grasp. Just like the fact you can be an Agnostic Atheist. People need to stick to the actual definitions of the words and not use any implied associations to it.
David and Joe, really? You act as if "Solemn Will" and "Sovereign Will" are as common a term in Christianity as "Jesus" and "Mary". I lived most of my life as a believer, and no one uses these terms. Only apologists who want to skirt issues. I wonder if they went to any 20 churches on a Sunday, would they ever hear anyone use those terms? Same with "god IS morality", never heard that one either.
just turn that stupid "always ask why" on them for a second with questions like "why would anyone want to believe in god?" and then ask why on their answer ad infinitum. Maybe then they can see how stupid it is. Also their "god makes morality objective blah blah" is kind blown out of the water by the fact that christians can't agree on moral issues at all.
If something is axiomatic you don't need proof for it. If you don't believe me look up the definition of the word. I think the theists didn't understand what axiomatic means, since Joe I believe (red cap) said "yes I agree existence is axiomatic." Fail.
More embarrassment for us Christians. Sorry guys, but your arguments are awful. You haven't even grasped what knowledge of good and evil means and why eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil changed everything, according to Genesis.
You should request a debate or just a discussion with the uploader. Just a friendly discourse. I'd be interested in hearing why you think these guys failed and how you'd better explain.
My perspective is that Christianity is based on faith, not arguments, not objective evidence, but faith. I honestly acknowledge that while I may have my own personal experience that is enough evidence for me to accept God, that personal experience is, by definition, subjective. I can experience the sweetness if I put a spoonful of sugar in my mouth, but you can't - the sugar is in my mouth therefore I can only tell you about the sweetness. You'd need to have your own spoonful of sugar in your mouth to experience the sweetness.
Fiona Robertson I respect that. Though, I am curious. For something as grand as the idea of God, an afterlife, possible torment, and everything else that is associated with the question of whether or not the Christian God exists, is faith really enough? Should it be enough? Hindus, Muslims, etc etc attest to their own personal experiences. Everyone has tasted a spoonful of sugar, but none can say whether or not what they're tasting is an artificial sweetener or 100% cane sugar.
And this train wreck is exactly where the presup argument leads - abject nonsense and self-contradiction. What was refreshing was that it was respectful and amicable. Certainly worth watching.
I have watched only a third of this video and I have facepalmed myself from the absurd and nonsesical line of thinking these two guys have expoused to the point I've given myself a nosebleed. Can't wait for the rest of this, I'll just have to sit on my hands.
David and Joe just memorize Sye's script and regurgitate it for these "debates". This is really pathetic.
That guy looks like Matt Dillahunty. BTW this was amazing. Great PWNage
Paradox is a nice word for contradiction.
Wait this debate, I think I have seen it already. I'm having deja vu when was recorded?
I'm reasonably certain that the one on the left co-starred on _My Name is Earl_
God wants 'Big Kahuna Burger'
I'm playing a drinking game with this video where I drink every time these Christians say something nonsensical, I'm an hour in and I've been hospitalized twice.
States we cannot comprehend the mind of God, proceeds to explain the mind of God.
The answer to any question about god is both "yes" and "no" -- complete logical contradictions. That's the great thing about god, he can do/be anything at anytime at the convenience of his minions.
Believers are under a spell that they don't have the courage or intellectual honesty to reason themselves away from. They believe what they want to believe, irrespective of the reality that the belief is senseless and self-refuting.
Dont David and Joe understand that it really should NOT be this complicated.
That's the whole point of this. Belief in a deity should not have to go through all these hoops to understand it on a basic level.
Their morality argument is ridiculous, you can can be an atheist and a humanist, plenty of moral base there.
Someone help me understand this: If the events of Adam and the Garden of Eden specifically foreshadow Jesus' coming, wouldn't that mean the fall of man was apart of God's plan? If there's anything in the Bible that can be said to most definitely be apart of the grand plan it's that Jesus would come as a savior. Without the Fall, Jesus is irrelevant, isn't he? Doesn't that mean God planned on our fall all along?
Why would we want to survive? What?
The way we confer knowledge is with our peers. Like how scientist peer review papers. And I hate how the presuppositions of the apologists say that since they know god, god can reveal stuff to them. So that means no thought is original and that god just funnels them into humans? In any case, the secular way of verifying knowledge is through peer consensus through empirical evidence and experiments. Not conferring to a higher power for some kind of justification.
Those two are numptys, can't give a coherent answer to any of Alex's questions.
Even if Morality is indivisible God himself: the bible annotating that such morality is perfect says nothing on the content of the morality. For all we know the god-morality is not* the most moral, but still perfect.
Defining it or god as perfect is not justifying it, just asserting it.
If there is no whiteboard with Venn diagrams, I refuse to watch this.
P.S. clean out the air ducts on your PC with compressed air it should help with the temp problems.
how about a spelling bee?..
is that comprehendible?
Does any type of qualifier that is applicable to a group imply that they have some kind of unified world view? Do right handed people have a different world view than left handed people? At some point you have to be able to discern the limitations of a qualifier and not reach beyond it's meaning. That's the biggest problem I see in debates like this, is trying to group Atheists as a single entity with a unified 'world view'. The limitations of atheism, and fsx23 pointed that out very early on, is that they lack the belief in a god. That's it. Pushing it further and bringing in morality is fallacious as Atheism has nothing to do with morality... But that's apparently extremely hard to grasp. Just like the fact you can be an Agnostic Atheist. People need to stick to the actual definitions of the words and not use any implied associations to it.
David and Joe, really? You act as if "Solemn Will" and "Sovereign Will" are as common a term in Christianity as "Jesus" and "Mary". I lived most of my life as a believer, and no one uses these terms. Only apologists who want to skirt issues.
I wonder if they went to any 20 churches on a Sunday, would they ever hear anyone use those terms?
Same with "god IS morality", never heard that one either.
God has many wills and they don't talk to each other. Interesting. lol
Atheism is only one thing: a denial of a deity; however, secular humanism is my worldview or lifestyle choice
just turn that stupid "always ask why" on them for a second with questions like "why would anyone want to believe in god?" and then ask why on their answer ad infinitum. Maybe then they can see how stupid it is.
Also their "god makes morality objective blah blah" is kind blown out of the water by the fact that christians can't agree on moral issues at all.
Fun Drinking Game? Take a drink every time those two guys refer to God's Moral and Sovereign Will. Good Luck!
~36:15 defensive religious mode engaged. Shift that burden of proof when you feel cornered. lol
If something is axiomatic you don't need proof for it. If you don't believe me look up the definition of the word. I think the theists didn't understand what axiomatic means, since Joe I believe (red cap) said "yes I agree existence is axiomatic." Fail.
More embarrassment for us Christians. Sorry guys, but your arguments are awful. You haven't even grasped what knowledge of good and evil means and why eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil changed everything, according to Genesis.
You should request a debate or just a discussion with the uploader. Just a friendly discourse. I'd be interested in hearing why you think these guys failed and how you'd better explain.
Rom Any I certainly wouldn't be using the presup nonsense.
and I applaud you for it. I have respect for anyone that can bring an original argument/perspective.
My perspective is that Christianity is based on faith, not arguments, not objective evidence, but faith. I honestly acknowledge that while I may have my own personal experience that is enough evidence for me to accept God, that personal experience is, by definition, subjective. I can experience the sweetness if I put a spoonful of sugar in my mouth, but you can't - the sugar is in my mouth therefore I can only tell you about the sweetness. You'd need to have your own spoonful of sugar in your mouth to experience the sweetness.
Fiona Robertson I respect that. Though, I am curious. For something as grand as the idea of God, an afterlife, possible torment, and everything else that is associated with the question of whether or not the Christian God exists, is faith really enough? Should it be enough? Hindus, Muslims, etc etc attest to their own personal experiences. Everyone has tasted a spoonful of sugar, but none can say whether or not what they're tasting is an artificial sweetener or 100% cane sugar.
I just realized that those Sye parrots are gays.