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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(post is archived)