Saw the longer version. Those are needed for addressing the myriad misrepresentations and strawmen being asserted. Shorter versions are good for refuting points which may seem casually compelling but lack any pointed insight. I’d like to see even shorter edits which break down the fundamental arguments in terms that demonstrate how they’re self-refuting, especially with such popular, yet pedestrian presentations as we see from MarkTv. There are fundamental faulty components to all those arguments… and after presenting a few of them, the fundamental components of some arguments violate the components of others. It’s even easier when the arguments are so heavily based on similar principles, like temporality and causality. From the beginning, it’s the old “everything cannot come from nothing” presentation. Fundamentally, it’s “A cannot come from not A.” Sure, this makes perfect sense…ONLY we’re talking about existence, since nonexistence literally does not exist. You cannot proceed FROM a nonexistent situation… that eliminates the existence of a FROM. The violation comes when asserting that everything came from a God. “A comes from B.” All you have to do is ask “is B equal to not A?” An affirmative answer logically entails that A comes from not A, which violates the fundamental component of the argument. God is his solution to the problem and God violates the principle on which the problem is a problem. It’s up to MarkTv to either continue to be logically impossible, or to abandon this argument on the demonstrated principle: “IF A and B exist, and A does not equal B, A CAN come from B.” “A can come from not A.” This explanation is unnecessary to show the fundamental wrongness of MarkTv, as he moves on to the “life comes from life” shtick. “A comes from A.” On the surface, this is consistent with “A cannot come from not A” The context, however, is biological life, and unless MarkTv thinks that God is a biological organism, he knows that “A comes from not A.” This violates the fundamental component of both of these arguments. You can also ask”Does God come from God?” An affirmative answer demands that God is literally circular… and therefore ALL circular reasoning, including the whole of mutually exclusive examples of circular reasoning, is valid… or that God is literally not God. and therefore ALL reasoning, including contradictory reasoning, is valid. God is his solution to the problem and God violates the principle on which the problem is a problem. It’s up to MarkTv to either continue to falsify his own principles or to abandon them. At this point I don’t think it needs to be said that he’s already violated “consciousness comes from consciousness” or “A comes from A” multiple times. If he’d just once thought about his assertions in any fundamental way… he’d have recognized that it’s BS that even he shouldn’t believe. God is his solution to the problem and God violates the principle on which the problem is a problem. Without succumbing to my urge to disparage against people who repeat commonly espoused principles without applying critical thinking… it’s always bad reasoning to infer a principle which is falsifiable in reality. Fire sometimes comes from non-fire AND sometimes comes from fire. There’s not a problem to be solved if you accept reality. “A can come from A” AND “A can come from not A.” If you’re unbiased rather than biased, you won’t make an inference without a reliable understanding of the mechanisms which provide evidence for the reliability of the inference. You’ll KNOW that you’re wrong to make the inference . And THAT is the easily exploitable error that virtually ALL apologists make. They mistake an inference with a conclusion. I’ll tell you if I know I’m wrong. I’m wrong to infer that no gods exist. I don’t have the information to conclude that, but I still make the inference. It’s a bias I have, yet I don’t pretend my inference is a conclusion. All any theist has ever had to do is provide good evidence that the inference itself is wrong… that ANY god, EVER did ANYTHING… and I’ll become a theist: Until then, I’ll gladly say that I casually know no gods exist in the same way that I know that it’s a bad idea to walk across a busy road without looking. Crossing that busy road just might work out for me… I might be wrong about that. Are apologists willing to make the same concession?
I missed the longer version. 🤦🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️ but I can watch this now and the longer version later.
I watched the longer version, and while I liked both I liked the longer better.
Thank you for this feedback! I appreciate it!
Well done
Thank you
Atheism makes no sense if I strawman the heck out of it!
Saw the longer version. Those are needed for addressing the myriad misrepresentations and strawmen being asserted.
Shorter versions are good for refuting points which may seem casually compelling but lack any pointed insight.
I’d like to see even shorter edits which break down the fundamental arguments in terms that demonstrate how they’re self-refuting, especially with such popular, yet pedestrian presentations as we see from MarkTv.
There are fundamental faulty components to all those arguments… and after presenting a few of them, the fundamental components of some arguments violate the components of others. It’s even easier when the arguments are so heavily based on similar principles, like temporality and causality.
From the beginning, it’s the old “everything cannot come from nothing” presentation. Fundamentally, it’s “A cannot come from not A.”
Sure, this makes perfect sense…ONLY we’re talking about existence, since nonexistence literally does not exist. You cannot proceed FROM a nonexistent situation… that eliminates the existence of a FROM.
The violation comes when asserting that everything came from a God. “A comes from B.” All you have to do is ask “is B equal to not A?” An affirmative answer logically entails that A comes from not A, which violates the fundamental component of the argument. God is his solution to the problem and God violates the principle on which the problem is a problem.
It’s up to MarkTv to either continue to be logically impossible, or to abandon this argument on the demonstrated principle: “IF A and B exist, and A does not equal B, A CAN come from B.” “A can come from not A.”
This explanation is unnecessary to show the fundamental wrongness of MarkTv, as he moves on to the “life comes from life” shtick. “A comes from A.” On the surface, this is consistent with “A cannot come from not A” The context, however, is biological life, and unless MarkTv thinks that God is a biological organism, he knows that “A comes from not A.”
This violates the fundamental component of both of these arguments.
You can also ask”Does God come from God?” An affirmative answer demands that God is literally circular… and therefore ALL circular reasoning, including the whole of mutually exclusive examples of circular reasoning, is valid… or that God is literally not God. and therefore ALL reasoning, including contradictory reasoning, is valid.
God is his solution to the problem and God violates the principle on which the problem is a problem.
It’s up to MarkTv to either continue to falsify his own principles or to abandon them.
At this point I don’t think it needs to be said that he’s already violated “consciousness comes from consciousness” or “A comes from A” multiple times. If he’d just once thought about his assertions in any fundamental way… he’d have recognized that it’s BS that even he shouldn’t believe. God is his solution to the problem and God violates the principle on which the problem is a problem.
Without succumbing to my urge to disparage against people who repeat commonly espoused principles without applying critical thinking… it’s always bad reasoning to infer a principle which is falsifiable in reality.
Fire sometimes comes from non-fire AND sometimes comes from fire. There’s not a problem to be solved if you accept reality. “A can come from A” AND “A can come from not A.” If you’re unbiased rather than biased, you won’t make an inference without a reliable understanding of the mechanisms which provide evidence for the reliability of the inference. You’ll KNOW that you’re wrong to make the inference . And THAT is the easily exploitable error that virtually ALL apologists make. They mistake an inference with a conclusion.
I’ll tell you if I know I’m wrong. I’m wrong to infer that no gods exist. I don’t have the information to conclude that, but I still make the inference. It’s a bias I have, yet I don’t pretend my inference is a conclusion. All any theist has ever had to do is provide good evidence that the inference itself is wrong… that ANY god, EVER did ANYTHING… and I’ll become a theist:
Until then, I’ll gladly say that I casually know no gods exist in the same way that I know that it’s a bad idea to walk across a busy road without looking.
Crossing that busy road just might work out for me… I might be wrong about that. Are apologists willing to make the same concession?
I find myself agreeing with you here.
I must say, I really enjoyed the "fire comes from non-fire" statement. I may have to use it.
yeah,
that was just bad.
not so much misrepresenting, as DYS representing
Go back to school
Considering I'm a teacher, I would suspect I am going to school plenty.
Though I have been considering getting 4th college degree.