PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim is back in court for his sodomy trial today.

Sessions judge SM Komathy Suppiah is hearing arguments from both sides on whether the trial should not be transferred to the High Court as requested by the prosecution.

Full story in Malaysiakini.com

Camera: Shukri Mohamad
Editing: Indrani Kopal

The Urban Mystic Show Episode 13.5

The fourth in a series of videos looking at different proofs for God's existence and the objections raised against those proofs.

The cosmological argument serise is officially cancelled due to the overwhelmingly huge nature of deriving all of God's attributes.

Apparently, while I was "away" from the net dealing with computer problems,
as well as moving, The proverbial hornet's nest did a bit of buzzing.

As far as I'm concerned CCHR is a dead horse, But fhat doesn't mean I'm done beating on it.

I made 24 videos dealing with the CCHR Anti psychiatry IOD film, and even had a friend post their source material so that anyone intersted could see the material I was referencing.

Naturally the anti-psyche flunkies tended to watch one of the earlier videos and comment on later claims without venturing to the video which covered that section of the the CCHR film.

It was fascinating watching the same sort of straw-man arguments that are often used by young earth creationists.

To put it simply, the Psychiatry Industry of Death traveling exhibit is the Scientology equivelent of the Creation Museum. Both bear the stench of deceit. Groups willing to do whatever they can
to mislead the public in order to promote their own agenda.

I had a long talk, a while ago with a scientologist at FLAG, the home of the Scientology elite, about the CCHR movie. Their immediate reaction was to attempt to jump to their chemical imbalance argument,
assiming that my objection pertained merely to this.

I referenced the furthering of the urban legend about skinner putting his daughter in one of his, now infamous, skinner boxes. I mentioned that confederate deaths seem to have been omitted from their US
war casualties figures. I informed him about the reality behind the Siberia USA conspiracy theory, which CCHR is still promoting today. I also talk with him about several other huge deliberately misleading statements

As I explained that whoever did their fact finding did a piss poor job he agreed, and insisted that if CCHR KNEW about these problems they'd surely fix them...

I was unable to make any followup calls. Peter Mansel became unavailable to take my calls after the forementioned discussion. It's been a few months now, and I hope he's not been treated too harshly for questioning ehe party line.

You see almost every scientologist which I've had a lengthy conversation with has simply vanished, seldom to be heard from again.

So, if anyone runs across pete, let me know.

Luc Ferry, ancien ministre de l’éducation nationale, évoque la baisse des vocations scientifiques (plus de 40 % en quinze ans) et développe l’argument qu’alors que l’école républicaine se fondait sur une éthique ...

Luc Ferry, ancien ministre de l’éducation nationale, évoque la baisse des vocations scientifiques (plus de 40 % en quinze ans) et développe l’argument qu’une raison en est que la science est bien davantage associée aujour...

Bikram Yogahttp://www.YogaBodyNaturals.com – There are easier ways to get flexible quickly. If you struggle with stiffness even after stretching and yoga classes, than you need to try some dietary and yoga pose practice chang...

On the Naturalist's Doubt:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BypSHmoozV0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=warranted+christian+belief&ots=nX0NeAMGkj&sig=oO8bUBXZ1huS7hd2ehqX4vlcqM0 -- please read to better understand how I respond to the Naturalist's Doubt...it is here that you will find the distinction of de jure and de facto objections made even more clear

Alvin Plantinga, in "Warrant Christian Belief" -- No successful de jure objections (Even on the assumption that Christianity is true, you're irrational); because if Christianity is true and if my sorts of experiences go along with and don't contradict Christian belief, then how could it be irrational for me to have these experiences?!?

But then there's the de facto objection. It goes like this:

(1) If Christianity is false, then your experience was irrational.
(2) Christianity is false.
(3) Therefore, your experience was irrational.

Notice first that (1) isn't clearly true. What if pluralism is right? What if I had a *misinformed* experience of some other God (YWHW or Allah), of many gods, of enlightenment, etc? So, you might need to change your argument to:

(4) If naturalism is true, then your experience was irrational.
(5) Naturalism is true.
(6) Therefore, your experience was irrational.

Now (4) seems correct. But defending (5) might be hard to do in a way that would convince the thoughtful Christian. Still, the option is open for the atheist to take.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_7zhXEMmcvQC&pg=PA104&dq=j.+p.+moreland&lr=&sig=ACfU3U2Mp2NZnWB7vv1u6f74imGiJGD-Wg#PPP1,M1 -- please look over/read this to see how hard it might be to convince anyone of naturalism

More importantly, however, every objection to my experience on naturalistic assumptions will hinge on (2). Why think that Christianity is false? Notice you can't be simplistic here -- you must analyze all scripture and all past and present scholarship in biblical studies, theology, and philosophy of religion in order to *positively assert* what is essential to Christianity, and then you must show how *those essential parts* are in error or are false.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q2Eiottz75cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=douglas+moo&lr=&sig=ACfU3U01DtLuq2hEl3hEnc6O-Ebc1GPZqg#PPR5,M1 -- an example of good biblical scholarship on the book of Romans by Douglas Moo

Here's the argument that all this is about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_y0CZa86jw

Here's the Richard Dawkins forum where I'm debating my argument at
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=38556&p=1033927#p1033927

I look at the objections about "fundamental essence" that people on RichardDawkins.net have proposed.

Are they rational objections? Are they logical?

Let's see...

Here's the argument that all this is about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_y0CZa86jw

Here's the Richard Dawkins forum where I'm debating my argument at
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=38556&p=1033927#p1033927

In this episode, I look at whether or not I need to assume that the mind is non-physical before I prove it.

That, if true, would mean that I am guilty of the fallacy of Begging the Question.

I'm not guilty of it though, and this video illustrates why.

Really, even Shirakawasuna has admitted that I am not, and says that people shouldn't use that objection. It's almost comical.

Til Youtube stops being a terrible, VEOH TURD!

Please read through this link!! http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

E) For any worldview W, if W validly affirms the existence of a never-ending, post-mortem state of extreme suffering for those who believe ~W, then W should be on the "priority list" of worldviews to wager for.

U) For any worldview W, if W validly affirms a post-mortem state of existence but denies a state of extreme suffering for those who believe ~W, then W should be on the "moderately important list" of worldviews to wager for.

A) For any worldview W, if W denies any sort of post-mortem existence, then W should be on the "I'll get to it when I can, when and if I get done with lists E and U list"

***Anyone who thinks that religion is evil (or the cause of evil, somehow) please make a video stating your position and defending it.

PWR excludes The Many Gods Objection -- PWR says that there exists a set of Ws each of which NEED to be wagered for.

What does wagering mean, then? Wagering includes 'our best use of reasoning and our affections towards the various religions'

Wagering means doing the following CONTINUALLY throughout one's lifetime:

---Arguments for God
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=debates_main -- debates between a theist and atheists
---Examining the various religious texts in E worldviews
---Evidences for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf - a debate on the resurrection of Jesus with BART EHRMAN!
http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/272 - a talk new testament scholar N.T. Wright gives on the Jesus of history
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211737936&sr=8-3 -- a professional work (book) by N.T. Wright on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus
---Talk to religious leaders
---Listen to apologists
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/LetMyPeopleThink.aspx - Ravi Zacharias
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer - William Lane Craig
http://www.str.org/site/PageServer - Greg Koukl
---Ask how certain religions respond to questions you have (e.g. justice, moral failure, worship)
---You have to want to know that some W is true, IF it is true.

More videos are coming in response to the objections already on youtube against PW ! ( :

Face aux OGM, les avis sont partagés et la polémique fait rage. Contrairement à beaucoup d'autres média, la télé agricole a décidé de donner la parole aux deux camps, histoire de rester objectif face à la...

Veritas48 raised the Objection to my Refuting the Resurrection (Part 1: the Point of Contention) that
"Peter...you made some mistakes here. You said in this video that I mentioned the Canonization of the NT, which I never did....I simply never did. I would never argue that just because it isn't in the canon it must be authentic or trusted. That would be a stupid argument. People who see your video are going to think I argued this my friend. And I didn't."

So I will simply play for people the exact clip that is the source of this disagreement.

A video response to:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a2a8WHZRTgs


Objections:
1. Subjective experiences are different in nature because of the different way in which the information reaches the brain.

Rebuttal:
I gouge out your eyeballs, stick an electrode in your brain, and stimulate your visual cortex. You see things.

This shows that we *only* need to talk about the brain, and not the "channels" of information.

Which in turn shows that it is consistent with my argument. This is because, according to my definition of "fundamentally" in my argument, the fundamental nature of *all* brain processes, regardless of location, are all still fundamentally the same.
*poof*, objection disappears.

2. Premises 1, 2 and 3 create a compositional fallacy.

Rebuttal:
Leibniz's Law skips straight to showing that premise #3 is true without the need for the first two premises. I go over this in my original video... you must have missed that.
*poof*, objection disappears.

3. Gravity manipulates electrical impulses or chemical reactions.

Rebuttal:
First, and foremost, the *source* of the force of gravity is still not known. You can talk about "curvatures in spacetime," but it doesn't show where this curvature *comes* from precisely, nor does it show how this curvature actually causes the effect of gravity.

And then, of course, even if I was wrong in that(which I don't think I am), you still have:
"electrical impulses or chemical reactions" can become
"electrical impulses or chemical reactions or gravitons"

My argument would then still work. The reason this is so is because *any* physical thing which you can show manipulates "electrical impulses or chemical reactions" can be added to that term without any harm to my argument whatsoever.

4. The equivocation of "subjective experiences."

Rebuttal:
I don't care if I can't show that you have them 100%...

I state over, and over again that my argument can only be used *by you* to show that *you* have a non-physical mind not created by your brain.

The fact that you don't *want* to use my argument for that reason is just a sign that you are running from the truth.

Of course, you could *genuinely* not have subjective experiences, and that's fine too.

I'm just glad that *I* have them... they are great. I don't know what I'd do if I didn't have them. I tend to think that they are the *fundamental* aspect that makes us human(and scientists around the world would agree), but that's your prerogative.

The second video on arguments against God's existence. This one deals with the question of "god of the gaps", the question "what caused God?" in response to a cosmological argument, and then the objections made on the principle of Occam's Razor (that God doesn't fulfill a sufficient explanatory role). I conclude by turning the tables on the atheist to account for contingency by appealing to "it just happened that way" or "chance"-esque explanations which, I contend, can be as bad as facile god of the gaps claims by theists.

Another general introduction of consciousness put together by John Searle.

The lecture is similar to this one you may have watched previously.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA

This video talks about his Chinese argument in more detail and answer some common objections raised against this argument.

Also he talks in more detail about why consciousness can be studied scientifically.

This is part 5.

Part 1:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fBi4K_1UoGE
Part 2:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=K62alNnS7bE
Part 3:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=poMXQMTrXzk
Part 4:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=N5GMlbcX6t4
Part 5:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vWV-s8rGQfU

Another general introduction of consciousness put together by John Searle.

The lecture is similar to this one you may have watched previously.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA

This video talks about his Chinese argument in more detail and answer some common objections raised against this argument.

Also he talks in more detail about why consciousness can be studied scientifically.

This is part 4.

Part 1:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fBi4K_1UoGE
Part 2:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=K62alNnS7bE
Part 3:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=poMXQMTrXzk
Part 4:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=N5GMlbcX6t4
Part 5:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vWV-s8rGQfU

Another general introduction of consciousness put together by John Searle.

The lecture is similar to this one you may have watched previously.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA

This video talks about his Chinese argument in more detail and answer some common objections raised against this argument.

Also he talks in more detail about why consciousness can be studied scientifically.

This is part 3.

Part 1:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fBi4K_1UoGE
Part 2:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=K62alNnS7bE
Part 3:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=poMXQMTrXzk
Part 4:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=N5GMlbcX6t4
Part 5:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vWV-s8rGQfU

Another general introduction of consciousness put together by John Searle.

The lecture is similar to this one you may have watched previously.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA

This video talks about his Chinese argument in more detail and answer some common objections raised against this argument.

Also he talks in more detail about why consciousness can be studied scientifically.

This is part 1.

Part 1:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fBi4K_1UoGE
Part 2:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=K62alNnS7bE
Part 3:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=poMXQMTrXzk
Part 4:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=N5GMlbcX6t4
Part 5:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vWV-s8rGQfU

These are the current objections to my arguments:

1. I don't prove that the mind is created by a non-physical process.
2. The mind is just an "emergent property" of the brain.
3. Using Leibniz's Law "begs the question."
4. People responding to the first two premises.
5. If the mind is non-physical, you can't use the dual-slit experiment.
6. Science has a valid explanation for "consciousness," so you're argument is debunked.
7. "You have already been debunked, npage85!"

I deal with *all* those objections in this video and show that I *indeed* have rational rebuttals to all of them. You now need to respond to the rebuttals instead of just posting the same objections again.


The videos I mention:
#1:
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=pfsR31syCvQ

#2(supports #1):
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=swDCh746ECU

#3:
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=wBWQgxowgao


So yeah... let's see how many personal attacks I get...

I can't wait!

I really loved your video response.

It just illustrates the fundamental misconception that many people have to my arguments.

Those objections basically come from a misunderstanding of the argument in the first place, which is true for you as well.


Just in case he doesn't approve my response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4viBg6zLTs

That's the video that he made that I am responding to.

Two objections
1) No one thinks social policies are perfect.
2) You valuing anarchic freedom is a subjective judgment.

***BULLETIN (09FEB08): CHECK OUT THE UPDATE ON THE SUCCESS OF THESE VIDEOS. It's titled "Operation Saturation: On the Threshold," and can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJPAWd98v8g ***

SWAMI HAS READ YOUR MIND. START HERE AFTER WATCHING "How It All Ends." This is the roadmap to the "Expansion Pack" videos accompanying the video "How It All Ends." This is how you find your way around the hours of argumentation contained in the almost four dozen "Expansion Pack" videos, including finding the video which has anticipated and already answered your objection or question about the argument given in "How It All Ends."

For your navigation pleasure, the URLs of the entire "Expansion Pack" are listed below. Just click and enjoy! (Or, have the hairs on the back of your neck raised. . . )

The original video and the entire "Expansion Pack" are also available for download as MP4 files, available for editing, burning, subtitling, mashing up, ripping off, parodying, whatever. Contact wonderingmind42 directly for those.

"How It All Ends" Expansion Pack:

Index
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oCYW4ScUnw

Menu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoUt4LhkKY0

Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twRbGD4zq0s

Nature of Science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A58X73GnzE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls8mYJIncdA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DagLYWseing

Risk Management
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwuDDZ5HM_U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLoO6qyoV08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hpNoBfEsLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx-7j5lH9gE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFCS0Pcv-Eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnLVSDAbieA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2F3bw4CmhQ

Why There Is Still Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpVWFIWZMjk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS65Pw-O77Y

The Manpollo Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7r0dH5R4WA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqLzFjUMWwU

Mechanics of GCC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqEYLvPt0lA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29v4FZvhvcc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUrNBr6KdRI

Scare Tactics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0V9Id6IfJo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZzlcN4gfTs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prtpfAaUQA8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PM4Qu0ht6k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPW4ZOqLTX4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rs-vu2MV2c

The Solution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7z6lHW4vzk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VEFMu1M0M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZVJwCs6HkA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xFbgpJDano

God's Will
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOjCcL1PN_Y

Get What You Want
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKKd-rGDRHc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwPgv_ynJec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIGXK0xNvdQ

I Hope I'm Wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q81QZxrmsnU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmblpxTWffI

No Holds Barred
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZJzSURpSpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtR0kZaLNxY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Ko0U6ncro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fF1HFz5-G8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx6PRrT8Y8U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLhLpG0HWkQ

Your Mission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIQZBbgHCcc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNoIC76Ckio

Février 2007 : une intervention au Club Stratégies d'Yvon Pesqueux, professeur au CNAM, titulaire de la Chaire Développement des systèmes d'organisation, autour de la délicate question des "droits à po...

You are all wrong.... Here I refute the validity of the argument that, because believing in god promises good payoffs, you should (at least: pretend to) believe in God, and I show that the popular counterarguments against Pascal's Wager (as the argument is called) are flawed...

There are four parts...

ok, I should make my reservations as for the regular counterarguments a bit clearer as I fear they are rather obscurely formulated orally in the vid...:

doxastic voluntarism/only an argument for pretending to believe:
what if that suffices and God is keen on having hypocritical followers -- this is after all a logical possibility supported also by how god is presented in the Abrahamic religions as cruel, jealous etc...

religious hucksterism:
again, if god likes that, what would you like to do given you cannot change that?

many religions/why not believe instead in Zeus or...:
the argument still runs through: for "if God exists" simply put "if *your* god exists (as the only true, rewarding God he's supposed to be in your religion)", then if all alleged Gods are also alleged to reward you with an eternal afterlife, then the argument is still standing in the way it would if there were only one religion apart from disbelief!!! Grant (as you should even as an atheist) that any God's existence has a probability of non-zero and grant ex hypothesi that any God will, if he exists, reward you with an infinite afterlife, then pretending to believe in any God will -- given his cruelty, jealousy, wickedness etc... -- promise a better payoff than not (at least pretend to) believe.

Replies to Flappy:

For all we know, God may hate the pretender more than an honest atheist. WHENCE THAT KNOWLEDGE??

What if by listening to masses etc. you are actually offending God? STILL, PASCAL'S WAGER IS NOT THAT EASY TO KILL (as you say: "what if...?" it's just a possibility -- and a highly implausible one, see below) THE TINY CHANCE THAT GOD MIGHT LIKE THAT AND, IF EXISTENT, REWARDS YOU INFINITELY PROVIDES ENOUGH REASON TO PRETEND TO BELIEVE RATHER THAN NOT BELIEVE... THE ATHEIST WAGER DOES NOT COMMIT YOU TO BELIEVE IN A GOD, SO IS NO DISARMING COUNTERARGUMENT, BECAUSE IT STILL RELIES ON THE EXISTENCE OF AN HONEST GOD, SO IT IS FUCKING INCOHERENT...

Perhaps God is really Allah? Or Zeus?
I REFUTED THAT IN THE BOX ON THE RIGHT, NEXT TO VID... THIRD POINT....

We can't know if God will [punish or*] reward us for our worship (real or pretend). YES; BUT DECISION-THEORETICALLY, GIVEN THE -- ALBEIT MERELY POSSIBLE -- INFINITE REWARD; EVERY TINY CHANCE THAT HE WILL SUFFICES; YOU MUST TURN TO SOMETHING I PRESENT IN PT3/4 TO REFUTE THE WAGER, PASCAL WAS A THEIST, BUT A WHOLE LOT SMARTER THAN MOST ATHEISTS SEEM TO THINK...

* that's a good objection, but why should God punish us for worship; yes you might say as I do that it may be *possible* that God punishes the worshippers and rewards antitheists but this is really too strong a premise to be taken seriously... A god that likes those that celebrate "him" in masses even if they in fact do not think he exists is at least something we can relate to just as we can relate to an emperor who likes fake worship even if he fucked up... but someone who PUNISHES worshippers and REWARDS opponents is so odd that you cannot start an argument with that.

This is a reposting of the original video with a different soundtrack as there was issues with the band involved with using their work...
Comments from the original Supergod video can be found at: http://www.thoughts.com/iwentdowntotheriver/blog/original-comments-and-responses-of-supergod-video-4999/

This is a thought experiment that I came up with recently. It tries to look at the debate over god's existence in a different way.

My first premise is that Descartes' Dilemma is coherent, i.e. I ignore any arguments against it in order to make my point about Supergod. Further, it seems that three main objections to Descartes' Dilemma, from Bernard Williams, Nietzsche and indirectly, Wittgenstein, may not apply in the case of a Supergod, but if people raise objections to the video based on any of those arguments, I will of course tease out the implications in a further video.

My second premise is that there is a theistic god.

My conclusion is that a theistic god is open to Descartes' Dilemma.

Hence a theistic god could never know absolutely that he is the only god. It seems, therefore, that the idea of a single all powerful god is incoherent.

This is an original thought experiment derived from Descartes' first, second and third Meditations and all of his Discourse on Method. July 2007.

Music from Kevin MacLeod www.incompetech.com



Note, I have discovered some typos, my heart-felt apologies. (more) (less)