I
watched the video and we could banter back and forth as to whether or
not God has already settled the burden of proof for his own existence.
That is useless and pointless, because it will always boil down to
empirical data for an atheist, though and atheist does not have empirical data for how life began or what caused the Big Bang. And since I cannot produce that we will just go back
and forth, I saying the burden of proof has been met, you saying it has
not.
But I disagree with your guy in the video because if the only goal is to win a debate or prove someone wrong or less capable of coherently defending a position it does not help mankind to understand anything. Until a proposition that is useful and helpful is presented all you are doing is making yourself feel good if you can beat someone in a debate. And I concede that even if I could best your wits in a debate I do not desire to beat you. You win. My goal has been and always will be to get people to think.
At roughly 5 minutes into the video your guy says that B undoes all of A’s arguments proving that his arguments are not good enough to defend his position in God. If B bests A does that make B's position true? Or does that just make B smarter than A?
Your video states that if just one disagrees with a position the position itself cannot be defended by saying it is self-evident. But you have done this with social constructs. Not everyone agrees with the ones in place. Nor will everyone ever agree. Does this prove that social constructs have no value as you claim that just one not believing in God means that God cannot be self evident? What if the individual who does not believe in God is just blind to what most everyone else sees?
But if we want to be genuine and find out why social constructs mean anything or why we call things good or evil etc… we need to be more sincere.
As you have not been willing to state what you believe I have to assume you are an atheist. And I feel I have been more willing to accept what an atheist might think and give them credit for rational thought then you are willing to give a theist. I feel this way because I am willing to accept that you too believe something and can rationally defend it as I can. But you are unwilling to give that something a name.
Since an atheist likes to go around saying they do not have the burden of proof because they do not claim God they put themselves in a nice little package of not having to defend a position at all. But an atheist has to acknowledge something higher than self. What I mean by this is that the atheist is not the creator of himself. Whatever allowed for our creation must be higher than us. For without this things permission we would not be here in the first place. This thing can be intelligent, all knowing, or intelligent, somewhat knowing, or intelligent, less knowing then we are today. But this thing still is or was.
Just as a computer program may evolve to one day find no use for humans it does not negate the fact that humans are the reason why it exists. Something before us is the reason for our existence and we owe are life and capabilities to that something. An atheist cannot get around that fact!
So the only way to pursue this conversation honestly is to give the atheist something positive to affirm. I call the something that gave us life God. Since I cannot get you to call the something that gave us life anything, with your permission I would like to give the atheist Ohy as the something. Let us from now on in our conversations call whatever you believe Ohy. Now you have just as ambiguous a term to defend as I do. Unless, of course, you do not acknowledge that we owe are existence to something other than ourselves. But if you do acknowledge that and prefer the name of whatever that is to be something other than Ohy please tell me that name and we can use it instead.
Did Ohy have a purpose in creating us? Did we become more intelligent than Ohy? If so, when? Did Ohy want us to be moral and work together? Did, does Ohy have an agenda? Or did Ohy just put us out there and determine to let us figure it all out for ourselves? Why did Ohy give us science? Why did Ohy allow us to think religion was so important for so long? Why does the skeptic think he/she does not need to defend Ohy? Because if the skeptic says Ohy does not exist, what then does, what put as here? Why does the skeptic not defend that thing (which I hope we can just call Ohy)?
What is more, the video says that when we choose to make a claim in a debate….
I never made a claim beyond the fact that religion and science are both tools that can be used and that faith and reason are things that everyone uses. You desired to see if I believed in a God and I said I did. But I do not desire to defend my God to you if you do not desire to defend your Ohy to me. My goal is not to get you to believe like me… my only goal is to get people to think. You obviously do think and have come to a different conclusion and are either happy not knowing who put us here and why they put us here or, too scared to really try to figure out the answer. Or because you are not sure and do not believe in the supernatural have come to the conclusion we cannot know. But this is not true just because you say it is and it definitely is not true just because you are more educated and better at debating than me. Or you are disingenuous because you have already come to a conclusion but are unwilling to place yourself in the same position you asked me to walk into.
As we have both agreed that religion and science are tools and that faith and reason are used by all we have nothing more to debate unless you too are willing to make a positive claim of your belief in Ohy. And that Ohy as a beginner of all things or at least some things makes more sense than God.
But I disagree with your guy in the video because if the only goal is to win a debate or prove someone wrong or less capable of coherently defending a position it does not help mankind to understand anything. Until a proposition that is useful and helpful is presented all you are doing is making yourself feel good if you can beat someone in a debate. And I concede that even if I could best your wits in a debate I do not desire to beat you. You win. My goal has been and always will be to get people to think.
At roughly 5 minutes into the video your guy says that B undoes all of A’s arguments proving that his arguments are not good enough to defend his position in God. If B bests A does that make B's position true? Or does that just make B smarter than A?
Your video states that if just one disagrees with a position the position itself cannot be defended by saying it is self-evident. But you have done this with social constructs. Not everyone agrees with the ones in place. Nor will everyone ever agree. Does this prove that social constructs have no value as you claim that just one not believing in God means that God cannot be self evident? What if the individual who does not believe in God is just blind to what most everyone else sees?
But if we want to be genuine and find out why social constructs mean anything or why we call things good or evil etc… we need to be more sincere.
As you have not been willing to state what you believe I have to assume you are an atheist. And I feel I have been more willing to accept what an atheist might think and give them credit for rational thought then you are willing to give a theist. I feel this way because I am willing to accept that you too believe something and can rationally defend it as I can. But you are unwilling to give that something a name.
Since an atheist likes to go around saying they do not have the burden of proof because they do not claim God they put themselves in a nice little package of not having to defend a position at all. But an atheist has to acknowledge something higher than self. What I mean by this is that the atheist is not the creator of himself. Whatever allowed for our creation must be higher than us. For without this things permission we would not be here in the first place. This thing can be intelligent, all knowing, or intelligent, somewhat knowing, or intelligent, less knowing then we are today. But this thing still is or was.
Just as a computer program may evolve to one day find no use for humans it does not negate the fact that humans are the reason why it exists. Something before us is the reason for our existence and we owe are life and capabilities to that something. An atheist cannot get around that fact!
So the only way to pursue this conversation honestly is to give the atheist something positive to affirm. I call the something that gave us life God. Since I cannot get you to call the something that gave us life anything, with your permission I would like to give the atheist Ohy as the something. Let us from now on in our conversations call whatever you believe Ohy. Now you have just as ambiguous a term to defend as I do. Unless, of course, you do not acknowledge that we owe are existence to something other than ourselves. But if you do acknowledge that and prefer the name of whatever that is to be something other than Ohy please tell me that name and we can use it instead.
Did Ohy have a purpose in creating us? Did we become more intelligent than Ohy? If so, when? Did Ohy want us to be moral and work together? Did, does Ohy have an agenda? Or did Ohy just put us out there and determine to let us figure it all out for ourselves? Why did Ohy give us science? Why did Ohy allow us to think religion was so important for so long? Why does the skeptic think he/she does not need to defend Ohy? Because if the skeptic says Ohy does not exist, what then does, what put as here? Why does the skeptic not defend that thing (which I hope we can just call Ohy)?
What is more, the video says that when we choose to make a claim in a debate….
I never made a claim beyond the fact that religion and science are both tools that can be used and that faith and reason are things that everyone uses. You desired to see if I believed in a God and I said I did. But I do not desire to defend my God to you if you do not desire to defend your Ohy to me. My goal is not to get you to believe like me… my only goal is to get people to think. You obviously do think and have come to a different conclusion and are either happy not knowing who put us here and why they put us here or, too scared to really try to figure out the answer. Or because you are not sure and do not believe in the supernatural have come to the conclusion we cannot know. But this is not true just because you say it is and it definitely is not true just because you are more educated and better at debating than me. Or you are disingenuous because you have already come to a conclusion but are unwilling to place yourself in the same position you asked me to walk into.
As we have both agreed that religion and science are tools and that faith and reason are used by all we have nothing more to debate unless you too are willing to make a positive claim of your belief in Ohy. And that Ohy as a beginner of all things or at least some things makes more sense than God.
No comments:
Post a Comment