ForumsWEPRThis is the last thing

37 4325
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

I just want to show one video to explain what I've been trying to say. please watch some, if not all of it. Just give it a chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

  • 37 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

I just want to show one video to explain what I've been trying to say.


We're quite aware of what you've been trying to say.

please watch some, if not all of it. Just give it a chance.


It's two hours long. Either pick out some bits that you feel are important so we can determine whether it's worth watching more, or I'm just going to not even try because I don't want to spend 2 hours listening to a jumble of logical fallacies and old hat arguments.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

I wonder why you seem to accept scientific things only when they seem to vaguely agree with your beliefs.

Oh, and take the discussion here instead.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

*Note that I am still going to take a look at it, but it will be in random jumps and listening for a minute to see if they're saying anything. I can't guarantee I'll hear anything you consider important.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Okay, just skipped through bits. Found a bunch of flawed arguments/logical fallacies (fine tuned universe + spontaneous generation disproved = life had to come from God + arguments from incredulity + begging the question + "everyone already knows God exists&quot

I'm not going to bother with more.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

I would like to take the time to deconstruct the entire things and give you my feed back on it. Unfortunately given it's two hours and I would have to take at least that much time to give it proper feedback, I simply don't have that time to spend right now.

I could maybe do it in chunks instead of all at once. I would like to give what you're trying to get across the proper chance, even if it's something I have heard before.

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,917 posts
21,160

Usually when we post links for people like you to read, they don't. I'm not gonna watch a two hours video if you're not going to consider reading up stuff. However you could do it like Mage. You pick out chunks, single arguments, and present/defend them for a while and then pass to the next. That way we get a nice discussion with lots of things to talk about.

UnleashedUponMankind
online
UnleashedUponMankind
11,435 posts
22,430

Two hours?... well, you learned that the people here are different and nobody share your beliefs... so why do you think we would like to watch a vid with this lenght?

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

We are being programmed


A rather almost humorous statement to start a video off with that is titled "The Signs of God's Existence" considering the level of indoctrination from an early age that religion employs.

The project is literally the secularization of the world. To completely strip the world of religious beliefs. Novus Ordo Seclorum, a new secular or worldly order...


Let's start with this phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" From wiki "The phrase Novus ordo seclorum (Latin for "New Order of the Ages&quot", "The phrase is also mistranslated as "New World Order" by many people who believe in a conspiracy behind the design; however, it does directly translate to "New Order of the Ages" .", "The word seclorum does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this context) generation, century, or age. Saeculum did come to mean "age, world" in late, Christian Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through secularis. However, the adjective "secularis," meaning "worldly," is not equivalent to the genitive plural "seclorum," meaning "of the ages.""

In case you don't think wiki is reliable their citation for this information are,
http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html and
Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrews' Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary: Revised, Enlarged, and in Great Part Rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and Charles Short, LL.D. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1879, s. vv.

So it would seem we are starting right off the bat with conspiratory nonsense that isn't even true. And this is 1:21 minutes in and we haven't even gotten to anything yet, this is still just the intro.

Oh and on the part of stripping religion from the world.
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/23800000/Help-we-re-being-oppressed-atheism-23887187-350-355.png

The creationist were right the just didn't have the argumentative skills.


No what they don't have is the evidence on their side. You know one of those things we go by to evaluate a truth claim.

When this Big Bang model was first proposed in the early part of the 20th century, it was received with great skepticism by the scientific community. because the scientific community knew that the Big Bang opened up the possibility of having a beginning and a creator and someone who began it.


Okay we started off with the Big Bang and surprisingly it was described for the most part rather well. The part I'm quoting is where I start to take issue. The theory was rightly met with skepticism. At the start the evidence had only just been presented and hadn't been looked over as thoroughly at that time. Given the incredible nature of the claim it was deserving of skepticism and it of course required incredible evidence. Which it was able to pony up and thus allowing it to eventually become the leading theory. The resistance it faced had nothing to do with it opening up the possibility of there being a creator and it doesn't even suggest a "someone" starting it. Though to be fair Considering the guy who first proposed an expanding universe model was not only an astronomer and physics professor, but also priest. I wouldn't be that surprised if such a concept of a "someone" was far from his mind.

The only thing that really comes close to the rejection of the Big Bang model because of the implication of a god comes from the person who coined the name, Fred Hoyle. "He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"" -wiki

In short what this video did was take one person's reason fro being skeptical (and possibility those who were directly working with him) and applied it to the entire scientific community of the time.

Moving on...

William Lane Craig is our next source? Really? >_> Okay I haven't even watched this part yet but I'm going to take a wild guess here and predict he will used the cosmological argument in this clip.

Oh wait we are doing clip show, skipping around to a bunch of people. This video has ADHD or something. Back to Craig, yep he is using the cosmological argument. Craig goes on to call it an explosion (so we are slipping away from how well this started with describing the model) and mentions it started from nothing. Of course he isn't using the same definition of "nothing" as scientists use.

This is what nothing looks like. It's actually something.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/animation_lava.gif

We have no example of the sort of nothing Craig is implying. Further more if we were starting with a god/creator who acted on this sort nothing to create the universe, that would be a logical impossibility. Since that sort of nothing isn't a thing that can be acted upon.

Okay I'm only about 8 minutes into this but I'm going to have to stop here since I have other things I need to go do.
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,491 posts
2,950

I decided to place this down to refute intelligent design

Watch as I come back later with another thing to refute Christian apologetics.

-Blade

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

please watch some


gone in for 15mins, but i can't bare the doctrine anymore.
this for 2 hours? are you nuts?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

gone in for 15mins, but i can't bare the doctrine anymore.
this for 2 hours? are you nuts?


To him this aligns well with what he actually believes. Even though with just the short amount I have watched it has already contradicted itself with defining the Big Bang model and jumps around from speaker to speaker like it was edited by a 5 year old with ADHD being fueled by a gallon of coffee.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Something before getting back to that video. I noticed the clip they are using of William Lane Craig appears rather old. Yet he is still using the same fallacious arguments that have time and again been shot down in numerous ways. This indicates his intention is likely deceptive and to get his message to those who aren't paying attention.

This statement of Craig's intentions may actually sum up the entire video.

Okay I'm not sure who this other guy they are switching to from Craig is but he appears to be using quote mines. For those who don't know that is where you take part of something someone says so as to make it sound like they are saying something they are not. This may in fact be the reason this video is using the jumbled clips in the way that it is.

Okay the video has Craig using the Kalam Cosmological argument, which is a variation to the cosmological argument.
Counterarguments to this version here

Also the Kalam version still doesn't address the issue that this first cause had to be a god instead of some natural method. Nor does it ever suggest the existence of a particular deity having to exist. Moving on...

Okay looks like the other guy is trying to argue the nature of this cause he was stating that by thinking about it critically we come to startling conclusions and then it cuts off to a disclaimer.

The disclaimer reads,

Before continuing, keep in mind that the term "Primordial Fireball" refers to the primitive universe so can't be the cause of the universe. Secondly, this cause must be immaterial and not be bound within time and space since, according to most scientists, matter, time and space were created during the creation of the universe*


To start things off this disclaimer appears to be a quote mine. We are starting with a singularity (which get's into the nothing is something point made earlier) which at first is what this "Primordial Fireball" would seem to be implying they are saying. But since they are clarifying that's not the case we can saying there was something before that in the form of a singularity, which would seem to defeat the point they are trying to imply here. If they are trying to infer that this singularity is this "Primordial Fireball" and just a primitive universe there would be no current reason to think this state of the universe had to begin. We would be starting with energy.

But to take another quote from the same page they are claiming this came from.

"The universe began from a state of infinite density. Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the big bang; it is somewhat like asking what is north of the north pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the big bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the only answer an be that the big bang happened everywhere."

Okay I think that's all I can do for now That's about 9:30 minutes in only 1:30 and they crapped all that into such a small space. This is going to be a rough one to get through.

The reason there is so much to refute in so little space is because the video is trying to use a tactic known as the gish gallup. "The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time."

Now with this version they have made an incredibly long video so full of half-truth, lies and straw-man arguments that the opponent is likely not going to have time to refute everything. As you can see just trying to address the flaws posed in under 2 minutes of this video is a daunting task.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

This is going to be a rough one to get through.


As if that wasn't already obvious with a 2 hour long Creationist "documentary." I did tell everyone on the first page that I randomly jumped to parts and discovered a jumble of failed arguments/logical fallacies in such a short time. Why you're even bothering to go through the entire two hours is beyond me.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Why you're even bothering to go through the entire two hours is beyond me.


I provide videos and material for people to go look at of what I'm saying and of things that align with my views. It would somehow feel hypocritical of me to not at least give someone else's views the same treatment I would like of mine. Though admittedly I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to get through it all at this rate.

On that note, here are a couple of videos that could help better going over a universe from nothing.

Universe From Nothing-Michio Kaku
A Universe from Nothing- Lawrence Krauss

What caused the Big Bang
Michio Kaku: What Put the Bang in the Big Bang?

And don't worry to watch all three videos will take you less than 10 minutes.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

For those who don't know that is where you take part of something someone says so as to make it sound like they are saying something they are not. This may in fact be the reason this video is using the jumbled clips in the way that it is.


A good example of quote mining is when creationists use Darwin's Eye quote..which makes it sound like he is saying there has to be a creator.

But if only they would read the rest of that quote...
Showing 1-15 of 37