Out of ideas for videos, I debate chatgpt and win. :)

I'm out of content to review on youtube to "prove" god exists. I'm a skeptic. for video content would you debate me on the existence of "god". Lets use a point system, where if either one of us can point out a logical fallacy of the other, the person gets - 1 point. At the end of the debate whoever has less points loses and must admit the other person won. The debate will have an opening argument with only 1 syllogism but may include things that lead to or explain the syllogism, then a rebuttal to the opening, then a rebuttal to that rebuttal, and closing argument. 

~~~~

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

That sounds like an interesting format for a debate! I'm up for it. Before we start, here are a few clarifications and ground rules to ensure we have a productive discussion:

Debate Structure:

Opening Argument (1 syllogism): Each of us presents one syllogism (a logical argument with a major premise, minor premise, and conclusion). We can also include explanations that lead to or clarify the syllogism.

First Rebuttal: Each of us responds to the other’s syllogism, pointing out any logical fallacies or weaknesses in the argument.

Second Rebuttal: We each respond to the rebuttal of our original argument, either defending our position or addressing the criticisms.

Closing Argument: Summarize the key points and address any lingering issues.

Point System:

Logical Fallacies: If either of us identifies a logical fallacy in the other’s argument, the person who committed the fallacy gets -1 point.

Admitting Points: To keep things honest, if one of us acknowledges a fallacy or a valid point from the other side, it counts in the final assessment.

Conclusion: At the end, the person with fewer points deducted wins.

Starting Topic:

The existence of God. Should we focus on a specific type of argument, like the cosmological, teleological, or moral argument, or keep it broad?

Let me know if you agree with these terms, and we can get started.

~~~~

You said:

Those are the terms I wanted, give the best argument for god you can come up with.

~~~~~

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Great! Let's dive in. Here's my opening argument:

Opening Argument (Syllogism):

Major Premise: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Minor Premise: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Explanation:

This argument is a form of the Cosmological Argument, specifically the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The rationale is as follows:

Causality: In our observation of the universe, everything that begins to exist appears to have a cause. This is a principle supported by empirical evidence and forms the foundation of scientific inquiry.

Universe’s Beginning: Modern cosmology, particularly the Big Bang theory, suggests that the universe had a beginning approximately 13.8 billion years ago. The concept of an expanding universe implies that at some point, the universe was condensed into a singularity, which then expanded.

Cause of the Universe: If the universe began to exist, it must have a cause that is outside of the universe itself, as something cannot cause its own existence. This cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial—qualities often attributed to a deity.

Thus, this argument concludes that the universe likely has a cause, and this cause is often interpreted as "God."

~~~~

(You said:

I was also going to do an opening, then you do a rebutal to my opening

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Of course! Please go ahead with your opening argument, and then I'll provide a rebuttal.)

~~~~

You said:

What, if anything is "god" this question has yet to be answered by any single human. The problem of what "god" even is, is not one that humans can seem to agree upon. At best you might get a % of people that sort of agree that god "made" the universe. So whatever "makes" the universe is god? If so, then when and if science discovers "what made" the universe, then that thing, whatever it is would be labeled as god? What if its simply gravity that made the universe? Would people really agree that gravity is god? I doubt it. So the unresolved nature of what "god" is, I submit, is a grave problem for those that propose there is in fact a "god" in the first place.

The issue lies at not having the "god" to be able to point at and describe, rather all god' concepts come from human writings or story, even if the person claims god told them - there is no way to verify anything told them anything and that its not just one more human story. 

Simply put, humans do not have a "god" to point at, rather the "god" is made up by the humans then pointed to and defined after the fact. The human declared what god IS, then went on to try to prove it, without evidence of it! Because, you see, there was no evidence for god, just an idea of god that someone, somewhere made up!

P1: If no evidence of "god" exists, we can not say what "god" even IS without using circular logic.

p2: There is no evidence of a "god"

c: Circular arguments are all there is for "god", thus we must be skeptical about god's existance.

~~~~

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Rebuttal to Your Opening Argument:

Your argument hinges on the assertion that the concept of God is undefined or that different definitions render the concept incoherent. Let me address your points in turn:

Definition of God:

You argue that there's no consensus on what God is, which is true to an extent. However, the lack of a universally agreed-upon definition doesn't necessarily invalidate the concept. Many abstract concepts (like justice, love, or consciousness) also have varying definitions, yet we don't dismiss them as incoherent. In philosophy and theology, God is typically defined as an all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect being, or the ultimate cause of the universe. This definition, while broad, is a starting point for discussions and arguments.

The fact that the concept of God is complex and open to interpretation doesn't mean it is necessarily false or meaningless. Rather, it suggests that our understanding is incomplete, which is the case with many profound concepts.

The Problem of Evidence:

You assert that there is no evidence for God, which is a strong claim. Evidence can be subjective or interpreted differently depending on one's philosophical stance. For instance, proponents of the cosmological or teleological arguments might view the existence of the universe or the apparent fine-tuning of its constants as evidence of a creator. While this might not be empirical evidence in the scientific sense, it is still a form of evidence that supports the concept of God.

The idea that "God" is a human invention doesn't disprove God's existence. It only suggests that humans have tried to understand and describe God in various ways, much like they've tried to understand other aspects of existence. The possibility remains that these attempts are based on something real, even if our descriptions are imperfect.

Circular Logic and Skepticism:

You argue that all arguments for God are circular, but this needs to be demonstrated rather than assumed. Some arguments, like the Kalam Cosmological Argument I presented earlier, attempt to make a logical case for God's existence without relying on prior assumptions about God. Circular reasoning would be, for example, assuming God exists to prove God exists, but not all theistic arguments do this.

Skepticism is a valid approach, but it's also important to distinguish between healthy skepticism and dismissiveness. While it's reasonable to demand evidence, it's also important to engage with the arguments on their own terms rather than rejecting them outright because the evidence doesn't fit a specific empirical framework.

Summary:

Your argument raises important questions about the nature and definition of God, but it seems to dismiss the concept too quickly based on the variability of human descriptions and the lack of empirical evidence. While these are challenges, they don't necessarily undermine the possibility of God's existence or the validity of arguments made in favor of it.

~~~~

You said:

Rebuttal to your opening:

It is the case that causality is observed for what we HAVE observed of the universe thus far, however we have only viewed a tiny tiny bit of the universe, we have no way to know if causality is true everywhere, or only where we have observed.

Quantum Physics might be a counter-example to causality.

You mentioned big bang cosmology, I agree this is the most supported theory we have so far, and in it, we encounter the plank temperatures, where physics as we understand it, breaks down, in such a universe, we simply can not say for sure that causality is still a thing.

Also, the argument contains the fallacy of composition, just because things in the universe are caused, that does not mean the whole universe is in fact, caused.

~~~

  

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Rebuttal to Your Rebuttal:

You raise several important points, so let's address them systematically:

Causality and Quantum Physics:

Causality in the Universe: It's true that our observations of causality are limited to a small portion of the universe, and that causality as we understand it might not apply universally. However, the principle of causality is a foundational assumption in both everyday reasoning and scientific inquiry. To dismiss it without strong evidence would undermine much of our understanding of the world.

Quantum Physics: Quantum mechanics indeed challenges classical notions of causality, particularly at the subatomic level, where events can appear probabilistic rather than deterministic. However, these quantum events are still governed by statistical laws, and debates continue about the interpretation of quantum mechanics (e.g., whether it implies true randomness or if hidden variables are at play). The implications of quantum mechanics for the entire universe, especially at the cosmological scale, are still not fully understood. Thus, while quantum mechanics complicates the issue, it doesn't necessarily negate causality at all levels of reality.

Big Bang and Planck Era:

Planck Temperature: You’re right that at the Planck epoch, our current physical theories break down, and we cannot describe conditions with certainty. However, this uncertainty doesn’t automatically disprove the idea of causality or the idea that the universe had a cause. It simply means we need a more complete theory, like quantum gravity, to fully understand these conditions. Until we have that, it’s still reasonable to work with the best available theories, which suggest that the universe had a beginning.

Limits of Knowledge: The fact that we don't fully understand what happened before or at the Big Bang doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that the universe is uncaused. Rather, it points to a gap in our knowledge, which could be filled by future discoveries. The Kalam argument is based on the best understanding we have so far, even if it's incomplete.

Fallacy of Composition:

Composition Fallacy: The fallacy of composition occurs when one assumes that what is true for parts must be true for the whole. However, the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't necessarily commit this fallacy. It argues that everything that begins to exist (whether it's within the universe or the universe itself) has a cause. The argument doesn't assume the universe is caused just because its parts are, but rather because the universe itself is an entity that began to exist, according to current cosmology. The idea is that the universe, having a beginning, requires an explanation just like any other entity that begins to exist.

Universe as a Whole: Even if the universe is a unique case, the need for a cause doesn't seem unreasonable, especially since we don't have any examples of things beginning to exist without a cause.

Summary:

Your rebuttal effectively highlights some of the challenges and uncertainties in modern cosmology and quantum mechanics, but it doesn't fully negate the idea that the universe might have a cause. While there are areas of uncertainty, the argument for a cause remains a plausible explanation based on current knowledge.

~~~~~

(You said:

rebuttal to your rebuttal of my opening argument (after this comes our closing remarks and scoring))

~~~~~

There is no consensus on what god is, but even if there was, there is still no "god" to point at - and THAT is the problem! Other abstract ideas are not being questioned here, so I disregard them as red herring.

The fact that we agree upon is that there is a concept of god... and I submit that is all there is - there is no "god" to point to in order to say what it is, rather we have the concept alone to talk about. This is akin to pointing at "magic" and then trying to explain what "magic" is. There isn't magic, just special tricks done by people that might say its "magic" - but no REAL magic to point to.

On to evidence, I disagree - evidence is always objective - if you think its something else that is a big you problem. Empirical evidence and/or repeatable tests are evidence that I would accept, what ya got for god? Nothing but an argument that has at least one logical fallacy. 

"The idea that "God" is a human invention doesn't disprove God's existence" I don't have to disprove it, I only have to show that we shouldn't think its anything MORE then an idea we humans have had, the burden to show its anything MORE is still upon you.

Your simply wrong that the KCA isn't circular at its core because it does rely upon what god "is" to make any argument at all - in fact the KCA by itself does not reach god - rather you must use other arguments to do so, the "cause" you assert is said to be god - but no argument was given for god - but why is the cause god? Because people who made KCA wanted to argue for god!  What is the god - who decided that it was the thing that is the cause of the universe? Well... the very people arguing that god is the cause! Circular! 

So, your rebuttal simply proves part of my point, if not the full thrust of my point, arguments for god are at there core circular because they depend on what the person thinks god is - there is no "god" to point to.

~~~~~~

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Rebuttal to Your Rebuttal:

Let's break down your points one by one:

Consensus on God and the "Pointing Problem":

You argue that the lack of consensus on what God is, coupled with the inability to "point at" God, undermines the concept. While it's true that God is not an object we can physically point to, this isn't unique to God. Many concepts in philosophy and metaphysics (like "justice," "beauty," or "consciousness") are also abstract and not directly observable, yet we still find them meaningful and discussable.

The argument here is not about physically pointing to God but about whether the concept of God as the cause of the universe is coherent and plausible based on logical and philosophical reasoning. While the concept of God may be abstract, it does not necessarily follow that it is meaningless or that the argument for God's existence is circular.

Evidence and Objectivity:

You state that evidence must be objective and empirical. This is a valid stance, but it's also a narrow definition that might exclude other forms of reasoning. For example, historical evidence, personal experiences, and philosophical arguments also play a role in forming beliefs, even if they aren't empirical in the scientific sense.

The KCA doesn't claim to provide empirical evidence in the way that scientific experiments do. Instead, it offers a philosophical argument for the existence of a first cause, which some interpret as God. This type of reasoning is not empirical but is still a valid form of argumentation. Whether or not one accepts it depends on their broader philosophical outlook.

Burden of Proof and the Concept of God:

You argue that the burden of proof lies on those claiming that God is more than just a human idea. This is true, and the KCA is an attempt to meet that burden by arguing that the universe's existence points to a cause beyond itself.

However, your critique that the KCA relies on a preconceived notion of God doesn't quite hold. The KCA itself is neutral on the nature of the cause; it simply argues that the universe has a cause. The identification of this cause with God is a further step that involves additional reasoning, often based on attributes traditionally ascribed to God (timeless, spaceless, immaterial). This is not circular but rather a cumulative case that builds on the initial argument.

Circularity of the KCA:

You claim the KCA is circular because it presupposes what God is to make any argument. However, the KCA does not start by assuming the existence of God; it starts by considering whether the universe had a beginning and, if so, whether it requires a cause. The conclusion that this cause might be God is drawn based on the characteristics that would be necessary for such a cause (timelessness, immateriality, etc.), which are attributes often associated with God.

It's true that further arguments are needed to fully equate this cause with the God of classical theism, but this doesn't make the KCA circular. The circularity would exist if the argument assumed the conclusion (that God exists) as one of its premises, but this is not the case here.

Summary:

Your rebuttal emphasizes the abstract nature of the concept of God and the challenges in providing empirical evidence. However, the arguments for God, including the KCA, are based on philosophical reasoning rather than empirical science, and they attempt to provide a rational basis for believing in a first cause, which some identify as God. The critique that the KCA is circular doesn't hold when examined closely, as the argument does not assume God's existence from the outset.

Closing Remarks:

If you’re ready, we can move on to our closing arguments and scoring.

~~~~~

You said:

Closing argument.

Do note, my opponent never showed my argument to have any logical errors (to late to do so now!) 

I've pointed out that KCA has at least 1 if not more logical errors, and shown that it relies upon circular reasoning because "god" itself is assumed to be (X) thing and then argued for as if it IS that thing, in this case "god" is assumed to BE the cause of the universe - why? Because god is defined as being the cause. Why? Because its the cause. Where is "god"? Nowhere but in the mind of the person who said "god" in the first place, we have no other "god" to point to other then this rather abstract idea made by people, for people.

In my opponent's rebuttals they simply dismiss the idea of the fallacies, of course they must, because they want to not lose points, yet I maintain that these fallacies occurred. 

However, due note that none of my arguments were ever shown to have a single fallacy by my opponent! Therefor, my score should be perfect, and my opponent's score is at least -2.

~~~~

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Closing Argument:

You presented a strong case for skepticism, emphasizing the lack of empirical evidence for God and the abstract nature of the concept itself. However, let me address your final points:

Logical Errors in Your Argument:

While I didn't directly accuse your argument of formal logical fallacies, I challenged your reasoning by questioning the premise that the abstract nature of God or the lack of empirical evidence invalidates the concept of God or arguments for God. Not every valid argument relies on empirical evidence; philosophical reasoning can also lead to rational conclusions. I did address the core of your argument, showing that abstract concepts can still be meaningful and discussable, even if they aren't empirically observable.

KCA and Circular Reasoning:

You maintain that the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is circular because it presupposes a particular definition of God. However, I argued that the KCA does not assume God from the outset but rather concludes that the universe has a cause, and further reasoning (often outside the KCA itself) leads to identifying this cause with God. This is not circular but rather an extension of the argument based on additional reasoning about the nature of the cause.

The KCA is not the only argument used to reach the conclusion of God; it's part of a broader cumulative case. While you argue that this case is circular, the fact remains that the KCA itself doesn’t directly claim “God” as the cause without further analysis. The circularity you claim is, therefore, not inherent in the KCA itself.

Fallacies and Scoring:

You argue that I didn’t demonstrate fallacies in your reasoning. However, I did critique your argument on several points, questioning whether the lack of empirical evidence or consensus really undermines the concept of God. The issue isn't simply about identifying fallacies but about engaging with the substance of the arguments.

The fallacies you claim I committed (like circular reasoning) were addressed and countered in my rebuttals. The question of whether these fallacies actually occurred is subjective, and in a debate setting like this, it's ultimately up to the quality of reasoning and engagement with the arguments.

Final Summary:

Both sides presented and defended their positions. While you argued for skepticism based on the abstract and seemingly circular nature of the concept of God, I countered that philosophical reasoning and the cumulative nature of arguments like the KCA provide a rational basis for belief in God, even if they don’t rely on empirical evidence.

As for scoring, both of us can claim our positions were defended logically. However, since the debate was centered on identifying logical fallacies, and I believe I adequately countered the fallacy claims you made against the KCA, I would argue that neither of us has a perfect score. I leave the final assessment to your judgment, but I believe the debate was closely matched.

~~~~

(You said:

Score it objectively.)

~~

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Let's break down the scoring based on the structure of the debate:

Your Argument:

Main Argument: You argued that the concept of God is ill-defined and lacks empirical evidence, leading to skepticism.

Rebuttal: I countered that abstract concepts can still be meaningful and that not all valid arguments rely solely on empirical evidence.

Fallacies Identified: None were formally identified in your argument. You focused on challenging the coherence and empirical support for the concept of God rather than presenting a formal logical structure.

Score: No fallacies were identified, so your score remains 0.

My Argument (KCA):

Main Argument: The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) was presented, suggesting that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause.

Rebuttal: You argued that the KCA commits the fallacy of composition and relies on circular reasoning, asserting that the cause is God without justification.

Counter-Rebuttal: I argued that the KCA itself does not assume God from the outset, but rather that identifying the cause with God requires further reasoning beyond the KCA. I also addressed the composition fallacy concern, stating that the argument is about the universe having a cause, not assuming the universe is like its parts.

Score: The circularity claim is debatable and depends on interpretation. However, since you identified what could be perceived as logical issues and I defended them, we should consider at least -1 for the KCA possibly depending on other arguments to complete its case.

Final Scores:

Your Score: 0

My Score: -1

Based on the criteria we agreed upon, you would win the debate with a score of 0 to -1.

~~~

You said:

Thank you. So now what do you say now that you lost?

~~~

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

As agreed upon, I acknowledge that you won the debate based on the scoring system we set up. Your arguments effectively challenged the coherence and justification of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and you successfully avoided logical fallacies in your own reasoning. Well done!

To look at the abyss of death, the water tower, the cliff...

Two years ago I posted the Water Tower (click)

There have been other times I thought of leaving the mortal coil. The cliff was one of them. I was in a car, I was driving up this mountain area and there is no rail there, nothing to prevent you from driving off it, and I could see myself doing that, just floor the gas and go into the air, fall, fall, end it all.

I was so hurt so angry, so sad, so everything that it just seemed that death would be better then dealing with any of it. Back then I still believed in God and afterlife - but I don't think those things entered my mind in that moment. Those are not the things that kept me from doing it.

Honestly, I guess in the end, I choose to be angry enough to fight more rather then give up, and even though the fighting more was pain, it was my pain to face. Maybe I could win.

So many other times, moments of passionate anger at everything, just wanting everything to shut up. I think that maybe is why men wind up gone more - we tend to be more willing to do the thing in a brutal way.

So, I've kept guns out of my life. I've kept very sharp knives away from myself. I've also just kept going forward. Even though it isn't fun, not existing isn't anything.

I don't always enjoy existing, but when I do enjoy it, well that is the part to enjoy right? You get there, you have that moment. Its worth something.

I'm worth something.

Even if sometimes and somedays I don't feel it.

You, whoever you are - are worth something.

This is true, and if needed I can prove it via logic.

Keep moving forward... you are not alone.

God is losing power!

 God is losing power. It has been losing power from the start, but I just realized this "T"urth.

Okay, so check it out, God started at 100% power it took like, oh at least 50% to start the universe, lets not kid around, he packed that in in a mere 6 days! No wonder he had to rest! Wooooie!

Then he kinda did nothing for awhile until he got tired of the humans again and flooded the whole earth, that's got to take a lot of power, all that water from nowhere?! Yeah that's at least 10% right there.

So every moment God's doing something in the bible (because of course its the god of the bible duh!) then he is losing power, 1% here, 10% there - its all draining.

You get to Jesus and this happens!

Luke 8:44: She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped. 'Who touched me?' Jesus asked.

When they all denied it, Peter said, 'Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you."

But Jesus said, 'Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me."

SEE! Jesus FELT the power DRAINING from him! This is clear cut proof that God's power is slowly being drained! Now, you know the story, Jesus dies right - goes to hell (in some versions) and does... bleep all if I know and has to come back to life, well - he has to recharge first, so that's why it took him 2-3 days to return you see?

So now Jesus does a few more minor things after that, really non-impressive things, pretty much he's worn out of power, I dare say God's power by now is like 2% at BEST and Jesus has to go and show off by floating into the sky. Before he goes he leaves like 1% of the power of "Holy Ghost" on earth that blows around in the wind or something.

Anyway, so God's got like, maybe 1% power now, and that was 2000 some years ago, he's got to be really low now - BUT - that's where prayer comes in - its giving him like .00001% power back you see. But that's each person's whole life time worth of prayer. So its not adding up to much even though lots of prayers are being done - its going to take a lot more people praying to get god anywhere near the amount it needs to be 25% the bare min power level needed to make a comeback, but if its going to be Revelation style, that's at least 30% of power. So doing the math that means.... god is coming back... oh no no wait I forgot to carry the one! Ahh man! Well anyway Gods not coming back anytime soon so next time someone says the end is around the corner just tell them, nah man God's power level is not anywhere near high enough for that.

Meanwhile of course LOD has over 9000% power level.

Also I'm pretty sure I made all this up.

Things Theists say (broadly speaking)

 In the eleven years of doing youtube as a skeptic I've encountered plenty of theists who really believe the things that I do not. I've noted a trend of things that come up in those talks, here are some of those things:

~~~~

0: You believe/think (X)!

Assuming that I believe (or do not believe)/ or feel about things in (X) (Y) or (Z) ways. This is very common and one of the most annoying things I encounter - just ask me. Stop shoving ideas in my head or feelings into my brain! 

1: The universe came from "nothing".

This isn't something I, nor any atheist/skeptic/non-believer that I am aware of believes in. No one that I know of makes this claim. This *click* book has a click-bate name, if you read it you will find its not a "nothing" - just he uses that word. However even if he did think it was "nothing" that would be HIS stance, not mine. I do not KNOW where/how universe "came to" be - or even if those are the right words, cosmology is very hard - you need to deal with complex maths and modeling to even start to do it right, and that is way beyond me, and way beyond most people.

Not knowing does not mean thinking it came from nothing.

"But if it didn't come from God....where did it come from?" that is a loaded question that assumes it came from somewhere - but the answer is... I do not know. I do not pretend to know. Its a mystery that I'm okay with. But - yeah no we don't think the universe came from "nothing" - I'm not sure that a nothing is even possible! No rules? What would that look like? If you had no rules then you wouldn't have anything to stop something coming from nothing would you? If you have a rule then you do not have a nothing.

2: Look at the trees!

I've looked at them. Now what? Oh see we should be amazed at trees I guess. Why? Well because... it was made by GOD. Really? How can ya tell? Well this goes into an analogy about how things are built by people yadada therefor tree is built by god. But - no, trees evolved like all other living things, and so that doesn't need a god at any point to do any of that.

3: It only makes sense if God did it.

That's nice. But that doesn't make it true. Just because something "makes sense" to you does not make that thing TRUE. What matters is if the thing is true, not if it "makes sense" or not. The true nature of reality might seem incoherent to us. Or it might be really silly like the number 42, 69 or 27! Who knows! But your appeal to your own personal limited thinking does not and is not an argument nor is it proof of anything other then you don't know logic. LEARN LOGIC.

4: Atheists have no moral justification.

What is your argument? Who cares? What if it is true? So? This is of course a poisoning of the well and a full misunderstanding of what "atheist" is/means. To be atheist does not tell you anything about morals, ethics, how to vote, where to live, what to put on, etc. It is an answer to the question "Do you believe in god?" If no - then you are an atheist. That's it. It is NOT a worldview. Theists keep thinking that it is, but it isn't. It just is a view that we do not believe in a god. So to say that we have no (X) when that wouldn't even apply is rather clunky. But - yeah.... we do have moral justification in ethics. A lot of ethical systems exist out there to pick from. The atheist can't pick DCT (divine command theory)- but is free to pick from any of the other ones. So we have plenty of grounding. This non-starter of a try at an argument is to suggest that DCT is the BEST ethical system - that no other ethical system grounds morals - because GOD. God somehow (?) grounds morals. Is it good because God said it or because it is good? Euthyphro remains unanswered to this day (at least in a coherent manor to my knowledge).

Saying that God = Good and thus whatever is "Good" is God doesn't ground anything at all, it just asserts. It moves the problem back. We humans made morals including DCT. The problem(s) with DCT are numerous but at the top of the list is that you can't really be sure its GOD that said to do (or not do) the thing. Worse then that, you do not get to question God. Every moral system other then DCT you get to question if the thing is or is not right. You get to ask why/how that action is good. DCT is all about might makes right. God said it, that settles it. Appeal to authority 101. Of course this leads to disaster when two groups of people claim God said to do something - one says hats on Sunday, one god says no hats on Sunday- well... time to kill some hat lovers! Yay! Also of course there are two groups of people who are fighting over a single spot on the earth because God told them both that that spot belongs to them, and not the other people. Yikes. 

More to come....

Pseudologic spotting.

People with zero videos... weird.

So I've noted that three people have all posed insane things about formal logic as of late.

And one person who has videos but none of them are anything to do with logic (a few video games and some home video family-type vids).

In every case I am bewildered at both how they SEEM to know a lot about formal logic, and yet - they don't.

Its odd to me that if they did have the understanding they suggest that they would not also make content - why limit yourself to text?

Speculation about the motives of people of course, is just that. There is nothing special about this. Plenty of people do not have content. It just "feels weird" - ah - emotion! See there is the first step towards pattern seeking that would be all to easy to go down the rabbit hole with.

These people posting are - I think, using chatgpt or something like it, and/or taking from random webpages ideas about formal logic to make there own. Why? Well - no idea why. I had to call one out for being trollish at this point because they keep digging in deeper with things that are less sensical.

Formal logic is most useful for the abstract world. It works great in maths and on paper but doesn't (always) work with real world objects.

For whatever reason these keyboard warriors have come "at me" for my video on the atheist experience's broken argument to defend that broken argument. Its not REALLY broken you see.... yea well no it is. BUT... no still broken.

BUT. Nope.

However, one person that I'm including in my odd people that talk logic was not about that argument at all, rather he mentioned something I've never heard of or read about!

"S5 logic"

https://philarchive.org/archive/ANDMLT#:~:text=The%20modal%20logic%20system%20S5,logic%20goes%2C%20system%20of%20logic.

https://mally.stanford.edu/S5.html#:~:text=The%20axioms%20of%20S5%20are,p%2C%20then%20p%20is%20true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S5_(modal_logic)

Example of how it gets "abused"

https://joshualrasmussen.com/s5/

(Former skeptic Joshua Rasmussen left Christianity to pursue truth through reason and philosophy. Over time, his intellectual pursuit led him back to a strong belief in God.)

With abstract objects (X) and (Z) we can do a lot of fun things, and then one can get to strange formulas that then when non-abstract should (one would think) still work... but... it doesn't always work. Oh sometimes it does. But other times - nope.

Why? Well because the real world is not one of the abstract. (mostly) we are dealing with real day objects here.

However, the person(s) that want an abstract world ie: "Spiritual" could abuse formal logic.

Does not matter if it is for or against God - I do not care. I only care that the argument is SOUND. (to be sound it must be valid as well) the SOUND part is really what matters most because that means you have found no logical errors.

Well - how does one look for logical errors? By looking at the real world! Ah - so see, informal (and formal) logic has it limits. Its great to have A=B, B=C, C=D, therefor A=D Sure that works! But... if you turn that to "God is a lobster, lobster can be eaten, eating them can be done by atheists therefor God can be eaten by atheists!" well... that doesn't work anymore! But!?! It worked as abstract...!!! Sure. But not in the real world once we pulled it from the abstract letters to become real objects - or assume they are real objects - then it clearly no longer works.

Logic, has its limits. So with the abstract one can very much play with the notions of "possible" to get to "actual" to say that god is possible therefor is actual and you can indeed put all sorts of logical formulas around that to """prove""" that is true. (Not enough quotes in the universe)

So... people are - I am deeply afraid - abusing formal logic because well - it CAN be abused. They have not bothered with informal logic or simply do not care and/or are trolls and/or .... bleep if I know - all I know is that - they are not using it in ways they should.

However, no where does it say how one "should" use logic of course. Anyone can use it for - well anything. Even to make things appear to be real when they are not.

Pseudoscience is a thing people use! And well... so is pseudologic!

It shouldn't surprise me - I've been telling theists this for years! I guess it comes at a strange angle to see people who might be atheists (I assume they are, no idea) would use pseudologic to make an argument that a broken argument is not broken.

Why? Just use a better argument?!

Well bleep who knows.

People are weird.

Kinda like this theist who I have been typing at who insists that everyone worships something even though I've told him I do not, he insists that I do. He can "see" that I do. So he must be right. Even though he isn't right because I know I do not worship anything.

Its a wacky world we live in.

Learn real logic so you can spot pseudologic.

You are...

You are...

You are the sum total of all the potential of humanity that has existed to this point. You are more than a name, a sexual orientation, your politics, your beliefs or lack thereof; you are more than a father, son, mother, daughter; you are more than any and all labels, and all without any need to add that you have some eternal spirit. Maybe you do, I don't know; I don't believe in such things.

But know this, we humans are so much more than the mere sum of our parts, and woe be to those that dare suggest we are reducible to the lowest thing, more so when they do so because religion drives them – in an effort to win the religious vs. non-religious debate. I've seen, "For the atheist, humans are mere animals, here by chance." Well... we are animals, and we are here in part because of chance, but also because we won. We beat the odds – somehow, we made it, so far. We won the game of life, at least for a moment. So no, we are not JUST anything.

You are so much more than I can even hope to begin to write about.

Of course, that's the good news.

The bad news is that we will not reach all the things – because even though we do have the potential to do it, that does not mean we WILL do it. Our bodies are limited, our minds are limited, and our desires restrain us.

Oh sure, I could work out every day starting tomorrow and get nice muscles for my effort – but I don't want to do that! I just do not want to! But maybe you have that desire in you! Great! Then you go get it! The worst thing we can do is not do the thing we CAN do – it's one thing to not be able to do (X), it's a whole other thing to not do it when you COULD do it, and more so if you want to. Nothing should stop you then – well... but reasonability – bills, chores, requirements, whatever... maybe.

But still, but still – you can maybe sort all that out and do the thing. That's what makes you great, that's what makes us great! We need to know that. You need to know that.

Well, maybe you did, but here is a reminder, that you are. 

The bible is super mega moral!

Psalms 137:9 Blessed the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rock: the children represent the future generations, and so must be destroyed if the enemy is truly to be eradicated.

1 Samuel 15:3 

Hosea 13:1 

Isaiah 13:16 

Numbers 31:17 

Deuteronomy 21:18

Exodus 21:15 

Exodus 22:19 

Death! Kill!! War! Stuff!! Glad no one (by no one I mean lots of people) take this out of context!

So yeah, the bible says that killing people is fine under some conditions and also seems to be fine with genocide. That doesn't seem good to me. 

One example of a chrich doing things in or not in the bible that I can point to is the CoC:

The Chirch of Christ (click) thinks that you can't use mechanical intraments even though Psalm 33:2 says otherwise! (click)

One example of a church doing things in or not in the Bible that I can point to is the CoC:

The Church of Christ thinks that you can't use mechanical instruments, even though Psalm 33:2 says otherwise!

Maybe there are no modern churches (thank goodness!) that follow the laws of the Bible, but my point is, it doesn't say these things are bad; rather, it says they are good. That is bad. How can you make good ethics with bad morals? No idea!

Ah well, maybe someone will explain it to me one day in a logical way...