WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

(post is archived)

[–] [Sticky] 0 pt

For anyone that prefers their videos without huge black bars or having the aspect ratio distorted, here is OP's video (original source) on jewtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-eHvyV0e0Q&t=1762s

OP's video ends around 31:33 on this jewtube version.

[–] 3 pts

This guy wants God to exist, so he's going to warp anything you say around to fit his own narrative, and he's just smart enough to sound like he knows what he's talking about while also making false equivalencies and pretentious arguments.

This is like the guy telling you not to talk on your phone while it's charging because his tester goes off, confident as fuck that he's just shown you proof of harmful electric radiation flowing through your body, without himself understanding what the tester is actually measuring.

[–] [deleted] 0 pt (edited )

This is no different that Thomas Aquinas's argument for the existence of god. He basically says, think of a being that none greater can be conceived.

It starts the debate from the perspective of god exists whether you believe it or not. If you can, you've proven his thesis. If you can't you are a liar.

Also that tactic this speaker uses, is the speak faster than the opposition so they can't comprehend everything debate method. You notice he speaks normal until he start with his thesis and he speeds up his speech dramatically.

Its not uncommon. Look up videos of high school or college debate teams. The whole premise is to speak very fast interject some facts with some jibberish so when its the opposition teams time to rebut, they will lose points because they will not have rebutted everyone of their points. They win because they practice at speaking super super fast, not because they are good debaters. Debaters do it to confuse their opponents and also do it within a time limit. This guy has no time limit so his only motivation for doing so is to confuse his audience.

If god is a absolute matter of fact and can be proven, why resort to such tactics? Why wouldn't he speak so everyone can follow and everyone can understand. Why cut the video off after he finishes so it seems like no one had a response. Of course no one had a response, cause they cut if off immediately after he said it.

I'm not an atheist but resorting to tricks and tactics to prove a point is superfluous. It destroys the ability to have a dialogue.

[–] 0 pt

Anyone who claims that what they believe is true because it exists outside the realm of measurement, cannot be proven false, and thus must be accepted as truth is an intellectually dishonest brainlet at best.

I've always seen through tactics like this, and the fast talking pseudo-intellectual fallacies, etc.

It aggravates me that other people don't readily recognize bullshit when it's in front of them.

[–] 0 pt

Why can’t there be some sort of concession between the two? What’s to say that God didn’t grant us these brains precisely for us to have these debates and doubts?

My philosophy is that I’d like to think there’s a God, although I can’t prove it, and I appreciate what mankind has been able to achieve through our use of reason and logic.

Science doesn’t have to be at odds with religion - both are tools to be used towards discovering the truth.

[–] 0 pt

Science asks people to observe reality and test theories for accuracy, abandoning views that cannot hold up to testing, and building a world based on what is proven to be real and what works. Science that has not been corrupted by political agendas is the pursuit of objective truth and the advancement of real knowledge.

Religion asks people to accept things as being true without any evidence, ability, or desire to test these beliefs, leading people to the inevitable outcome of believing things that aren't true because it feels better than admitting something they want to believe is false, which in turn creates huge portions of the population who are operating based on self-righteous falsehoods, and developing a pattern of behavior that doesn't push them toward critical thinking.

Religion and science are most definitely at odds. Science puts human beings in outer space, religion puts them on a burning pyre for noticing truths that threaten religious narratives and weaken their claims to absolute authority which are based on mythological lies.

[–] 0 pt

I need you to imagine a thick Indian or Paki accent here: "Using a cell phone while charging is extremely dangerous. Observe as I use this small child to demonstrate the harmful effects." That video had me rolling.

Seriously though, this is the age old problem with the faithful- confirmation bias. They need god to exist, so they enter any "testing" or philosophizing with their minds already made up. Any data gathered will be twisted to fit into their narrative- that god exists. "You can't see, measure, touch, hear, etc. God, therefore he does not exist" would be a theory put forth.

This guy would "debunk" that theory by saying "Yes, it's true that God cannot be observed in any way, and that proves that he exists outside of our reality." Man, what?! That's insulting to me. Leprechauns exist, too- just outside of our reality.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

I grew up around highly religious people, I learned very early in life that they aren't capable of considering the world through anything other than a religiously-based subjective lens, and they assume that their way of thinking is the way everyone else thinks.

Another user here is convinced that everyone is religious whether they believe they are or not, because she herself thinks that way and can't fathom that other people are not like her. She thinks she understands how everyone else thinks more than they understand themselves, because she's projecting how she thinks onto other people as if her own mindset is just default human consciousness. She is absolutely sure that you are religious, even if you aren't, because "everyone is religious even if they don't know it."

The stupidity is indescribable.

[–] 2 pts

So many fallacies

[–] 2 pts

Noumenal entities are beyond the scope of science. That's why it's called metaphysics: it's the stuff beyond the purview of normal physics and sciences. If you try to use maths to prove the existence of the form of the Good (presuming you're into Platonic forms), you're going to have a bad time.

Also: matter has more than three states; time does not necessarily have objective existence, though the causal chain is almost certainly real; and Flatland pretty clearly demonstrated that space may consist of more dimensions than we are capable of perceiving.

[–] 3 pts

If I say there is an invisible elf that resides on my head, and that he commands the weather in North America, you cannot disprove it. It is beyond the scope of science. That does not make it real, or true.

[–] 2 pts

Russell's Teapot.

Science is ultimately using empirical data to demonstrate physical laws. Noumenal entities by definition are outside the scope of empiricism, and thereby not under the purview of science.

That doesn't make the discussion pointless, nor does it mean you should automatically believe in someone telling you about their invisible flour-permeable dragon. It just means that empiricism isn't a useful tool, and by extension, that science can't answer those kinds of questions. Nor should it try to.

[–] 1 pt

There's a corollary, though. Things that are outside of empiricism cannot have any effect upon the world that we inhabit, by definition. If they affected the physical world they could not be outside of empiricism. Although perhaps entertaining to contemplate the infinite possibilities, the existence or non-existence of anything outside of empiricism, having no ability to affect our world, is irrelevant.

[–] 1 pt

Could someone let this guy know that “matter” is all one word please.

[–] 1 pt

The trinity parallel is really clever. It doesn't mean anything, of course, but it definitely is a lightbulb moment.

Adults believing in things that do not exist is called a mental illness. Be it God or Santa Claus it doesn't make any difference, you're still off your nut.

[–] 1 pt

Which does coincide with bing bang theroy.

However why create 1? Im sure there are millions...

[–] 2 pts

The Hindu think you reincarnate every life on earth, growing yourself into a god with every passing life you live. And that god is one of many, and the universe we find ourselves in is just the incubator.

With religion, I'm at a loss, so many conflicts. I think moreover we've a collection of stories of our missing past used against us.

[–] 1 pt

Religion like science is man using their best available methods at the time to understand the universe around them to the best of their abilities. Religion is less adaptable than science however science has become just as dogmatic.

[–] 1 pt

Yes, however I don't think it's science that has become dogmatic, its the people performing the 'science', ignoring evidence as it stares them in the face, to fit their narrative.

[–] 0 pt

Today many people believe all religions are equal and that all religions are just different paths or interpretations of God. This is false though. There is only one true religion. All religions are not equal. They all contradict each other. Hence why there are different religions in the first place.

[–] 1 pt

I have been an atheist all my life, but recently I've been having some unexplainable "spiritual" experiences and now I'm not so sure. There is definitely more to this world than meets the physical senses.

[–] 0 pt

What age-range are you hitting? Don't dox your age.

I'm just curious because I am feeling a desire to believe as I get older. I just can't shut off that rational part of my brain and accept faith fully. Having faith in any religion is ultimately having faith in man, because man wrote all of the various scriptures.

I do not trust King James anymore than I trust any of the alleged original writers of the pieces of the Bible. Why should I? They are not my people.

Perhaps my wanting to believe is more like a desire for the community that religious people are supposed to share. It feels good to be a part of something, and feel like you have a greater purpose.

[–] 0 pt

I don't feel like I have a greater purpose per-say. I just know I am part and parcel of the Lord. I am in my 30's. Starting from my mid-20's, I had a few near death experiences in which I felt the presence of the divine and it changed my whole life which is why I started to change my mind about the existence of God. I've had strange unexplainable experiences all throughout my life, but I always chocked it up to some kind of natural phenomenon I just don't know how to explain. I always thought there must be some kind of logical scientific explanation, I just don't know what, so I never gave it much thought. It wasn't until I went through some harrowing experiences that I changed my outlook on everything. It really put things into perspective about what is important.

The KJB is a Masonic gematria codex. It is not the word of God. Christianity is a slave religion, a religion for slaves, which imparts a slave morality. Elites aren't Christians. Notice how elites claim to be Christians or Jews, but in reality they worship the Old Ones. The important thing to understand is Christianity is the State religion of the Roman Empire designed to trick people into being obedient to the State. It's essentially Jewish-Roman-Paganism, except it's monotheistic. I have read and studied a lot of history and the occult, so there's no way I will just believe in Christianity, specifically Catholicism. If Catholicism was a holy religion, then they wouldn't have tried to kill everyone with even a slightly different interpretation. Catholicism is a government program.

I believe the Bhagavad-gita more than the KJB. I took a vedic studies class at a vedic tample taught by monks and learned sadacara. It is essentially the same as the teachings of Christ. The problem with the KJB is it speaks in allegories, metaphors, and symbols that are not always easy to understand right away. It's not always clear what it means. This is because the KJB is gematria and one must join a Lodge or Mystery Cult/Secret Society and become initiated into the different Masonic degrees to decode the meanings in the Bible (or spend a huge amount of time studying history, theology, mythology, and the occult to understand the underlying meanings. You can read an original Greek translation or a Gnostic text, then it is clearer.

The Bhagavad-gita (english translation), on the other hand, states things very plainly. There is no a mystery or any confusion about what is being said. The original sanskrit is complex (meaning there are multiple layers to a single passage, but in English, we don't get into those layers. Sanskrit, by the way, has resonate properties in the language which raises your vibrations when you speak it. Even reading Puranas and Vedas in Sanskrit, even if you don't know what they mean, has therapeutic properties.

You cannot prove God with science. They are not in the same realm. For me personally, it's not like here is some religion with a bunch of rules and I have to make a gamble and just choose to follow it and hope it's real and hope I'm right, and just trust it with no proof, AKA faith. No, I've had experiences which prove to me there is more than meets the eye. The question is what is it, how do you go about learning what it is, and how do you worship it, or guard against it? Religious texts can help with that, but also so can shamanism. You can hear it from the horse's mouth so to speak.

[–] 1 pt

His explanation is a little hokey, but it is consonant with a description of CTMU.

[–] 1 pt

The universe itself is beyond time and space. It does not have a creator, it simply is.

Isn't the universe defined by it's space, time, and matter?

[–] 0 pt

Space, time, and matter are how we perceive the universe, not the universe itself.

So you are saying there is existence outside space, time and matter?

[–] 1 pt

Kent Hovind is great. ADHD as fuck, like I am so I can follow along. He connects so many dots that things become undeniable. I recommend that, if you want to understand, listen.

Load more (2 replies)