@@midastongue4229 Ahh the classic NPC, wasting time avoiding principles 😮‍💨

Have you ever watched yourself on camera?

Hey John. I still think its worth having one, even if it doesn't serve it's primary purpose haha. You have to be careful to not do anything fraudulent with id. It sounds like your friend may be. Glad to hear he doesn't pay fines. From my experience, it's just not necessary. Thanks for your comment.

@@JamesTheTraveller Not really as all the info on his id is his true name, unlike the all caps name thats on the original, so they cant really do anything about it. Keep up the good work.

@@bonesbarker25 oh no, they dont accept that for crossing borders unfortunately. But I use it for everything else. As I said, I use the legal instrument for navigating checkpoint's. I'll make a dedicated video about it.

I made a video here kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoKbkoRjmbxse68

@@JamesTheTraveller Thanks James. During Convid I joined the Vaccine Control Group and I have successfully used that card as ID in Australia. It has the slave name on it but I think I probably could have put anything on there when I filled out the form.

@@bonesbarker25 I found it very pleasing to exercise my sovereignty and create my own private id, along with my chosen, non-legal fiction name. It's very satisfying.

@@paulr3556 I forgot to touch on this more in the video. I'd reprhase it a touch more negative averment style though. One thing I'd never do is state it like you have in regards to we the people. Stay as far away as possible from this idea, as it will drag you down. You can't argue for it well enough, their arguments will almost always crush you if you try and argue for everyone else. Unless you understand objective philosophy exceptionally, its almost hopeless. They can argue very proficiently that they do have the right to control the people and its very difficult to argue against them. Thats why I explicitly emphasized the ME and I when talking about this. Only be concerned how their laws are applicable to you, not anyone else. Also, you should want to do the right thing (in context) no matter what they are doing. Not as long as they are. Just a little correction which can have dramatic changes. Does this make sense?

@@JamesTheTraveller Yeah, makes sense. But if they treat me like shit, then they get the same. I will not sugar coat anything for armed thugs. May not be practical and self fullfilling. I'm done taking crap though. They only have the authority you give them, I give them nothing. If they are nice m polite, I'll do my best to be the same. They also don't deserve any special treatment as far as I'm concerned.

@@lalaland8133 I'm not sure what this does. If you join a gym, get an access card, then sign ARR, it doesn't exempt you from their policy. Your rights are still intact, sure, but you'll still owe your late fee and have to put your weights back on the rack.

No offence, but I can tell you've never used that when pulled over by the police. I don't recommend it, unless you want to get arrested.

Nice try your human you don't know anything you make up stuff 😂 your born with instincts to survive and senses not knowledge 😂

@@Daytah-d4f faith is the belief something to be true because it can't be proved. Such a hideous capapability of man kind. Glad you saw reason, I think you'd enjoy the playlists about objectivism I have on my channel.

@@simoelmaachi if you think about it properly for a few days, you'll realise its a load of nonsense and faked experiments.

I am that I am

@@northseekeradventures9032 I believed in god in the past. Was one of the most dangerous and self destructive things ive ever done. Very happy I realised my mistake and changed.

@@JamesTheTraveller Would you debate Jay Dyer on your videos arguments?

@@northseekeradventures9032 What for? To make a show out of it? Just listen to my points and his and make up your mind. Learning the truth is for your own well being.

@@JamesTheTraveller I debate often and I know that debate is the best way to understand your own incongruence and inconstancies or incorrect pre sups. Also, people love it.

@@mharpold128 if you bothered to write a comment, why not rebut any of my arguments? If it was so easy, surely you could in a sentence.

@JamesTheTraveller I did. There is no way to prove God does or doesn't exist. That's literally the rebuttal. Any intellectually honest individual who is educated and versed in the philosophy and arguments knows that. Proof that God doesn't exist...DOESN'T EXIST.

@mharpold128 I thoroughly explained how god cannot exist in the video. If you watched it you'd know that...

Okay 4:00-7:00, this is the worst stawmanning of the causation argument I've ever heard. You simply ignore the the fact that an actual god would have the qualities to create and precede a universe. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote 5 books on this subject that are barely understood by most athiests. 12:06, this argument is so bad. It's literally a meme. It fails because it uses the flawed logic from above. Omnipotent or omniscient doesn't mean that you can create paradoxes freely. Clearly your meager understanding of logic doesn't show you that one form of omnipotent cannot trump another form of omnipotent. 16:36, this is hilarious. You completely take for granted that all reality must exist within human understanding AND that your sensory information is true to reality. You're so out of your depth here. Evolution literally proves your brain does not lead you to the truth, but rather survival. If early humans saw grass moving, their brains could think one of two things. 1. It's the wind, do nothing. 2. Lion, run. The truth is that it's the wind, but because thinking it's a lion will prevent you getting eaten, you run. Your rationality lead to the non-truth, because your survival demands it. There are enumerable examples of this. You honestly believe your sensory information yields the truth? I've just empirically proven it doesn’t. 19:29, hearing you say people don't understand what intelligence is made me spit my coffee out. 21:00, no, YOU made the claim that you can disprove God, you can't just pivot and say "you prove it exists, and when I deny it I win" intellectually dishonest and ignorant. 22:30 LOLOL Your previous statements literally used ad ignorantiam. You said "well there has to be evidence, there are clues, there are none because it doesn't exist" this is the same thing. 28:00, dragons, aliens and mythical monsters are more realistic to you then god? What are you coping for? 32:45 once again, strawmaning a weak argument. Every philosopher knows arguments from personal experience are not convincing. Now tackle morality. 37:57, it means consciousness is fundamental to the universe. Roger Penrose wrote a paper about it. You should go read it. 39:21, taking reality for granted again I see. By what standard do you understand reality if quantum physics is nonesense? 40:32, can we rewind to when you said if you can't see something it doesn't exists? "It leaves clues, it has to!" 44:09 oh lovely, a brute fact, just as ad hoc as a multiverse or a god. Congratulations. 44:30, you have given no proofs and William of occam believed in god. He believed that you didn't need to use reason to believe in god. If you're going to quote him, maybe understand what he is actually saying. 47:06, maybe apply the law of identity to your own arguments. Oh wait, that would obliterate them. 47:12 😂😂😂😂😂 IRONY 47:19, how? Prove it. 47:35, I like how you must reject the big bang because it's too easy to make a god argument. The cope is real. 48:00, implying tielology is magic is so dishonest I couldn't finish. This is internet forum tier athiesm and it's hilarious. Go on cosmicskeptic and get flatlined by an actual intellectual.

@mharpold128 if you have so much to say, how come you didnt put forth an actual, coherent argument?

@@sigma4171 as soon as quantum physics says a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, I can't trust anything else they say. Not to mention that electrons are aware of conscious observation and all the rest which violates all the laws of reality. Its a literal farce, not real.

@JamesTheTraveller You don't understand what that experiment or concept is actually getting at. It is not saying that a cat is simultaneously, literally alive and dead in a box.

@sigma4171 As soon as I realized your name is a brainrot word, I can't trust your arguments anymore

@@Hyphaenation_live He also doesn't understand the double slit experiment.

@@Hyphaenation_live Well Schrödinger said this in response to how ridiculous the superposition of probability waves is as it goes against our superficial logic of deterministic cause and effect. A cat cannot behave like a quantum object because they are wade to massive and the waves of the individual atoms making up the cat quickly become deconstructively interfered and cancel out. Electrons are not necessarily aware of anything during observation, they simply just behave as waves and the measurement problem is not about observation really. It is more of a mathematical thing dealing with Dirac deltas which can take the value of 1 at one point as an infinite spike while being zero everywhere less on the x-axis. This is very useful in understanding the collapse of wavefunctions to a certain state from a superposition of states.

@@dommidavros2211 Hello there, I'm Christian, and it would be very difficult to chat about this stuff especially here in the KZbin comments, given how one has to modify a comment 50 times before it finally is visible. There are many ways we can approach this. My advice to you is to look into the historical facts about Jesus and the resurrection. Afterwards looking into the reliability of the gospels and the new testament. If you become convinced of these 2 points, that would be sufficient to accept the teachings of Jesus christ, who you've now established as resurrected, therefore his claims have weight to them, including the claims about an afterlife. And that his words are reliably recorded through the gospels.

@@Schaden_Freude1 the most fundamental aspect of logic is adhering to the facts, which is exactly what ive done. I have not made any arbitrary assertions that cannot be backed. I pointed out the flaws in the idea of god.

@JamesTheTraveller adherence to facts is not the founding principle. The whole idea is predicated on working out metaphysical truth in absence of empirical data!

@@Schaden_Freude1 that's nonsensical and totally illogical. How is something logical if it ignores the facts of reality? If logic doesn't adhere to facts, it's a contradiction and not logic.

@@Schaden_Freude1 metaphysical truth is derived from the fact existence exists, everything has idenity and we are conscious of it. They are the axioms and logic is the method of adhering to the axioms.

@JamesTheTraveller look I mean no disrespect I’m sure you’re a fine person, but your concept of logic is extremely low resolution. I didn’t say that logic ignores fact, I said that is a concrete tool by which we measure things that are beyond our field of physical understanding. Like truth, and morality. Like philosophical ideals, and the fundamental arguments for and against God. I believe there are excellent criticisms of Christianity, and a multitude of free masterclasses on just that all over the web, one of my favorites is Christopher Hitchens, but the stuff in this video, isn’t that. You really haven’t contributed anything new or meaningful to this conversation, I mean that in the most good faith possible way. Go watch Alex O’Conner to learn how to do this job well. Also, you do yourself a great disservice in creating straw men out of the believers, it’s better to build them up as best as you can and knock over the strong arguments. All you’ve done here is demonstrate that a 7 year old Christian doesn’t stand a chance against you.

1. How do you know that nothingness HAD to have a state of being real? Once you ascribe any aspect of reality to nothingness, it is no longer nothingness. 2. Due to this it is better to define things in regards to existence and non existence. 3. By saying that reality just simply "is at it is", it demands the explanation of how change can occur within reality. Change can only occur based on 3 factors. Factor 1: prior stimulus. For example, the wind (prior stimulus) pushes a branch down a cliff (the change). Factor 2: self initiated change from a conscious entity. For example, a person kicks a football. No prior stimulus is required, the person simply causes change on his own. If reality has always existed and is unconscious (otherwise that reality would simply be God if it was conscious), then no change can occur unless some previous change has occurred to cause that new change. That change in turn required some previous change ad infinitum. However, this is illogical because cause and effects cannot be extended infinitely in the past. That would mean change would never occur since it would always rely on some change occurring before it for itself to then change. This is the reason why a conscious, ever existing entity (God) must exist if change occurs. In other words, an entity that can cause change in its own without prior stimulus must exist to knock down the first domino of cosmic change. 4. In regards to your thermodynamics objection, it is illogical because thermodynamics applies to natural reality, not supernatural reality. So no, a supernatural being does not need to conform to the laws of physics. Another example is God's speed. If God entered the universe, would he have to conform to the cosmic speed limit of light or would he be able to move as fast as he wants?

@ Answer to 1: You proved exactly what I was trying to say which is that nothingness cannot genuinely exist. Answer to 2: What exactly is the difference between reality and existence? Answer to 3: You are now going into causality. To say cause and effect cannot infinitely extend into the past is a bold assertion and it evokes the nature of time. But the question is do we as humans actually understand the nature of time as a dimension or are flawed in our way of thinking? To say that reality indeed requires a conscious ever-existing entity is not answering the question of why we see causality in the first place because I can easily ask you does this God have a cause under the law of causality, if so what is that cause? So if you say this ever-existing and infinite God was the uncaused cause to avoid an infinite past regression you then have to ask well what kind of infinity is this God? There is not just one kind of infinity, we have potential and actual infinities. We even have quantitative infinities that exist alongside each other mathematically such as an infinity of whole numbers with an infinity of fractions of 2. Also what if this ever-existing and ever-present entity is not God at all but some sentient AI robot that has deceived you into thinking it is a God? Answer to 4: To say a supernatural being is not bound by the laws of physics is ridiculous. Has anyone ever observed anything beyond the physical world? No. Yes if God was in the observable universe he would have to obey the laws/theories of Special and General Relativity. But assuming that God can come into the observable universe is implying that God is outside of the observable universe as a whole. Anyone who understands Noether’s theorem knows that the laws of physics has to be obeyed in the observable universe and outside of it due to quantities being conserved under continuous symmetries. Keep in mind Noether’s theorem can have very heavy mathematics which shows quantities are conserved. So even if God a supposedly supernatural being (I call bullshit) were outside of the observable universe God would still have to respect the laws of physics. Because of this God cannot even disobey the 1st law of thermodynamics so God cannot simultaneously create or destroy energy at will. Do you think God can break the logic of Mathematics?

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 yes, its the most serious concept there is. As its the foundation premise for ones entire life. How one thinks about metaphysics determines the rest of their thoughts and actions. If people get metaphysics wrong, like believing in god, then the world becomes a shit in a basket, as we can witness.

Because 95% of humanity likes to commit genocide in the name of their god so we have a vested interest in proving to them that they are insane

The concept is serious: more than half of the planet's population believes made-up ideas to be true, impacting the other half, who must live with their ridiculous reasoning and decisions.

@@JamesTheTraveller As well as the great effort and energy I have to say I am impressed with the inventive imaginations of the effort to say there is proof that there is no God.

@@stephenkaake7016 you get what you ask for. If you beg to live on your knees, thats what you get. If you demand of yourself to stand proud, thats what you get.

@@JamesTheTraveller I don't kneel, society does not care, people want to have a life , Jesus Christ was not a real person, I know this as I was given a special mind

@@jsongwriter1443 who is the dishonest pretender? The man who uses reason to acquire knowledge of the world or the beggar who prays to the sky in hope of answers?

@@rogantu the idea he can be benevolent but create a system of survival based upon torturing and eating each other is obscene and depraved.

@@JedidiahCarrick If that's your best argument , I wonder if you're a man of reason or of faith!? Actually I don't, I know.

@JamesTheTraveller Tbh I'm not looking for an argument but it takes more faith to believe in nothing EVERYTHING HAS A CREATOR. I would argue if there was an argument, but there's not there's the truth, and then there's the lies that you believe. One day you'll see.

@@JedidiahCarrick faith is the most destructive weapon man kind has ever created.

By that logic, as I stated, then the creator requires one. Just watch the video...I explain it all.

​@@JamesTheTravellerwhat is the definition of faith?

@@ΜαρίνοςΛούρος you obviously dont understand it if you dont know its bullshit. I dont say it for no reason.

​@@JamesTheTravelleryou are correct 💯😂

@@braziltrip3842 hi. Yes I've read his 3 latest books. I gathered most of my info from forever consciousness research channel though.

@@stevenjohnston2263 good luck with what?

@@Daytah-d4f I'm glad you enjoyed the video. The thing is with agnosticism in this context is that you're practically saying "I think there is a possibility the impossible exists". " I think there may be a possibility that the gremlins in shoes may exist". Stating one doesn't know if there is a speed faster than light is reasonable, but stating one doesn't know if an imaginary creator which logically cannot exist is not. Took me a while to understand that saying you dont know about arbitrary claims is insensible. I heard Leonard peikoff explain this well. I'm glad to hear you've recently lost faith, well done, its the best thing to lose such a destructive method of non-thinking. Reason is mans only proper method of survival. You may like my other video about faith vs reason. Cheers 👍

​@@JamesTheTraveller No, his position is absurd. God, by definition, is the absolute necessary being. Saying God can't exist, is the same as saying existence can't exist, or truth can't exist, it is absurd. God cannot fail to exist. He can do all things. He knows all things. He is in all things. He is all things.

@@prayerjoseph9776 as demonstrated in the video, god does not exist because existence exists. There is no personality whom is the supreme ruler of everything. Thank existence there isnt! That would be absurd!

@@prayerjoseph9776 Definitions don't exist. If that is all you can point to you literally got nothing.

Bibles don't exist in nature 😂

@@saadhorsepower8908 if there was proof god existed, how would you even know? You're the one saying god exists. Prove it. I'm the one saying existence exists without a god, and the proof is the fact that everything exists. Mentioning different groups beliefs is not an argument, its a red herring to distract from the point at hand. Proof of the existence of god. If it was true, it would be simple to do.

​@@JamesTheTraveller Alright. First we must know that either something has multiple states it can be in it has only 1 state it can be in. We can infer this from the law of excluded middle. The reason why things that have only 1 state they can be in are in the state they are is because that's the only state they can be in. But what about for things that have multiple states that they can be in? They require something else external to them to put them into that state. For example, consider a mug on your table. We know this mug has multiple states it can be in because you've seen it in other states (for example state of being in your kitchen or state of non-existence). If your mug has multiple states that it could've been in, why is it the way it is right now? Because your mug from an instant ago was in that same state. In other words, your mug 1 instant ago, caused your mug right now to be in the state it is in right now. [By the way, notice how something can cause itself as long as the 2 exist in different points of time]. Anyways, we have now acquired and understood yet another premise: Something that has multiple states it can be in must be caused by something external to [it in this instance]. Now let's consider the whole universe. Let us determine if the universe has only 1 state it can be in or if it has multiple states it can be in. Well, we know that the universe changes. And change by definition is one thing being in a particular state at 1 point in time and then being in another state at another point in time. That means for something to change, it must have atleast 2 states. In other words, anything that changes has multiple states it can be in. Since we know that the universe changes, we also now know that the universe has multiple states it can be in. If we look back at our earlier premise that we figured out: "Something that has multiple states it can be in must be caused by something external to [it in this instance]." We know that the universe in this instance must be caused by another thing outside of it in this instance. (So we're allowing the universe 1 instant ago to be causing the universe in this instance btw). Now we're going to return to that in a moment but let's talk about infinite regress first. The impossibility of infinite regress or the invalidity of infinite regress as a sufficient explanation is often rejected by atheists. Let us use an analogy to help us understand why infinite regress in causation is invalid. Imagine you see the head of a broom move upwards. You ask the question, "Why did the head of the broom move upwards?". The response is "Because the part of the broom right next to it moved", then why you ask why that part moved and the response is that the part of the broom right next to that had moved. You keep asking and get the same response. Then they tell you that the broom is actually infinitely long. So there's infinite parts to the broom. But just because the broom is infinitely long, does that explain why the whole broom moved upwards? No! Even though each part had an explanation as why it was moved, the strange upward movement is still left unknown. This is because, infinite regresses or causal chains cannot provide adequate explanations and will just require explanations that are external to the infinite causal chain / infinite regress. Now we have collected and understood yet another premise: Infinite causal chains are invalid. Anyways back to the universe. So since the universe has multiple states it can be in it needs something external to [itself in this instance]. Whatever causes the universe to be in it's current state must either have only 1 state it can be in or multiple states it can be in. If it has multiple states, then it must be caused by something that either has multiple states it can be in or only 1 state it can be in. And so on and so on. Due to our principle of infinite causal chains being invalid, we know that this cannot go on forever. There must be a first causer. This first causer cannot have multiple states it can be in or else it too would have to be caused. Therefore there must exist something with only one state it can be in that causes the universe. It also must be always constantly causing the universe, because if it were to ever not cause the universe, it would have changed (and change implies having multiple states). We'll come back to this later but lets talk about deterministic vs indeterministic causation. In deterministic causation, the same conditions imply the same outcome. In indeterministic causation, even with the exact same conditions, different outcomes can occur. Now, the question about this thing that has only 1 state it can be in that constantly causes the universe into being the way that it is, is that does it cause deterministically or indeterministically? If it caused the universe deterministically, then we would expect the universe to be unchanging because the same conditions (the first cause/the thing that has only 1 state it can be in) would not be able to produce different outcomes (different instances of the universe). This means that the thing that has only 1 state it can be in that constantly causes the universe into being the way that it is, does not cause the universe in a deterministic manner. Now would this indeterministic causation be volitional or non-volitional? If it were non-volitional, we would not expect to find any patterns in the universe. Because the odds that the first cause would consistently cause anything other than an incoherent pattern less universe in every instant, are astronomically low. Therefore, the type of indeterministic causation the being that has only 1 state it can be in that constantly causes the universe, causes the universe with is volitional. We have now proved that a being with only 1 state it can be in volitionally and constantly causes the universe to be the way it is. And this we understand to be God.

Now that an advanced point of view

@@deoppressoli-bear2600 your ad hominem is pointless, probably because you have no point. If you do, raise it.

That made no sense I bet you think you know something 😂