Aetixintro wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:17 pm
"Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God" presented by Capturing Christianity on YouTube.
Capturing Christianity wrote:In this video, Dr. Chad McIntosh presents over 100 arguments for the existence of God. Each argument is presented in visual form followed by recommended sources for further research.
4.5 hrs of material. Good resource?
For discussion: Is God finally proved to exist?
Right out of the gate these two shmoos display their utter lack of brain power when it comes to arguments, and I only say this because they talk as if they're on top of it all. Take the very first "argument' they present, which at the 13:12 mark, the knucklehead on the right prefaces with "
What is a good argument? It's actually hard to say what a good argument is." Yet he professes to have assembled 100 of them. A true red flag to you the viewer, or not? Well it should be. In any case . . . .
At 15:08
Knucklehead on the left:
"I wanted to say that also these arguments are not random arguments that you're finding on Facebook, in random Facebook groups. These are peer reviewed, published . . arguments defended by some of the smartest ever." Ya sure, and I voted for Trump.
At 15:58
Knucklehead on the right:
"Consider this theistic argument. It's a novel argument. Let's call it the Dixie Argument [he goes on to recite the argument]
Okay. Look, I think that's a sound argument for god's existence"
"Sound"!!! like my grandmother's wicker liquor bottle doesn't leak.
For those unfamiliar with syllogistic logic, the type of logic the two knuckleheads think they're presenting, three very important requirements have to be met before a syllogism can be considered sound.
1. The premises
must be TRUE.
2. The FORM of the argument must be valid. As an example, its terms can be distributed in the following manner:
All M is P
S is M
________
S is P
............which is one of close to twenty-five other valid forms
3. The conclusion must FOLLOW from the premises. That is, you can't conclude that P is S.
Well, right away the truth of the first premise is never established. Using the very same form I can just as easily make the argument that Lucifer rules the world because . . .
Either I had carrots for breakfast or Lucifer rules the world
I did not have carrots for breakfast
________________
Therefore Lucifer rules the world.
Can't get much more of an asinine argument than that. . . . . . . .or may one could, but I'll leave that up to others here to find out.
.