Also, you believe in slavery? Slavery is endorsed in the bible and tells you specifically where you can get slaves and how to treat them.

Also, I sent you an email in case you were still up for doing a debate.

Way to steal my idea! 😉 I belong to the Southern Baptist Convention.

science does not deal with morality. Science does not and should never tell you what you ought to do and what you ought not to do, as that is simply outside of the realm of science. Does that means god exists and decided morality? Hell no

@@_Sloppyham Social Sciences don't deal with morality? I am understanding you correctly?

@@NewsCartridge AHHHHH, I click off of KZbin for one second and it deletes what I was typing. I’m not doing that all against so I’ll just say this: The original claim deals with morality, as in what we ought to do. That is how I interpreted it. Science does not deal with the realm of what we ought to do and does not decide what we should do either. That’s what I mean. If the dude meant we can’t explain morality as in where it came from and why we have it then I’m fully with you, since the ‘why’ of morality has been explained pretty well.

And like, even if he was right that doesn’t prove god’s existence in the slightest lol.

@@_Sloppyham www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief

@@_Sloppyham This does not prove God, that is true, but it is suggestive of it. Children are naturally wired to understand and learn many things about the world. The fact that this is the case for their belief in God tells us something important.

@@TruthCraftYT I want to preface this by saying I do not care if someone believes in god or not and I do believe their are at least ok arguments for the existence of one. With all that said, no. A child is going off of what they consider to be intuitive, that is all. It is so much simpler to think everything has a purpose (such as the river example from your article) then to think they happened naturally in an extremely complex process due to the laws of physics. There is nothing important to draw from in terms of God from a child intuitively believing in design, as intuition should never be used as a way to gauge truth. Intuition is simply a faulty line of reasoning and has been proven wrong time and time again. What this line of reasoning is trying to go for is saying we are born with an understanding of a creator, trying to point towards a personal god. I’ve already pointed out why considering children’s intuitions is silly, but the line of reasoning is also bad. The purpose of this would be for the god to have people know of its existence, the problem is this would be the most ineffective way to go about it for multiple reasons.

@@_Sloppyham I appreciate your points, and I would not push too hard on this particular issue, since I don't think it is all that central. However, I think we must also recognize that this intuition that children are born with does not simply stop with them. Virtually all cultures historically and in the present spontaneously see the need to worship God (or gods). This is so central to most cultures that the most important buildings and festivals are typically religious. This universal and intuitive belief in the divine should a genuine consideration for anyone who adopts a more naturalistic worldview. Humanity is clearly "built" for worship. Now, I recognize there are different ways to explain this, but sometimes the simplest answers are the best.

I wish I could reply more! But I don't really have the time, unfortunately, nor do I think KZbin comment sections are really the place for that. I appreciate the comments you give on my videos, but maybe I should do a livestream at some point so there can be a bit more back and forth on some of these issues.

@@TruthCraftYT well I would love to debate you if you're up for it. If you have a discord or something, please let me know.

@@NewsCartridge I don't have a discord but I will certainly keep the idea of a livestream in mind of when (and if) I have more subscribers, haha.

@@NewsCartridge I also might be able to arrange it so that we can chat over zoom or something for a bit if you'd like.

@@TruthCraftYT I would be willing to talk with you in whatever way is most convenient for you.

I would be interested in addressing the topic of homosexuality at some point, yes. Thanks for the suggestion!

@@TruthCraftYT Thank you, and God bless you

​@@EmeraldCrusader1138 what is there to debunk? Should blonde hair be debunked next? It doesn't make sense.

Thanks for letting me know!

Do you mean she was born despite an attempted abortion?

@@TruthCraftYT No. My daughter was delivered via hysterotomy, which is an abortion by definition.

@@TruthCraftYT No. She was delivered via hysterotomy which by definition, is an abortion.

@@TruthCraftYT I replied twice to this post. I'm not sure where it went So to reiterate my point, no. I don't know what an "attempted abortion" is, nor do I know how one acts in spite it. Are you implying I tried to kill my child or that I didn't want to be a parent? I honestly do not know what this means. She was born via hysterotomy which by definition, is an abortion.

@@TruthCraftYT Please check your approved replies. I don't know what I am saying to trigger it but my replies are probably ending up there.

Sorry, I don't have a channel there!

I dont even think his arguments were that compelling, but this is a stupid comment. Of course you can't prove anything 100% scientifically, science is literally based on inductive reasoning.

@@Ash嘉恩071 So I cannot prove with 100% accuracy that the earth is a spheroid?

@NewsCartridge of course you can't. It's certainly possible that all of the information that you get is false. I'm not saying it is, and it's very probably(like just to give a random number 99.9999%) true, but it's certainly possible and not 100%. Why? Because science operates on inductive reasoning and not deductive reasoning. Any philosopher of science and probably most scientists would tell you this. The point here is that just because you can't prove anything scientifically 100%, you can't therefore say that God exists.

@@Ash嘉恩071 You realize we have picture of the Earth from all sides, right? We absolutely can prove the either is a spheroid with 100% accuracy and certainty. Saying there is no evidence of god is not saying there is no god, it's saying any god has yet to be proven.

I believe the recognition of other gods would be against their own world view. Christianity says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," because when I previously asked them about this, they did not answer.

@@NewsCartridge If I was to make my best guess, I'd assume YHWH was referring to "man-made religions" rather than it being him admitting that other Gods actually exist. The Bible depicts many times, specifically in the book of Joshua, that if YHWH leaves the Israelites alone for 3 seconds, they immediately start creating new Gods to worship. The case with the Golden Bull is also a good example of this.

@@NewsCartridge Also, if you pay attention to the list of the 10 Commandments, he actually goes on to break the 10th Commandment in the 2nd Commandment. Exodus 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” The 10th Commandment as it reads is basically YHWH telling the Israelites not to be envious. However, in the 2nd Commandment, YHWH describes himself as a "jealous God". Exodus 20:4 through 20:6 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” To be jealous of someone is to also be envious. Meaning YHWH actually breaks one of his own Commandments while giving a speech about a totally different Commandment.

Thanks for doing this so I don’t have to

Not only that but you can also interpret this argument that the state is god because the state is a "law giver" and has "universal and timeless authority." This of course, would be nonsense.

But they also say that following the state is not a tenable position, and I have no idea what they mean because that's what millions of people do each day, regardless of whether or not they are following religion.

@@NewsCartridge There's also just no consensus throughout all of civilization on what serves as objectively immoral. Rape? Rape in the past was permissable and acceptable as a weapon of war. Pedophilia? Not too long ago, child brides use to be legalized and normalized in other civilizations. Killing babies? Infanticide was a common practice, mostly performed by the Spartans, but also by other civilizations to breed strong warriors and to help make sure there are enough resources for the civilization. Pretty much any horrible thing you can think of, the odds are that it used to be legalized, permissable and normalized by another society. And while I don't think these things are objectively wrong because I have no reason to think objective morality exists, nor am I willing to concede to my emotions on whether or not these are objectively wrong just because I strongly do think they're wrong. I do think that these acts are wrong because we live in a time where we can see the sociological and psychological harms these kinds of things can do. And as someone who prioritizes human well-being, that is why I think they are wrong. Because they hurt people.

Thanks for letting me know! I’ll work on this.

@@TruthCraftYTI thought it was fine!

Of course not, but I cannot control what others say. I'm sorry some people have said offensive things. If you see me acting in that way then feel free to call it out.

@@TruthCraftYT I mostly want you to be aware of how someone from your community is treating me.

And here, too. Missing the point. Murder requires intent. Everybody knows that. You are intentionally making this out to be black or white, when it isn't. This is a gotcha question where if the opponent answers yes then you insist that the opponent desires to criminalize miscarriages and that natural death must be included in the definition of abortion, though it is not. If the opponent answers no, you will respond saying that the opponent must support birth control and other abortaficient drugs because at that stage it must not be murder. In reality the answer is "maybe." It depends on the circumstances that led to the human zygote being unable to attach to the uterine wall. If it was of natural causes, for instance poor fertility of the mother, there was no intent involved, so it was not murder. No more so than an old man's lungs failing due to the natural degradation of the body that comes with life. If the mother was taking abortaficient drugs that intentionally prevent the human zygote from attaching then intent was present and murder has occured. Just the same as a person choosing to start a gas leak in another's house, depeiving them of what they need to survive: oxygen. Or a parent starving their child to death.

@@BasedZoomer So if you take birth control to thin the uterine wall, which is an intentional action, should charges be filed against someone if they conceive but they do not allow the embryo to attach therefor killing the life?

@@NewsCartridge I rather believe that abortaficient drugs, such as birth control that causes zygote to be unable to implant, should be outlawed. It would be much more difficult in a court of law to prove that a woman took the drug knowing it's effects and did cause the death of a baby than it would to prove the woman took illegal abortaficients. Such a law, without the outlawing of abortaficients first, could lead to injustice and legal scrutiny on women who suffer naturally occuring spontaneous abortions. To answer an adjacent inquiry that has not been asked, no I do not believe in retroactive justice and I don't believe that at this point in time, while such pharmaceuticals are legal, that women should be scrutinized via the law for taking legal pharmaceuticals. Especially considering the possibility of misinformed ignorance for those women who may have been promised that it will only prevent ovulation

​@@BasedZoomerso you're saying god murdered it

Preventative birth control (condom) is not since no life has been formed (although this says nothing about the wisdom or propriety of this type of birth control). Birth control that ends the life of a newly fertilized egg is indeed murder.

@@TruthCraftYT So if a woman takes birth control that does not allow for a fetus to attach to the uterine wall and therefor ends the life that she assisted in conceiving, should charges be filed against her for murder?

@TruthCraftYT oh no, you've got a pro-abortion warrior 🙄 lol I can tell from her comments that she doesn't want to learn or exchange ideas, she wants to argue.

@@BasedZoomer You argue BY exchanging ideas and learning from each other. If I am arguing I am inherently trying to learn while exchanging my own ideas for those of others. Are you for real right now?

@@NewsCartridge Nah, there is a difference between arguing for the sake of arguing and debating to exchange ideas. I'm sorry if I judged you wrong, but I've encountered many people who word things very similarly who only want to argue for the sake of arguing. Those who will deliberately miss the point and use fallacy after fallacy just to try to win an argument rather than trying to exchange ideas and gain perspective on the opposition. Seems even more like you might be that type by missing the point where I made a distinction between exchanging ideas and just arguing.

Another "gotcha" question. There is a difference between a person who is brain dead with no chance of ever waking up, and a baby who will, given only time, have brain activity. People with no chance of regaining consciousness, who are only kept alive via machine are already dead, it is simply that machines still let them breathe and their heart still pump. A zygoye, or young embryo, will develop brain activity if given only time. This would be the difference between pulling the plug on someone that is known will never wake up, and someone who will most definitely wake up after a few months. The former is a moral grey area, and the latter is absolutely morally wrong by any conception of medical ethics.

@@BasedZoomer This is not a gotcha question. This called a hypothetical situation. It is designed to test what has been said. In this case I am asking if the life of the person matters. If you argue that a person kept alive via machines is already dead, then I would have to argue that an embryo, which cannot survive on its own before about 21 weeks, is in the same situation. This is an argument based on potential and you can go farther and say that the waste of both sperm and egg, which have potential to make a human life, could also be murder. Why does it have to start at conception/fertilization? Are abortions that prioritize the life of the fetus morally ethical?

@@NewsCartridge No, it isn't about potential. I covered that already. Someone who will absolutely never wake up is dead. Someone who will is not dead and it would be absolutely unethical to kill, regardless of the means. And finally, someone who may wake up, and may not, it is unethical to kill them so long as they have a chance, unless they specifically stated in their will and testament that they want to be killed in such a scenario. In which case there is a whole other argument about the ethics of suicide and assited suicide there. It comes down to basic biology. A sperm and an egg have no potential for life. They will not ever produce a human life when not joined together. If a man ejaculates in a sock or anything else that will not allow the sperm to join with an egg, it will never be a person. As soon as they do join together a unique human life is created, that is not "potential", it is fact. A zygot does not have the "potential" to become a human life, it already is one. The same goes for an embryo and a fetus.

@@NewsCartridge I replied to both of these, but it seems youtube ate my replies. I am not going to type them back out, potentially multiple times, just to try to get past the algorithm, but I will tell you that your argument here is fallacious in that it equates a pre-born person to a person who will, with certainty not wake, and a living person to "potential" I differentiated in my initial argumemt between those that will not wake and those who may. You seem to have missed that, not sure if intentionally. In the other I explained the difficulty of proving intent for criminalization prior to illegalizing such pharmaceuticals.

@@BasedZoomer This is why I ask these questions, because there doesn't seem to be consistency here. When @TruthcraftYT calls it murder, that to me means legal murder. Meaning the charge of murder, albeit in the first, second, or third degree, I don't know, I'm not the one making the claim. You brought that murder involves intent and I not only agree with that but I brought a very real situation currently going on with hundreds of thousands of women in America, where people would be potentially committing murder by this definition. Obviously the pharmaceuticals are not illegal because of course, as I and the state would see it, this doesn't fit the definition of murder. Taking birth control, in any form, is simply not murder.

No disagreement here. But I find it fascinating from a historical perspective.

I'll admit there is not much nonsense in this video.

I'm not sure I would limit "science" to the scientific method. In this case, the results of scientific study strongly suggest a designer based on on our intuitive understanding of how the world functions.

@@TruthCraftYT but isn't our intuitive understanding of the world subjective and therefor, not scientific? Wouldn't an objective way of viewing the world show us that God is not sad when it rains and wouldn't the intuitive understanding confirm this?

@@NewsCartridge By intuitive I simply mean our first, most natural, and oftentimes most logical assumption.

@@TruthCraftYT so then is the earth the center of the universe? And then how did we discover the heliocentric model? You realize too that the heliocentric model was laughed at for contradicting gods will?

Can you please elaborate? I believe myself and others could greatly benefit in this conversation if you provide concrete examples of constructive criticism.

That isn't what the ontological argument does. Newer modal versions of the argument can lay out more clearly what the argument is getting at. Namely, if it is possible that God, or a greatest conceivable being exists, then it must actually exist. This is because a greatest conceivable being would be a necessary being, not a contingent being. And if it is possible that a necessary being exists, then a necessary being actually exists.

I think this is how a lot of people feel after they hear it. I think what is certainly true is that the argument and its terms need to be more clearly defined. More to come on this!

I think I know what you're getting at. Although, I'm not sure I would make a distinction here between internal/external logic. The argument is trying to argue from logic in general, not logic that only makes sense within a certain framework.

​@@TruthCraftYT the problem i have is that the argument very much relies on arguing in the internal logic of a greatest possible being. It is saying that since it can be concluded that a greatest possible being exists from the properties it is defined to have, that it must exist. this is the point at which I think the argument makes an unfounded jump from internal logic to reality, because it doesn't demonstrate that a maximally great being actually exists, it demonstrates that given the internal logic, for a maximally great being to exist, it must exist. which is kind of just a tautology.

"Truth is subjective. There is no objective truth." - You don't actually believe this... do you?

@@Jack-z1z What is true to me is not true to you. Things that are objectively true are facts, not truths. If I take you to my favorite pizza place and you don't like it, does this mean the pizza is bad? Of course not. It cannot be bad to me if it is my favorite. How else do you explain truth if it is good to one person but not the other?

@@NewsCartridge "What is true to me is not true to you." - But this is clearly false. Truth is "that which corresponds to reality", and so the truth cannot be different for different people. I think what you mean to say is "what I THINK is true is different from what you THINK is true". But what you think is true has no bearing on what is actually true. "Things that are objectively true are facts, not truths." - You can go ahead and look up the definition of the word "truth", and you will see that it is often defined using the word "fact". For example, this is from the Merriam Webster dictionary: "the body of real things, events, and facts" "the state of being the case" " the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality" I also ought to point out that you just said "things that are OBJECTIVELY TRUE..." after just saying that truth is not objective. "How else do you explain truth if it is good to one person but not the other?" - Difference of opinion/preference.