Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Understanding Ayn Rand | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. 3
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 1
  6.  @ExistenceUniversity  "It's a misconception that you cannot prove a negative." The misconception is that I made that claim. I said that you can't prove a universal negative. I can prove that there are no matches in this matchbox, but not that there are no matches in the entire country, because it's impossible to search everywhere in the country. "Is there a tea cup in orbit around the sun? Did anyone make a cup and send it into space? No" How do you know nobody did? "God is interacting with the world, but the world cannot interact with God." And yet people do all the time. "God and physics are opposite, ..." In what way? I am not my house, but that doesn't mean that I'm the opposite of a house. Which I made by the way (albeit by hiring builders). We both exist, even though one is a living thing and the other isn't (so in that limited sense we are opposites). "physics exist because it is physical ..." Huh? That doesn't make sense. "...the universe is full of physical objects." You've checked every part of it, have you? Actually, the statement is false anyway. The universe contains information, numbers, etc. that are not physical. "... the universe is full of physical objects. Therefore god is opposite to reality." You seem to have overlooked that, in one sense, God is outside the universe. So no, your argument is garbled, and your conclusion simply doesn't follow from the premises. "You cannot prove a negative if you are a skeptic that reality exists. " As I have shown above, I can prove a (non-universal) negative. And I most certainly believe that reality exists. The physical reality we experience was created by God. "You give me any "fact" about God and I will demonstrate why and how it is counter to reality, and why it would mean this character must be fictional." Okay. God is eternal. He has no beginning. He exists outside of time. (Pre-emptive response: your experience of reality not being eternal is of physical reality not being eternal, but God is not physical.)
    1
  7. 1
  8.  @ExistenceUniversity  "I think your issue is that you think your beliefs need to change to have something to be proved." I'm not sure what that means, but "proof" is not an absolute, but is more a case of being convinced by the evidence, which will vary from person to person. "To non-insane people that don't believe in "outside of reality",..." I don't believe in outside of reality, but I don't consider the physical universe to be all of reality. Rather, it's just all of physical reality. "...your requirement that God is outside the universe..." That's not a requirement of mine. That's just the nature of things. "...is the evidence that god doesnt not exist as nothing can be outside the universe." Why do you think that nothing can be outside the universe? Simply because you define the universe as everything that is? If that's the case, then you would indeed be right. But if the universe is defined as the entirety of the physical, then you need not be right. "I can prove that your schizophrenia invisible friend is imaginary, it won't cure your schizophrenia and you will continue to BELIEVE." You seem to be under the delusion that my views are not based on evidence. You would be wrong. Christianity is an evidence-based view. Beliefs do come into it, though, such as the belief that the supernatural is a possibility to be considered. And as for proving, you have now twice failed to refute my claim about God that you said you would. "If you stop believing and engage in reality, god cannot fit into it." We all believe. Belief is simply assent to an idea. You assent to the idea that God doesn't exist, i.e. you "believe" that God doesn't exist. The question is whether a particular belief is evidence-based or not. Therefore, you can both "believe" and "engage in reality". The two are not mutually exclusive. Hence your conclusion that God cannot fit into it does not follow from your premises. "What came before God? Who created him? Your believe requires an infinite regress, which is also counter-reality." Simply false. There can be no "before God", because that requires time, but time is part of God's creation. He exists outside of time. Further, that means that he doesn't have a beginning, and therefore He was not created. This is basic biblical teaching, which you should know if you knew what you were talking about. Therefore, there is no need for an infinite regress. The naturalistic view, on the other hand, does require either an infinite regress or a miracle, but without a miracle-worker. The Christian view is sensible, in that it proposes a cause (God) for the beginning of the universe. Do away with that, and you have a universe that has either existed forever (physically impossible, given thermodynamics) or that had an uncaused beginning. That is contrary to our understanding of reality.
    1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1