Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
@aidenaune7008
"except that it shouldn't be, because God created the universe explicitly to not have any proof of his existence so as to ensure our free will,"
What do you mean by "proof"? In logic, 'proof' depends on the correctness of the premises. In maths, proof is basically logical proof, I think. In a criminal court case, proof is evidence that is sufficient to convince the judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil court case, it is considered proved if it's more likely than not. In science, there is no such thing as proof.
So when you say that God didn't want to supply "proof", are you claiming that he didn't want evidence enough for us to be convinced? Because plenty of people have been convinced on the basis of the evidence, which for them means that God has been proved.
And why is that the requirement for free will anyway? God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden. They had "proof" that God existed, but still had free will, and they used it to disobey Him. So proof is not a blockage to having free will.
"the universe with or without God, will look exactly the same, "
Without God, there would be no universe, and no universe looks somewhat different to a universe!
"we know that God created the world in 7 days ..."
Six, actually, plus a day of rest.
"although it might have been a metaphor and not true history like most of the bible"
Nope. It is written as narrative, and the top experts in the language agree that it was written to be taken as actual history. Also, Jesus referred to it in ways that He accepted it as actual history.
"but the universe is identical to one that was not, so we should treat it as if it were one that was not when it comes to science."
Oh, so many things wrong with this comment!
1) False premises typically lead to false conclusions, as in this case.
2) The 'science' is not merely investigating the universe to see how it operates; it is declaring that it came about without God.
3) Even IF the universe looked identical when the origin was either A or B, why should science treat the origin as A rather than as B? Surely that's being quite arbitrary.
4) Even IF the universe looked identical when the origin was either A or B, why not treat the origin as irrelevant, rather than treat it as one or the other?
3
-
@mikeyhinojosa3837
"over 200 civilians have died, and over 50 of them were kids. That doesn’t seem to be taking extra precautions,"
There's that unexplained word "extra" again. I asked what it was supposed to be "extra" to, yet you didn't explain.
I also asked what they could do more. You didn't answer that. So presumably you can't even think of what more they could be doing. And yet you criticise.
And your response is illogical. That X number died doesn't mean that more would not have died if they hadn't taken those "extra" precautions.
"...if they really cared about the innocent people they wouldn’t keep them trapped in Gaza and the West Bank."
Given that neither place has borders with only Israel, how does Israel prevent them from leaving?
"Hamas are definitely doing horrible things but let’s not act like Israel is innocent."
On the contrary, let's not pretend that people are claiming that Israel couldn't improve when what they are really saying is to put the blame where it really belongs, with the terrorists.
Have you heard the recording of the Israeli military calling a person in Gaza telling him that they should evacuate because the place is going to be bombed, and he declines because he'd rather the deaths as a propaganda weapon? And the military person telling him to think of the kids, and the Palestinian saying that if the kids die, it will look bad for the Israelis?
Again, what could the Israelis do "extra"? Answer that or your criticism has no credibility.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@redblaze8700 "There’s no evidence that the 2020 election was rigged. "
Nonsense. There is plenty of evidence.
"Even Trumps own people couldn’t find evidence for such,..."
Except that they did.
"...even Trump-appointed judges ruled against the ridiculous claims from his legal team."
First, for the most party, they never investigated the evidence, so didn't rule against the claim; they declined to take on the cases.
Second, much of the other evidence of rigging was of things that a court would not take on because it wasn't illegal, like the mainstream media's fake news, the social media censoring pro-Trump information like Hunter Biden's laptop, etc.
However, it has not even been disputed that some election officials violated their own state government's legislation to help rig the election, such as telling vote counters to accept signatures of mail-in ballots without properly checking them.
3
-
3
-
@JustapErson
"Leave religion out of it,..."
Perhaps you should take your own advice. A religion is a type of worldview. Some other worldviews are atheistic ones, and in fact the semantic range of the word "religion" can encompass atheistic views. Secular Humanism, for example, when founded, described itself as a "secular religion".
So what you're actually doing is bringing your own worldview/religion into this conversation, in asking the OP to leave his out of it!
Further, he didn't actually mention a religion. He mentioned God and God's revelation to us. Yes, there are religions based on God and His revelation, but those religions are the product of God and His revelation. To put it another way, try answering this question: Is God the product of religion, or is Christianity the product of God? And if you think that it's the former, what's your evidence?
"...it just makes the right look like a bunch of nutcases."
Only to atheists who think that they know better. In fact it was people who believed the Bible and its revelations about God that founded public hospitals, many charities, universal education, the university system, and modern science, and who spread democracy, twice abolished slavery, raised the status of women, and who made Western Civilisation the enormous success that it has been by spreading biblical views and Godly standards.
Does that really sound like the fruit of "a bunch of nutcases"?
3
-
3
-
@ScottBub
"That is called a special pleading fallacy. Basically you are saying that an infinite regress is impossible, but you put a god in there and a god is infinite."
An infinite and an infinite regress are two different things.
"If god can be infinite then the universe can be infinite."
The universe cannot be infinite, as the laws of thermodynamics don't allow it to be infinite. But the Laws only apply to the physical, not the spiritual (supernatural), so God can be eternal. This makes sense in another way, as time is part of the space-matter-time creation. That is, time is something God created, not something He is subject to. God is therefore outside of time. So it's not that He's been around for an infinite amount of time, but that He simply exists, with no beginning or end (both of which imply time).
"There’s no need to add magic."
Nobody is adding magic. Except perhaps the naturalistic people who propose a beginning from nothing, whereas nothing can't create anything.
"Btw, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems."
Which the universe is. And the Law was discovered and shown to be correct on Earth, a not-entirely-closed system.
"But you shouldn’t cry foul on science and then use it in your argument for magic."
Nobody's making an argument for magic. And nobody's crying foul on science. What we are crying foul on is naturalism, which mainstream scientists believe in, at least when it comes to past events.
"Do you accept science and if you do then why complain when it’s applied and also use it incorrectly?"
Creationists founded science. They do not complain when it's applied properly, and they don't use it incorrectly. Proper science does not assume that all explanations have to be natural ones.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Its not a university, it is not a school. It is a freaking Youtube Channel"
In the sense that it doesn't offer courses and degrees, you're correct. But see their video about how they got started. They wanted to offer an alternative to the lunacy of the established universities that are now teaching nonsense, and universities now also teach online, so they decided to reach a much wider audience with an online presence rather than a bricks-and-mortar university.
"There is no decent paying job ANYWHERE that would hire anyone with a non-degree from PragerU. Go find one. Just try."
That is a sound-bite with no substance. A non-degree isn't a thing. I already have a job with a non-degree from PragerU. That is, I got a job without having a degree from PragerU. Really, that's all your comment is claiming.
"Yes this video was made to portray the idea that this Youtube Channel is not only just as good, but better than an accredited university…"
Which it is, in the sense of not agreeing with the idea of safe spaces and not hearing alternative views. I doesn't claim—as you seem to be implying—more than that, such as being better in offering degrees or etc. in other words, it's claim is correct as far as it goes, which is not as all-encompassing as you're pretending.
"…judging by the comments, their idiot followers agree. Those are the dense ones."
Given that you're presenting a straw-man version of the claim, no, others are not the idiots.
"So accredited universities are bad because they teach facts that make you uncomfortable?"
That is a total distortion of what he says, which means that your argument is nonsense.
"The point of college is to prepare you for the work world."
And PragerU helps with that, by being realistic instead of woke.
"Everything I have said has been completely factual."
Incorrect, as I have shown.
"Gender studies requires students to read and analyze challenging texts just as an English class would."
Funny man. Gender studies promotes unscientific ideas. Here's what one gender studies 'researcher' (Christopher Dummitt) said "The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up. … Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MMaximuSS1975
"Religion is definitely in conflict with science."
Christianity is not in conflict with true science. But one big problems atheists have is lumping all religions—except their own—in together, as though they are all alike. Nothing could be further from the truth.
"The only reason why science would need religion is as a case study for why humans are so prone to magical thinking."
What magical thinking? Things like the universe popped into existence out of nothing? Oh wait, that's an atheist view.
Scholars disagree. For example, Paul Davies said "In the ensuing three hundred years, the theological dimension of science has faded. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature- the laws of physics - are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view."
"no it doesn't."
Yes, it does. Rodney Stark, for example, talking about Christianity said "Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists."
"Christianity has always embraced gullibility, guilt, and ignorance."
Evidence?
"Every time I get into a discussion and people find out I'm an atheist they shut down any kind of legitimate inquiry."
Maybe because you have no idea what you are talking about.
"more evidence for God and the Bible? No there isn't."
What's your evidence that there isn't?
"You have absolutely zero evidence for God. None. Absolutely none."
Again, what's your evidence that he has none?
"As for the Bible archeology has destroyed the book."
Completely false. It's vindicated it on numerous occasions, including finding evidence of the Hittites, to give one well-known example.
"It's mostly fiction from cover to cover."
Archaeologists and historians disagree with you.
"Current consensus is the Exodus never happened."
Partly because they are looking in the wrong time.
"We know Genesis is pure nonsense plagiarized from other previously existing pagan mythology."
No, we don't know that. The evidence actually points the other way, of Genesis being the original.
"As for the New Testament Jesus was a MYTH even if someone existed or not."
And yet historians are almost unanimous that he existed. See the YouTube video "Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus."
"The Gospels are a more fiction fabricated by the early church. There was no crucifixion story. There was no resurrection. There was no Jesus who died for any sins or was the son of any God."
What's your evidence? These ridiculous claims, that go against the scholarship, is likely what causes Christians to not want to debate with you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@JDG-hq8gy
"Give the sailors, soldiers, etc. pay for a few months until they can find a new job."
This is leftist economics for you. Just act as if money can be got out of thin air. What are you going to pay them with if you're removing the funding? Also, your suggestion was to stop the funding for a week, and now you're talking about sacking them!
"The sailors and soldiers losing their job is good because then they'll have to get a new one that actually makes them productive members of society, not another cog in the imperialist machine. "
So you're not interested in defending the country from enemies? Okay, got that. Maybe you're part of the Chinese government?
"Get the homeless people all the medical and psychological help they'll need to end their addictions."
Good idea (which the video touched on too), but although I pointed out that drugs could be a problem, I never said that it was the entire problem. What about the attitude that led them into using drugs in the first place? What do you do about that? What is needed (in many cases; acknowledging that every circumstance is different) is a change in attitude or even worldview. If you think that the world owes you a living and you don't get it, you might turn to drugs or other ways of coping. If you realise that you need to put in your own effort to support yourself, you would probably stay off drugs. So not rejecting that help getting off drugs is a good idea, but in many cases it wouldn't be enough by itself.
3
-
3
-
@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965
"the sum of your insight was that they are different types of terms."
No, that was not my point. My point is that if you have two different explanations, A and B, to explain X, you can't say that A must be true because it explains X. The fact that there is another explanation (B) means that you haven't shown that A is the correct explanation. You were saying that the reason there are two different words is A, and I was saying no, there is also B. Therefore you've not provided evidence that A is the reason that there are two different word. My point was one of logic.
"You could have explained that sex and gender are a spectrum, they are bimodal, not binary."
I could have, except that I do my best to avoid telling untruths. There are two sexes, male and female. No more. So where's this supposed spectrum? And how does the existence of both 'female' and 'woman' show that?
"We all exist on a point between 2 extremes male and female."
Simply false. We are all either male or female. Period.
"You could have offered something but you went full scale smugnorant and looked silly."
No, I was making a point of logic that showed that your claim (that they had different meanings) was not the only conclusion that could be drawn from your evidence (that they are two different words). As such, your conclusion was apparently baseless.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@AbeerKDas
"bias means misinformation and handpicked data."
No, it does not. The Collins dictionary says that it's "a tendency to prefer one person or thing to another, and to favour that person or thing." It also often means that that tendency is unfair, but that's not a necessary part of the meaning of the word.
And yes, bias can often be wrong (when it's applied unfairly, when it results in people cherry-picking, when they allow misinformation to creep in), but it's not necessarily wrong. Which is why I referred to having the right bias. I'm biased towards wanting facts and evidence, for example.
"i just said NO ONE is ur friend"
Which is wrong too. I have friends, and perhaps more to the point, I have people, groups, and organisations that I can trust.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"I eventually came to realise that integrating science and religion is impossible."
The first problem is the term "religion". What does that mean? That can cover anything from Christianity (which founded science, as pointed out in the video) and other monotheistic religions to polytheistic and pantheistic religions to atheistic religions such as Marxism, Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, Secular Humanism, and Scientology. The term is just too broad and all-encompassing to make sense in a comment like that.
So integrating science and Christianity is not impossible, given that science is based on Christianity.
"Religion goes against reason, fact, and reality."
Most religions might, but Christianity doesn't.
"It is an idea based on faith and mysticism."
Christianity is not based on mysticism. And in Christianity, 'faith' does not mean what it means to atheists; it means trust based on evidence. That is, we have evidence that what God says and that we can check is true, so we trust Him (have faith in Him) when He tells us about things we can't check, such as what happens when we die.
"I'm happy to see the slow decline of Christianity in the west."
The West is based on Christianity. A slow decline in Christianity in the West will result in a slow decline in the West.
"The world will be a better place without religion."
Especially without atheist religions. But not without Christianity, which has done an enormous amount of good, founding public hospitals and many charities, starting science, spreading democracy, abolishing slavery, raising the status of women, introducing universal education, and more.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@tobak952
"Universities had been a thing since ancient Greece, and was reinvented in the 13th century, "'
Even if true, that doesn't affect my argument.
"...there were people who dedicated their life to science throughout the entire medieval period."
Only if you have a very broad definition of science. Many scholars agree that science was a product of Christianity, as mentioned in this video.
"Capitalism was the result of democrathy,..."
Democrathy??
"... wich was the result of, among other things, secularization. cough cough French revolution cough first amendment cough Seperation of church and state *cough*.
Capitalism had its foundings in northern Italy around the 12th(?) century. Well before the events that you mentioned.
"Christianity is a main reason the enlightenment didn't hit sooner,..."
Just as well. The so-called enlightenment wasn't particularly enlightening.
"...the requirements for the enlightenment: Scepticism, religious freedom, democrathy was forbidden by medieval christianity and often explicitly in the bible"
That is false insofar as the Bible is concerned at least. In the Bible, the Bereans were commended for being sceptical of what Paul (the apostle) taught. Neither is there a ban on democracy, which was helped by the church (although more so after Catholicism loosened its grip).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pope9187
As I said, it's not my standard.
We've already discussed an example: the snowflake. It's shape is not designed; it's determined by the laws of physics (although the laws of physics were "designed").
Things that are not designed are things that are random in arrangement. The parts of a machine, for example, need to fit together in a specific arrangement for the machine to work, but a pile of machine parts sent to the tip and tipped out of a rubbish truck has the parts in random positions. The parts of a living thing also need to fit together in a specific arrangement to work.
Nuts hold onto bolts according to the laws of physics, but the laws of physics would never create a bolt with a consistent thread, let alone a matching nut (that is designed ) to fit the bolt.
When you build a house, you arrange the parts (bricks, wall timbers, roof tiles, benchwork, cupboards, windows, doors, etc.) in specific places that 'work' well (there's no point in having a window in the floor, or benchwork on the ceiling, or cupboards with the doors facing the wall). But leave the house without maintenance, and eventually it will decay and collapse into an undesigned heap of rubble.
Going beyond your question...
Design is something than an intelligence does (such as plan a house), while the opposite—randomness—is what nature does, as the result of entropy (things 'run down'). But to fend off an objection, yes, nature does create complex things, such as trees (and all living things), but only because trees contain (a) a plan (DNA), (b) molecular machinery to implement that plan, along with (c) mechanisms to obtain energy from the environment (e.g. sunlight) to power that machinery. However, nature can't make those plans in the first place, so cannot explain the origin of these self-replicating systems. Even IF it could make the plans, it wouldn't have the molecular machinery to implement those plans. Yes, the molecular machinery is also built according to plans, but you need something to build the molecular machinery! Living things inherit the molecular machinery from their parents (and with that can make more molecular machinery). So you need more than the DNA; you also need the cell that has the machinery to turn the DNA into a new living thing. That cell came from the parent living thing. But where did the first cell come from? Nature has no ability to design cells (or anything) from scratch. The entire process must be started by an intelligence. So we are talking about an intelligence that must exist before we had (physical) living things.
2