Amazing. The first metaphysical argument is well known. But the intelligibility argument is a new one for me. Thanks Fr. Spitzer!

@johnroesch2159

4 жыл бұрын

You seem to think that logic and reason exist separate from a mind which is false. Reason and logic can only exist within a mind. The mindless cannot reason or use logic.

@luisurgelles2631

4 жыл бұрын

@DigitalDan I agree with what you are proposing. And I don't think your opinion contradicts @John Roesch retort. I do believe that logic is a metaphysical realm. We reason through logic because logic is there before our reasoning in the first place. Otherwise logic would be an invention of our minds and we should be able to modify it, which is obviously impossible. However the idea that logic cannot exist in a vacuum that John Roesch is proposing is consistent with this if you think of that mind that contains all logical categories to be the mind of God. To put it in John Paul II vocabulary, God's mind contains the ultimate unity of truth which includes all possible logical propositions, and this God's thinking all possible logical propositions is what makes them true and real and external to our own contingent minds that are structured by all those notions sustained metaphysically by God. This is the only way I think this makes sense.

@luisurgelles2631

4 жыл бұрын

@DigitalDan In Catholic theology that is a position defended by Thomas Aquinas who argued against some rationalists of his time (e.g. Abelard) that the knowledge of God is ultimately unattainable through rational means. That literally God can't be known by human knowledge, and any attempt to ultimately capture Him (or the ultimate unity of truth, or the totality of knowledge, however you prefer to call it) requires a descend of that ultimate truth toward us, not us reaching it up from down here (which is impossible). This is where Revelation comes to play a big role. If God (or the ultimate truth) does not show itself to us, there is no way we could even get to know it. This is only possible, of course, if that ultimate truth has mind and will. We Christians call that God.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

3 жыл бұрын

His argument is *not* a variant of “pick yourself up by the bootstraps.”

@billwassner1433

Жыл бұрын

@@luisurgelles2631 well put. And of course the eighteenth-century philosopher, George Berkeley, argued this excellently and eloquently.

Thank you, Father Spitzer. I love listening to your well-thought-out arguments.

Many thanks Fr Spitzer, I am watching all you videos.

thank you, Father Spitzer for wisdom of the ages brought to life by you.... knowing by experience, philosophical, scientific...

Holy smokes the signal to noise ratio approached infinity here. Amazing!

Oh wow. That version of the ontological argument actually makes sense. Well put. Fr.Spitzer deserves a banana sticker.

@Oners82

4 жыл бұрын

It is one of the worst arguments in all of theology, and that's saying something considering how bad they all are... kzread.info/dash/bejne/i4CFkqanhbffiJs.html

@kjustkses

4 жыл бұрын

Oners82 Actually this is a contingency argument or the intelligibility argument. Im sure you were able to tell the difference between the video you linked and this video. You will generally find this argument in the presence of salted philosophers, not low income youtubers.

@Oners82

4 жыл бұрын

@@kjustkses I know it was a contingency argument, but since the OP mentioned the ontological argument I thought I would point out how incredibly stupid that argument is. The argument in the video is slightly better, but not much. "You will generally find this argument in the presence of salted philosophers, not low income youtubers." You could not sound like more of an obnoxious little twat if you tried.

@kjustkses

4 жыл бұрын

Oners82 You have no idea how obnoxious I can be.

@kjustkses

4 жыл бұрын

Oners82 You see, In academic circles, many of the definitions are already agreed upon and the discussion is not intended for a lament audience. “This argument isn’t much better” you could not sound like a more biased, arrogant twat.

A video whole series on God and only one episode that actually makes sense... Thank you Father Spitzer.

Excellent.... beautifully explained Scientifically , philosophically and from personal experience... the existence of GOD... pointing towards PURE AWARENESS / PURE CONSCIOUSNESS.... thanks 🙏.

Can you turn on Close captions , Thank you !

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. You see, we're never really educated enough. I wish I understood even half of it. I'll keep at it until I understand what he's saying.

Grateful to Father Spitzer for all that he does

Father Spitzer thank you

Please do some in depth interviews with Ed Feser! His arguments require some serious back and froth, although the interview here could and should have been longer. Love the series!

Please interview. Brian Davies

Please interview Gaven Kerr

It is really challenging trying to listen to this and consider the implications of the multiverse, specifically Everitts many-worlds hypothesis. The wave collapses and then both things, everything things eroding Spitzer, I think?

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

4 жыл бұрын

The many worlds hypothesis has no relevance to most of what Spitzer said.

This guy is honestly so smart.

Was listening and got to the end I look and realize the scientist is also priest

Please interview Edward Feser.

I suspect this may go beyond the higher level of consciousness. I don't know how to even begin to describe that, but I think Robert and friends may call it something else. However, it is more than likely in a reality, somewhere.

Why is the universe intelligable (neglecting our history of errors)?

The word "why" refers to a human concept, specifically..for what "humanly understood reason or purpose". How can "that" possibly be applicable to "prehuman" occurences, such as the beginning of the Universe? I would argue that it cannot! I can speculate as to why "I" might wish to create a universe, but I cannot sensibly comment on any "why" for the existing one. Any intrinsically accurate concept of pre-human occurrences seems to me to be beyond us. We are really biased! :/

I hope Ed Feser was interviewed!

Bravo !!

A bit hard to follow, not having read the books to which the to which Fr. spitzer refers, but seemingly coherent. There is a text that has a number of things to say about metaphysics, herein is a sample: "101:2.7 Science ends its reason-search in the hypothesis of a First Cause. Religion does not stop in its flight of faith until it is sure of a God of salvation. The discriminating study of science logically suggests the reality and existence of an Absolute. Religion believes unreservedly in the existence and reality of a God who fosters personality survival. What metaphysics fails utterly in doing, and what even philosophy fails partially in doing, revelation does; that is, affirms that this First Cause of science and religion's God of salvation are one and the same Deity." "101:3.1 Religion is so vital that it persists in the absence of learning. It lives in spite of its contamination with erroneous cosmologies and false philosophies; it survives even the confusion of metaphysics. In and through all the historic vicissitudes of religion there ever persists that which is indispensable to human progress and survival: the ethical conscience and the moral consciousness. 101:3.2 Faith-insight, or spiritual intuition, is the endowment of the cosmic mind in association with the Thought Adjuster, which is the Father's gift to man. Spiritual reason, soul intelligence, is the endowment of the Holy Spirit, the Creative Spirit's gift to man. Spiritual philosophy, the wisdom of spirit realities, is the endowment of the Spirit of Truth, the combined gift of the bestowal Sons to the children of men. And the co-ordination and interassociation of these spirit endowments constitute man a spirit personality in potential destiny." "103:6.2 When man approaches the study and examination of his universe from the outside, he brings into being the various physical sciences; when he approaches the research of himself and the universe from the inside, he gives origin to theology and metaphysics. The later art of philosophy develops in an effort to harmonize the many discrepancies which are destined at first to appear between the findings and teachings of these two diametrically opposite avenues of approaching the universe of things and beings. 103:6.2 When man approaches the study and examination of his universe from the outside, he brings into being the various physical sciences; when he approaches the research of himself and the universe from the inside, he gives origin to theology and metaphysics. The later art of philosophy develops in an effort to harmonize the many discrepancies which are destined at first to appear between the findings and teachings of these two diametrically opposite avenues of approaching the universe of things and beings." truthbook.com/urantia-book-viewer/

I wonder how these two feel after the interview. They probably talk shop a little, and if they don't go out for a meal, go get in their cars to whatever's next. How profound, that must indicate the presence of God.

I’m what sense is the ‘real’ ‘completely intelligible’?

He's a Roman Catholic

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

Жыл бұрын

So what?

Sounds a lot like Bernardo Kastrup

There is a 50% chance that I am too dumb and there is roughly a 50% chance he is just full of garbage but without a doubt I have no clue what he is saying....

Spitzer is discussing Chess not checkers here....

It is almost entirely Christians using these arguments for god despite the fact that even if you accept each premise of each argument none of these arguments get you to the god of the Bible or Christianity.

@writereducator

4 ай бұрын

Do you think this is a problem?

@cnault3244

4 ай бұрын

@@writereducator It's a problem for the woefully mistaken Christians who believe such arguments are evidence for the claims of Christianity. For non-Christians, it's amusing.

@writereducator

4 ай бұрын

No writer I have ever encountered who has engaged in natural theology has claimed that scientific evidence or philosophical proof of an uncaused cause proves the claims of Christianity. Scientific evidence and philosophy, however, do support the claims of Christianity. The Catholic Church teaches that the existence of God need not be a matter of faith but can be seen with the light of reason. Divine Revelation presupposes rational knowledge of the existence of God. This knowledge does establish some of God's attributes. @@cnault3244

@MrMarcodarko

3 ай бұрын

you are not wrong

@writereducator

3 ай бұрын

The same thing is true for your side. Aren't there plenty of woefully mistaken atheists? We need to focus on the good arguments on both sides. If you look into Spitzer's work you will find multiple solid arguments for God. You should not expect to get to a doctrine like the Trinity from reason, since that could only be known through a divine revelation. @@cnault3244

After a century, God is back again. Materialism is Dead now.

@Oners82

4 жыл бұрын

In your dreams.

@jairofonseca1597

4 жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 Hmm ... does a stone dream ? Not really an argument for God but against Materialism.

@Oners82

4 жыл бұрын

@@jairofonseca1597 It is an argument against nothing since nobody claims that inanimate objects can dream.

@jairofonseca1597

4 жыл бұрын

@@Oners82, therefore, dreams must be explained by something else apart from matter.

@Oners82

4 жыл бұрын

@@jairofonseca1597 That does not follow at all - it is a non sequitur fallacy. Do we have a language barrier or something because your replies make no sense.

Copy and paste from my files concerning a possible better explanation for the dual slit experiment: It is only an idea on my part but it goes something like this: 1. Charged particles have their associated magnetic fields with them. 2. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 3. Photons also have both an electrical and magnetic components to them. 4. Whenever a proton, electron, or photon is shot out of a gun, it's respective magnetic field interacts with the magnetic fields of the electrons in the atoms and molecules of the gun itself, the medium the projectile is traveling through (ie: air), and/or from around the slits themselves. 5. Via QED (quantum electrodynamics), newly generated photons might occur. 6. The projectile goes on it's own way and the newly generated photons go on their own way. It gives the illusion of a wave particle duality, but it is not that way in actual reality. 7. Specifically in the case of protons or electrons, the newly generated EM wave travels faster than the particles. The new EM waves go through both slits and sets up "hills and valleys" of field energy. When the proton or electron goes through one of the slits, it then follows whatever "valley" it enters thereby over time, even shooting only one proton or one electron at a time, the interference pattern will still emerge. 8. As far as detectors are concerned, they probably have an energy field that is one way when on and a different way when off. The interaction of this energy field (or the lack thereof) with whatever is passing through it, gives the indication that is observed. Now, for those who hold fast to reality being probability waves that are condensed down by an observer into one single physical reality, then: a. What exactly are these probability waves made up of? b. Where exactly are these probability waves stored at until they are observed? c. How exactly does an observer in physical reality actually observe these probability waves and condense them down into one single physical reality? d. Who and/or what observed the first observer? e. What exactly happens when two or more observers observe different probability waves? Which one takes precedent in physical reality? For me, while this observer condensing probability waves down into one single physical reality might work well on paper, it does not appear to reflect actual reality. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? My way by utilizing known scientific principals, or that is as discerned on paper as stated above is how reality actually is?

If you have to go to this philosophical extreme to explain god, where does that leave Moses? The oral traditions that make up the bible don't depend on any of these mental gymnastics that only a small percentage of the population of the world understands. Talk about grasping at straws.

Loops and Fractals are finite and yet have no constraints...Also, a mind is a problem-solving machine, God cannot be a Mind, nor does it have Free Will. The Nature of ALL Being absolutely limits! God is more akin to a deterministic mathematical rock that grounds all Being never a mind. Minds are always troubleshooting problems asking questions resolving puzzles. That which IS ultimately is motionless. The Priest up there is sophisticated but not sophisticated enough...

@KeithStrang

4 жыл бұрын

Filipe Albuquerque I think you missed the argument. A non-physical mind is the only thing we are aware of that does not have physical limits. All physical particles, fields, waves, etc. have physical limits. The deeper you go into base physical reality, the less restrictive the boundaries until you end up at no physical boundary. In addition, a mind can render (troubleshoot problems) to create order, as you indicated.

3:46 "reality is completly intelligible ?" I mean really? how can someone state something like that ? Science says we know only 4% of the universe, we dont know how life started, we dont how we are conscious, we cannot explain the double slit experiment....etc

@azzylandvanessa5524

4 жыл бұрын

It is completely intelligible in the context that we understand the framework, i.e Spacetime-General relativity and the foundations of reality Quantum physics, plus we understand the laws of nature, so we see reality is intelligible, know because we don't know every feature of the system doesn't negate our (science) general knowledge of it, and analogy would be just because we don't know how many Earth type planet actually exist, doesn't negate the fact we know about the science of cosmology, do you get it? You don't need to know about ever fact of a system to understand the general concept of what the system/theory actually is, that is the same for the cosmological constant and dense matter. Einstein said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is intelligible, i.e it can be understood. John Lennox the mathematician talks about this his books on the history of science and God.

@charlesudoh6034

4 жыл бұрын

vjnt1star saying that "reality is intelligible" doesn't imply that we know everything. It only means that "reality can be known" . This is the basic assumption that our pursuit of truth/knowledge through science is based on. The funny thing is this assumption can't even be grounded in science but rather in theology and philosophy. Its an assumption that most people take for granted. Like Einstein said, "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible", and science cannot tell us why that is. The answer to that lies outside and beyond science.

@B.S...

4 жыл бұрын

The statement 'reality is completely intelligible' is false. It assumes all phenomena can be explained by cause and effect, that nature is deterministic. Einstein's famous quote is not about reality, it's about the amazing ability of the human mind. In any case Einstein was a classical thinking physicist (determinist). Quantum mechanics however is indeterminate and violates the cause and effect relationship and therefore is fundamentally unintelligible. Einstein's attempts to demonstrate that QM was an incomplete theory failed, but he did demonstrate (unintentionally) the limitations of human comprehension. QM was not discovered by the use of logic, its mathematical foundations are grounded in the analysis of empirical data gathered from experiment. Human reasoning (logic) considers a paradox to be a flawed conclusion and either the given assumptions or the argument is invalid. To accept a paradox is to admit incomprehensibility. The quantum world is riddled with random unpredictable uncaused events. ie. double slit experiment, EPR paradox, Uncertainty Principle, Schrodinger's cat paradox. Wikipedia ---> quantum indeterminacy.

@charlesudoh6034

4 жыл бұрын

@B S You are making the same error as the other person. The intelligibility of the universe is not about our present ability to comprehend the universe, but that the universe exist in such a way that allows for the possibility of comprehension in a reasoned and rational way.

@charlesudoh6034

4 жыл бұрын

@B S A quick side note - Einstein's famous quote is quite straight foward. It clearly talks about the nature of the universe. Trying to spin it around is just silly.

Father Spitzer is proof positive that the notion that only fools or morons believe in God is pure nonsense.

@aqilshamil9633

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed

Everything we experience as created men in God started out in the thoughts called our Creator. This invisible Creator has never created a material universe because that's impossible. There has never been a visible object made of material things. They're just formed illusions that comes from the various frequencies that started out as thoughts. God is the processor of those thoughts and it has a voice that can speak directly into the mind of a created man. A created man is nothing but information that forms an individual consciousness which can be described as a personal theater room where the visible world appears. Another analogy to describe what we're involved in is by playing a virtual reality game like Second Life that can be found on the internet. All the experiences in Second Life started out as invisible thoughts in the minds of programmers.

@BradHolkesvig

4 жыл бұрын

@@myutubechannel_nr1 Everything you experience is nothing but the dreams of our Creator.

Why is it that "GOD/GODs" can (supposedly) do anything and everything except clearly and conclusively demonstrate his/it's/their existence to everyone right here and right now? I think it's simply because there ain't any! :)

@gerardmoloney9979

4 жыл бұрын

The heavens declares the glory of God. Who else could make them. The latest scientific explanation is that it all came from NOTHING. Do you believe that!!! If so please show me how that works. Or is it more likely that the bible, which is the words of God, and made the claim that the heavens glorify God, states that all that is detectable is made from that which is not detectable. Wouldn't that explain WHY the scientists found NOTHING!!! I mean everybody KNOWS THAT IF EVER THERE WAS NOTHING THEN THERE WOULD ALWAYS BE NOTHING! FACT. NOW BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF.

@Oners82

4 жыл бұрын

@@gerardmoloney9979 " The latest scientific explanation is that it all came from NOTHING." Wrong, you clearly don't know shit about cosmology. "Do you believe that!!!" Questions are followed by a question mark, not an exclamation mark. And no, he probably doesn't believe it because there is not a scientific theory that exists that advocates your bullshit strawman. "Or is it more likely that the bible, which is the words of God, and made the claim that the heavens glorify God, states that all that is detectable is made from that which is not detectable" Oh sure, it is FAR more likely that the universe came from an undetectable, magical super-being just because an ancient book written by ignorant, Iron Age Palestinians says so... Epic facepalm. "everybody KNOWS THAT IF EVER THERE WAS NOTHING THEN THERE WOULD ALWAYS BE NOTHING" Same bullshit straw man argument, and it isn't true anyway. The only people who agree on this is you theists who never get out of your own echo chamber. "FACT." No it isn't a fact, it is just a statement of your ignorance. I can link you to philosophers right now who will say that your statement is illconceived, so you're just wrong. And turn the caps lock off would you Mr. Shouty, it makes you look like a troll.

@freethot333

4 жыл бұрын

@@gerardmoloney9979 I certainly agree with BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF Gerard. If you are already privy to what "Everybody knows" then I need not explain anything to you.

@gerardmoloney9979

4 жыл бұрын

@@freethot333 you could try to explain to me what you are saying in your last reply! It makes no sense if it's a response to my comments.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

4 жыл бұрын

Gary, whether or not the truth of classical theism has been "clearly and conclusively demonstrated" depends (at least in part) on whether or not the arguments supporting it go through. So e.g. it depends on whether Feser's versions of the arguments from change, abstract objects, and PSR (etc) are sound. I'm not sure myself. It's frustrating being uncertain. But my point is that your comment merely assumes that all natural theology arguments have been exposed as failures. I'm not sure of *that* either. Arguably, your post does no more than beg the question against classical theism.

6:26 "so what's the implication?" That's actually hilarious. Blah blah blah blah blah blah God.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

3 жыл бұрын

I challenge you to actually summarize one of the arguments instead of “blah blah blah.”

@EffySalcedo

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns 😂😂 maybe Jack wants to see Fr. Spitzer dance to say " Oh my God "

It's cool when you dont have to prove anything. I believe in an uncaused chicken who lays eggs that turn into universes. Metaphysically prove me wrong,?

@kjustkses

4 жыл бұрын

Alan Rosenthal The chicken has to have all the omni properties and needs to be transcendent of space, time and matter.

Some of the physics he uses in his argumentation is incorrect. If you don't understand the physics then stick to your philosophical mumbo jumbo.

@namlieu9861

4 жыл бұрын

proofs for your statement?

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

Жыл бұрын

Such as? Please make sure you aren’t referring to majority *interpretation* of empirically equivalent models

If he had an atheist he would've interrupted him ten times every minute, but he let the theist speak for thirteen minutes without interruptions

@paultorbert6929

4 жыл бұрын

if.............. face palm.

You can logically prove that there must be a necessary being??? LMAO, give me a fucking break!

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

Жыл бұрын

You can though

Nah, this preacher is simply wrong

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

Жыл бұрын

Because?

a perfect act of love... lets drown everybody. If you can wash a hog, then you know this is hogwash.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

4 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hZatvKaqZ5m6Z5c.html ssshhhh gently caresses you

Very tempted to stop subscribing to Closer to Truth. It feels like the worst bait and switch ever. Reel people in with the occasional discussion of actual, intellectually rigorous science, and then switch the format to endless discussions of discredited superstition. Every time you hear a proposition from one of these snake oilers purporting knowledge of “God,” just replace that word with “Flying Spaghetti Monster,” which is equally valid, and will remind you of how pathetic and ludicrous the conversation is.

@charlesudoh6034

4 жыл бұрын

Sean Rockwell I doubt you understood what was being discussed here. First of all, how has the "superstition" (as you call it) been discredited? I would like to know. Secondly, your idea of replacing the word "God" with "flying spaghetti monster" as a means to refute the argument is just silly. For example, if I had a container of milk labelled "milk" and you came along and replaced the label "milk" to "sugar", would the act of changing the label affect the properties of the content of the container. The argument is aimed to demonstrate the existence and necessity of an uncaused/unconditioned reality (with certain properties) that theologians have labelled "God". You could change the label from "God" to whatever pops into your head and it wouldn't change what is being proposed here.

@AngusRockford

4 жыл бұрын

charles udoh Sounds like you’re fully willing to engage in a discussion about whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused or “conditioned” your reality (I think it’s telling that the proponents of this view have subtly changed their language to try to make it sound more respectable). I’m not. The man presenting the argument here wears a collar I’m well-familiar with. The collar is his signal to the world that he also believes the Flying Spaghetti Monster sent down Her only daughter, the ethically perfect Meatball, to be impaled, die, and be buried for the “sins” of humankind, and then to be magically resurrected and taken to a magical, invisible realm where dead souls, judged holy by Flying Spaghetti Monster, sometimes with the intercession of her saints, bask in her peace, love, and glory forever and ever. Like the man in the collar, I could go on for several million words of utterly insane assumptions that defy every known law of physics, not to mention logic and common sense, based on these assumptions about the premise of the First Cause, which ancient philosophers introduced because they were doing their best without the benefit of modern science. But I wouldn’t, because I don’t have gall, and neither do most rational people who don’t persist in childish fantasies that give them emotional satisfaction. I’d hasten to add that believers in Thor, who wear slightly different signaling paraphernalia, have an equally fatuous argument for how there was no first cause, just an eternal abyss from which the hermaphrodite giant Ymir and his cow Audhumla magically emerged and ultimately birthed us all. I hope I won’t be struck by lightning for saying so. Metaphysics is metaphysics. Those who make their metaphysical arguments to justify their preferred mystical beliefs, usually inculcated in early childhood, are a lot of things, but they aren’t scientists, which is my main complaint. Closer to Truth used to feature scientists who were honestly grappling with observations of the real world and the logic tools that made sense of it. If you twist logic to fit people’s preconceived beliefs, you can often sound rational and persuasive. It’s the oldest game going, any person with any whacky faith/belief system can do it, and it’s a major cause of terrible human misery. You’re free to take that metaphysical ride with Robert. Like Bartleby in Melville’s story “I prefer not to.”

@charlesudoh6034

4 жыл бұрын

Sean Rockwell Once again, the argument is not about any religion at all (arguing religion is a different ball game and has different arguments for that). This argument, however, is simply to establish the fact that an unconditioned reality exist (and that's what is labelled as God). That's it. You are spinning it into something else to avoid the implication of what is being said. You are making use of the fact that he is a priest to discount an argument that has nothing to do with who he is. That's the problem with being emotional in conversations like this. You get biased and tend ignore the argument by picking on other things that are irrelevant to the topic at hand. How about you focus on the argument and ignore irrelevant details that don't apply to the argument in question. How about you intelligently refute the argument by proposing counter arguments showing the flaws in the original argument and demonstrating the non-existence of this unconditioned reality that we call God. (If you can).

@paultorbert6929

4 жыл бұрын

@Sean Rockwell ..... ahoy there lad......... i think Charles will have a relaxed cruise, while you have your Nantucket Sleigh Ride........ or if you are a Savoy Brown fan, enjoy the train ride while it lasts(the version "religion" wants you to choke on)........ i personally think you have more to offer.

@AngusRockford

4 жыл бұрын

paul torbert It’s certainly true that accepting unfounded dogma is more relaxing than fighting it, but I appreciate your musical suggestions for relaxation. I enjoy all kinds of music, poetry, and artwork, especially the spiritually-inspired, knowing full well that the difference between that and science-based reality is a vast gulf. It is a burden to think critically and ignore the perverse men with the Roman collars and the pretty red slippers, who sell holy snake oil by the gallon.

It is desperately sad seeing Theists squirm and twist to fit their metaphysical claptrap into reality...instead of just assuming God is a human invention and Religion is fiction!

@kevinboucher3247

4 жыл бұрын

What’s sadder is an atheist who posts multiple comments trying to refute theists, but failing to rise above common logical fallacies.

Father Distraction.

Bad arguments....

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

3 жыл бұрын

Wrong

Robert Spitzer is a master of self-delusion