Kokesh on Atheism + Libertarians

[Elfshadow]

You continue to try to justify your position by questioning the nature of knowledge.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.

Idiot: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything, including material phenomena.

I sorta resemble that......

 

[Athena]

How does "maybe" inserted into the equation tell us anything?

"A is A and A is not non-A, but maybe A is non-A.". That's just completely irrational.

Admitting to unknowns is not irrational at all.

 

[bluesc]

I think one of Roy L's threads would've been better.

Roy brings us high quality content

This thread is yet-another-confrontational-Atheist-wants-to-earn-PhD-in-Astrophysics-by-bravely-confronting-people-on-internet-forums.

 

[otherone]

I sorta resemble that......

Yeah...she called me an idiot, too....but it's ok...I'm a lovable kind of idiot....like an idiot suavant....

 

[Elfshadow]

Roy brings us high quality content

This thread is yet-another-confrontational-Atheist-wants-to-earn-PhD-in-Astrophysics-by-bravely-confronting-people-on-internet-forums.

Its better then r/Atheist over on reddit.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Roy brings us high quality content

lolz

This thread is yet-another-confrontational-Atheist-wants-to-earn-PhD-in-Astrophysics-by-bravely-confronting-people-on-internet-forums.

True that.

 

[bluesc]

Its better then r/Atheist over on reddit.

This is true, especially now that Esoteric has been sent back to r/Atheism to post screenshots of conversations he has with "ILLOGICAL HITLER-ESQUE THEISTS" on facebook.

 

[Qdog]

What evidence is their of either theory? I would be interested in seeing any evidence what so ever, because I have not seen any at all. By the way. I'm in no way shape or form a christian. I'm really wondering what proof you have of either posistion.

Firstly, I didn't say the big bang theory is the only plausible theory. But if there was ANYTHING that gave the BB theory ANY credibility at all, it would instantly be many many more times probable than the existence of an Easter Bunny (even though I cant disprove the Easter Bunny).

Here is just a small sample of some of the supporting evidence for the BB theory:
First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Like I said.... I have serious doubts whether or not the Big Bang theory is absolutely correct. There is no way of knowing for sure at this point, andI am not even a physicist. Heck, from my understanding, even Einstein was wrong! lol

 

[BrittanySligar]

I think, therefore I am.

 

[Elfshadow]

Firstly, I didn't say the big bang theory is the only plausible theory. But if there was ANYTHING that gave the BB theory ANY credibility at all, it would instantly be many many more times probable than the existence of an Easter Bunny (even though I cant disprove the Easter Bunny).

Here is just a small sample of some of the supporting evidence for the BB theory:
First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Like I said.... I have serious doubts whether or not the Big Bang theory is absolutely correct. There is no way of knowing for sure at this point, andI am not even a physicist. Heck, from my understanding, even Einstein was wrong! lol

What does the big bang theory have to do one way or the other with a creator. See this is the problem with the whole debate. No matter what scientific theories of how the universe or life begun, there is always the possablity that a creator cause it. Lets put it this way. The big bang is an effect. Whats the cause?

I know most of that.

 

[Elfshadow]

I think, therefore I am.

What if you are really a state of the art AI? Do you exist then?

 

[BrittanySligar]

What if you are really a state of the art AI? Do you exist then?

Well, then I guess I would exist as a form of AI. I'm not saying that's impossible. Many philosophers would hold that as a possibility.

 

[Qdog]

I like talking about this stuff... I find it really interesting. Investigating the origins of the universe is fun and all... but something I find even more fascinating is studying the origins of LIFE. Pretty much anyone can accept the idea that if you had even 1 single celled organism, given time that organism would replicate, and mutate, and adapt to its environment, and over millions of years could very well evolve into a higher form of life.

But a very interesting question, is how did the Very FIRST life come into existence? There was an article I read a long time ago about how the atmospheric conditions many billions of years ago was electrically charged quite a bit. I believe they were trying to replicate in a lab the conditions to try to reproduce the creation of life. It was pretty complicated stuff for me to understand at the time, a lot of talk about amino acid chains and such.

Anyway it was pretty interesting. I might try to find the article if you guys are interested.

 

[Deborah K]

I don't agree with his views or logic in this video, but I agree with him about most other things, and so do you all, i.e. ending the wars, ending the Fed, free markets, non-aggression, etc.

I don't have to agree with everything everyone says at all times to feel aligned with them on major issues. I also don't believe that Kokesh can hurt Ron with his views. Kokesh is bringing active military into the fold and doing a bang-up job along with Zak Carter and Chris Gosselin. I think he's doing more good than harm -by a long shot!

 

[Elfshadow]

Well, then I guess I would exist as a form of AI. I'm not saying that's impossible. Many philosophers would hold that as a possibility.

Plato's Allogory of the cave is fun. It really is amazing how long this type of reasoning has existed.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Admitting to unknowns is not irrational at all.

Admitting to unknowns is completely irrational if your theory of knowledge is based on the senses. Did you experience the unknown? If you didn't experience something that is unknown, how do you know that the unknown exists? What is the limit of the known? How do you sense a limit?

If what you know is based on sensation, then how can you know anything? How can your sensations ever be tested by the "reality"? By another subjective sense perception? But how do you ever get past your sensation to the "world"?




In your theory of knowledge, everything is unknown because if knowledge is based on sense perceptions, then constructing a universal proposition is impossible, since you engage in the inductive fallacy when doing so.

What road do you want to go down with me? Do you want me to show you how Objectivism is irrational? Do you want me to show you how your theory of knowledge means that you can't ever know anything? Where do you want me to go with this?

 

[Qdog]

What does the big bang theory have to do one way or the other with a creator. See this is the problem with the whole debate. No matter what scientific theories of how the universe or life begun, there is always the possablity that a creator cause it. Lets put it this way. The big bang is an effect. Whats the cause?

I know most of that.

Ok, but now you are trying to talk about using an irrational explanation for an observable effect (the Big Bang) Why assume there had to be an instigator. Why assume this "creator" had to be intelligent. What made the "creator"? You are opening up an entirely different can of worms. I think that the origins of the universe is a bad forum to discuss creationism. I think a better media in which to knock ideas back and forth is the creation of first life.

Many people jump to the conclusion that if one creator made the universe, then that same creator also made life. An easy way to virtually disprove this would be to reproduce the creation of life under conditions that replicated similar conditions to the earth many billions of years ago. Seems pretty easy enough to be honest.

The study of the creation of life from inorganic material is called Abiogenesis and a brief explanation can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

[BrittanySligar]

I like talking about this stuff... I find it really interesting. Investigating the origins of the universe is fun and all... but something I find even more fascinating is studying the origins of LIFE. Pretty much anyone can accept the idea that if you had even 1 single celled organism, given time that organism would replicate, and mutate, and adapt to its environment, and over millions of years could very well evolve into a higher form of life.

But a very interesting question, is how did the Very FIRST life come into existence? There was an article I read a long time ago about how the atmospheric conditions many billions of years ago was electrically charged quite a bit. I believe they were trying to replicate in a lab the conditions to try to reproduce the creation of life. It was pretty complicated stuff for me to understand at the time, a lot of talk about amino acid chains and such.

Anyway it was pretty interesting. I might try to find the article if you guys are interested.

You're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment.. They simulated elements that would be present in earth's infancy, and by introducing a simulated lightning strike to the other elements, they created over 20 amino acids from "nothing", which are essential in order for biological life to exist.

 

[Athena]

Admitting to unknowns is completely irrational if your theory of knowledge is based on the senses. Did you experience the unknown? If you didn't experience something that is unknown, how do you know that the unknown exists? What is the limit of the known? How do you sense a limit?

If what you know is based on sensation, then how can you know anything? How can your sensations ever be tested by the "reality"? By another subjective sense perception? But how do you ever get past your sensation to the "world"?




In your theory of knowledge, everything is unknown because if knowledge is based on sense perceptions, then constructing a universal proposition is impossible, since you engage in the inductive fallacy when doing so.

What road do you want to go down with me? Do you want me to show you how Objectivism is irrational? Do you want me to show you how your theory of knowledge means that you can't ever know anything? Where do you want me to go with this?

Haven't I already admitted that we can't really ever know anything for sure?

 

[Deborah K]

I like talking about this stuff... I find it really interesting. Investigating the origins of the universe is fun and all... but something I find even more fascinating is studying the origins of LIFE. Pretty much anyone can accept the idea that if you had even 1 single celled organism, given time that organism would replicate, and mutate, and adapt to its environment, and over millions of years could very well evolve into a higher form of life.

But a very interesting question, is how did the Very FIRST life come into existence? There was an article I read a long time ago about how the atmospheric conditions many billions of years ago was electrically charged quite a bit. I believe they were trying to replicate in a lab the conditions to try to reproduce the creation of life. It was pretty complicated stuff for me to understand at the time, a lot of talk about amino acid chains and such.

Anyway it was pretty interesting. I might try to find the article if you guys are interested.

It seems that we humans are limited in our thinking about the Universe. Just about everything known to us has a beginning and an ending, so we can't seem to comprehend that the Universe doesn't work that way. The big bang doesn't even make sense because no one knows from where the components that supposedly caused it came. The Universe has no end or beginning, it is cyclical. So is our life on this planet. Everything about us is cyclical - including the atoms that make us.

As to life being created? I think that both creation and evolution play and have played a role on this planet.