Stefan Molyneux

[CatholicSoxFan]

Quite a bit ago, someone named Stefan Molyneux made a YT video that tried to disprove the existence of God (I can't post links yet, as this is only my 41st post; just google "proofs of God Stefan Molyneux"), and it was pretty humorous. It was hilarious because of how blatantly he assumed materialism from the beginning. It's also hilarious how much me misunderstood what we mean by God, to the point that he defined Him exactly the opposite to how He is classically defined: "God is defined as the most complex life in existence."
EDIT: I have 50 posts now. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB4vi6gRM70

 

[durangodawood]

Quite a bit ago, someone named Stefan Molyneux made a YT video that tried to disprove the existence of God (I can't post links yet, as this is only my 41st post; just google "proofs of God Stefan Molyneux"), and it was pretty humorous. It was hilarious because of how blatantly he assumed materialism from the beginning. It's also hilarious how much me misunderstood what we mean by God, to the point that he defined Him exactly the opposite to how He is classically defined: "God is defined as the most complex life in existence."

Yeah. "Proofs" for or against God are absurd.

 

[quatona]

Quite a bit ago, someone named Stefan Molyneux made a YT video that tried to disprove the existence of God (I can't post links yet, as this is only my 41st post; just google "proofs of God Stefan Molyneux"), and it was pretty humorous. It was hilarious because of how blatantly he assumed materialism from the beginning. It's also hilarious how much me misunderstood what we mean by God, to the point that he defined Him exactly the opposite to how He is classically defined: "God is defined as the most complex life in existence."

Yes, the attempt to disprove the existence of an entity that isn´t even properly defined (and that, in many cases, is defined as being unfalsifiable) is a waste of time.
I´m wondering why anyone would take that burden which isn´t actually theirs, just so that believers can conveniently criticize his "disproof" (and say "we" while actually there are countless different god concepts out there), pretending that this makes their case - instead of simply watching them fail to support their assertions.

 

[Paradoxum]

I couldn't find the video, but I came across one of his arguments and I agree it looks rubbish.

I do think you can have reasons to think God is unlikely though.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Whether God is defined as simple or complex is pretty irrelevant. If you want an answer, toss a coin. As good as anything.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Whether God is defined as simple or complex is pretty irrelevant. If you want an answer, toss a coin. As good as anything.

It sure is relevant when one of the options is used to disprove God, now isn't it?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It sure is relevant when one of the options is used to disprove God, now isn't it?

Different people have different preferences. To me, it never mattered much. To other people it might have. God-concepts depend a lot on I-say-so.

 

[quatona]

Hey, you´ve found someone on the internet who made a stupid argument. Bummer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, the attempt to disprove the existence of an entity that isn´t even properly defined (and that, in many cases, is defined as being unfalsifiable) is a waste of time.
I´m wondering why anyone would take that burden which isn´t actually theirs, just so that believers can conveniently criticize his "disproof" (and say "we" while actually there are countless different god concepts out there), pretending that this makes their case - instead of simply watching them fail to support their assertions.

Oh man, I just remembered that one argument for god's existence where they basically try to "define god into existence". It was something along the lines of god is perfect, non-existence is an imperfection, therefore god must exist."

Obviously I'm paraphrasing there...but that really was the gist of it. As if defining god as something that exists was going to be the final nail in the coffin so to speak. It was probably the only time an actual argument that someone made in favor of god's existence literally made me laugh out loud.

Can anyone tell me the name of this argument? I'd love to look it up again.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Whether God is defined as simple or complex is pretty irrelevant. If you want an answer, toss a coin. As good as anything.

Well, one of the premises I've heard from creationists is that anything inherently complex denotes an intelligent designer. So you can imagine where it leads if that same person mistakenly defines god as complex.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Oh man, I just remembered that one argument for god's existence where they basically try to "define god into existence". It was something along the lines of god is perfect, non-existence is an imperfection, therefore god must exist."

Obviously I'm paraphrasing there...but that really was the gist of it. As if defining god as something that exists was going to be the final nail in the coffin so to speak. It was probably the only time an actual argument that someone made in favor of god's existence literally made me laugh out loud.

Can anyone tell me the name of this argument? I'd love to look it up again.

That's Anselm's Ontological Argument; I have a lot more to say on that, the modal version, and the difference between Molyneux's arguments and the Ontological Argument, but that'd be off-topic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's Anselm's Ontological Argument; I have a lot more to say on that, the modal version, and the difference between Molyneux's arguments and the Ontological Argument, but that'd be off-topic.

I'm sorry man, I saw quatona's post and it reminded me of that argument. Thanks for putting a name to it.

What exactly.was the topic? I can't find the video either, but it doesn't sound like I'm missing much.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I'm sorry man, I saw quatona's post and it reminded me of that argument. Thanks for putting a name to it.

What exactly.was the topic? I can't find the video either, but it doesn't sound like I'm missing much.

It was Molyneux's video (search in google for "proofs of God destroyed by a philosophical atheist.")

 

[Ana the Ist]

It was Molyneux's video (search in google for "proofs of God destroyed by a philosophical atheist.")

I found a couple videos. One about 10 minutes long, another about 30. Both are gonna eat up too much data on my phone to be worthwhile, especially if you're saying there aren't very good arguments. I'm a little confused by the title though, what "proofs of god" does he refer to?

 

[Eudaimonist]

It was hilarious because of how blatantly he assumed materialism from the beginning.

Perhaps you could share the link so we could make that judgment for ourselves.

Edited to add: Oh, nevermind. Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB4vi6gRM70

It's also hilarious how much me misunderstood what we mean by God, to the point that he defined Him exactly the opposite to how He is classically defined: "God is defined as the most complex life in existence."

What does it matter how God is "classically defined"? Why is that definition the correct one?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Oh man, I just remembered that one argument for god's existence where they basically try to "define god into existence". It was something along the lines of god is perfect, non-existence is an imperfection, therefore god must exist."

Quite a bit ago, someone name Anselm wrote a book that tried to prove the existence of god (I can't find a link to the text as I'm really lazy; just google "Anselm ontological argument"), and it was pretty humorous. It was hilarious because of how blatantly he assumed that thinking about something made it real. It's also hilarious how much me misunderstood what we mean by god(s), to the point that he defined them exactly the opposite to how they are classically defined: "god is that than which nothing greater can be conceived".

Oh, almost forgot the

 

[KCfromNC]

That's Anselm's Ontological Argument; I have a lot more to say on that, the modal version, and the difference between Molyneux's arguments and the Ontological Argument, but that'd be off-topic.

Don't bother. The fact that one can conceive of the existence an infinitely convincing disproof of it means that disproof must exist. If you accept the logic of the argument is valid you also implicitly accept that it is already wrong.

 

[Noxot]

lol proofs of God, God does not need proof, he is the foundation for all of reality. that is why things exist, because he contemplated them. one day atheist will catch up, when they understand that this universe is just a bunch of numbers and laws. you can believe God is this or that... you can believe that or this disproves or proves God, but it is only possible due to the way reality works. the thing is that humans don't see that everything is the way it is, because it is designed and ordered to function in certain ways and they don't know why and so they guess as to why this or that does this or that based on their assumptions about reality and what reality is.

chaos and order are the same thing. some people see order while others see chaos. they are just perspectives... the truth is that it is both.

the root of the problem between the religious and the scientific views is that they both mix knowledge with ignorance and then fight each other and spiral around in an endless circle.

 

[Eudaimonist]

lol proofs of God, God does not need proof, he is the foundation for all of reality.

What is your proof that God is the foundation for all of reality?

one day atheist will catch up, when they understand that this universe is just a bunch of numbers and laws.

Numbers and laws are descriptive concepts. The universe is a physical entity.

you can believe God is this or that... you can believe that or this disproves or proves God, but it is only possible due to the way reality works.

Of course.

the thing is that humans don't see that everything is the way it is, because it is designed and ordered to function in certain ways and they don't know why and so they guess as to why this or that does this or that based on their assumptions about reality and what reality is.

To exist is to exist as something. To exist mean having some sort of natural behavior, because that is what that entity is. There is no need for a God in order for some entity to function in certain ways.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

What is your proof that God is the foundation for all of reality?

I think its entirely a matter of faith.