The author's intention of this video is to discourage people of faith, mainly christian, to stop being intrusive about beliefs based on illogical evidence. This intention is something I don't really mind at all since I'd hate it too if an atheist got in my face about how God doesn't exist when I didn't ask for it. However there's a lot of problems with the author's own arguement, simply because I find it one-sided; that and I honestly don't think he has a good grasp at metaphysics.

1. Possibilities and impossibilities given a metaphysical statement
-He first goes over this with an simple question of what may or may not be in a proposed box. The proposed box is defined as a container but nothing more; the box's size and what's inside is not given. Given that we cannot access the box's contents we have no idea what it may contain. However we know of many things it cannot contain like the number seven, a bed made of sleep and so forth.

-However some of his examples of impossibilites are not entirely impossible like the Amazon River and the planet Mars. Seriously, they could fit in the box if it was big enough, why the hell not?

-He then goes into the question, "is there a realm of existance outside of out universe?" This question is completely different from the box question simply because a box is known to hold physical, tangible matter and the realm of existance outside of the universe (and own empirical senses) can hold possibly just about anything since it has no agreed upon definition. This means that it might possibly include the number seven and a bed made of sleep.

-Despite the previous point, he lists some impossibilities like he did for the box which was basically aimed at christians like an omnipotent being and so forth in the segment of the video at 1:38.

-He then uses this example to bring up his point that no one has a right to claim that a god exists. Which based upon the given example after fixing it's flaws can be true, but then that means it's also true no one has a right to claim that a god doesn't exists either. Because of this every philosopher out there and even theologians alike will acknowledge that the statement, "God cannot be proven or disproven" based on the above reasoning alone is true.

-Thanks to captain obvious no would have figured that out... but on what grounds? This is where a I really have a problem with this video.

-He mentions (paraphrasing) that if one can't find measureable verifiable evidence at any given point in time to a proposed statement (quoth qualiasoup) "all the arguement in the world won't establish your statement as fact". Based on this the statement can immediately be conisidered false and shows that the person who proposed the statement failed to understand what's required to establish such an existance claim.(He then uses this logic in an example about what William Lane Craig said but I'll overlook it because I'm too lazy to look up what Craig said in context and is not entirely related to the subject at hand.)

-First of all, we are dealing with metaphysical question so our evidence doesn't have to be measureable, because how are we supposed to know that all things outside of our own reality is in fact measureable? What he means by verifiable statements I'm not sure of, but I will say not all accepted metaphysical truths are ultimately true or false based on consensus, so the evidence itself may or may not be verifiable based on our understanding.

------------------

-He then uses the bolded statements to bring out his true intention of the video, flawed reasoning within christianity (claim). It was only up to that point i had a real problem with this video. You all may talk amoungst yourselves about this but all I wanted to point out was that the author's base reasonings (the bolds) for his claim is rather rigid which makes the rest of his arguement rather flawed.

However some of his examples of impossibilites are not entirely impossible like the Amazon River and the planet Mars. Seriously, they could fit in the box if it was big enough, why the hell not?

The box is in a building and the building is probably too small to fit the Amazon River or Mars.

He then goes into the question, "is there a realm of existance outside of out universe?" This question is completely different from the box question simply because a box is known to hold physical, tangible matter and the realm of existance outside of the universe (and own empirical senses) can hold possibly just about anything since it has no agreed upon definition. This means that it might possibly include the number seven and a bed made of sleep.

But the point of the box analogy was to show how we couldn't possibly come to any conclusions on what was in it if we had such limited information, so whether it's physical or outside the universe is irrelevant to the point. And the information we have on things outside the universe is a lot more limited than the information we would have on what the contents of a box could be.

And I don't think it's aimed just at Christians, it's theists and religious people in general.

-He then uses this example to bring up his point that no one has a right to claim that a god exists. Which based upon the given example after fixing it's flaws can be true, but then that means it's also true no one has a right to claim that a god doesn't exists either. Because of this every philosopher out there and even theologians alike will acknowledge that the statement, "God cannot be proven or disproven" based on the above reasoning alone is true.

-Thanks to captain obvious no would have figured that out... but on what grounds? This is where a I really have a problem with this video.

The second point is obviously true, logic can't show that something exists without evidence, the first point just means that rational people would not accept something if it's completely illogical. If someone told me that there are flying elephants circling the Empire State Building, being a rational person, I would say that makes no sense at all and I wouldn't believe it. And if we're talking about things that are outside our universe it makes things even less acceptable because we have no understanding or way to know anything about things outside our universe, so obviously there can't be any evidence or valid reasons to accept any ideas concerning them.

So if someone comes up to me and says there's a divine, omnipotent being outside our universe that expects us to follow a specific religion or else he'll send us to hell, as a rational person I would have to say that makes no logical sense because there's absolutely no evidence or valid reason for me to think that this idea could be true, and so I would not believe it. It's very possible, but I guess it's also very possible that scientists could have somehow created flying elephants and let them loose in New York. But since there's no valid reason for me to believe these ideas are true, if I accept them to be true then I am irrational. A rational person doesn't accept things just because they're not impossible, if that were true you'd have to accept every crazy idea that couldn't be disproven.

IMO, any ideas people may have on things outside our universe are fine, but because there can't be any evidence for these ideas they are irrational. And people should realize they're irrational. Irrationality isn't necessarily a bad thing (there's some positive aspects to religion and faith), but people shouldn't try to pass them off as rational ideas, the whole point of faith is that you believe in something without evidence.

That's very good video with clear explanation. From what I see, it's the same method as Schrodinger's Cat whether it's dead or alive, whether it's true or not. The question with religion is, Can you actually open the box? Which means providing evidences that the cat is dead or alive.

The video along with the theory, is defensive act to stop being intrusive about beliefs based on illogical evidence. Which means they wanted an evidence that God is real. Using this theory, when religious people can't open the box then it can't be proven their statement of the existence in the box. In this case, usually religious people using Holy Book as their guidance to proven their belief.

Well, I agreed with this video for their demand of logical, scientific explanation to proven their belief. It's natural to asking such question, so we won't be called as Blind Faith by them.

That's why I have been being a Muslim because Qur'an has explanation of this matter. For example :

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

Quran has revealed absolute facts in its true perspective some 1400 years ago.

Omne Ignotum Pro Magnifico"Everything unknown is taken for magnificent"

What proof is there that says the Quran hasn't been changed for 1400 years?

Abu Bakar, Omar and Uthman are huffaadh (the memorizers and preservers of the Qur'an). But not only them, mostly all Muslims in Prophet era were also memorized all content in Qur'an.

It's a well known teaching amongst Muslims to memorized all verses in Qur'an as an 'voluntary'(by voluntary means not obligation, but as an alternative way for Muslims to get God's blessing.) order from God since Prophet passed down the Qur'an. Many Muslims in Prophet era had memorized all verses in Qur'an and has been passed down orally with verbal teaching tradition.

The entire Qur’an was written down during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, and trusting the fact that many scholars knew it by heart, it was not collected in one volume. It was personally arranged by him, and the Muslims memorized it in the same order. The companion Uthman reported that whenever a new verse was revealed, the Prophet would immediately call a scribe to record it. He would instruct the person to put the specific verse or verses in a particular chapter.

Many of the Companions not only memorized it completely, they also wrote it down and even added commentary (tafseer) on their own personal copies.

In one particular battle, a number Companions who had memorized the Qur’an were killed. The Companion Omar worried that the knowledge of the Qur’an was in danger, thus he convinced Abu Bakar that the Qur’an should be compiled into book form as a means of preserving it once and for all.

One must keep in mind that in traditional learning in the Arab world, transmission was based upon an oral tradition as well as a written one; the Arabs (and later all Muslims) excelled in accurately reporting scripture, poetry, aphorisms, etc. through the generations without change. Similarly, the chain of huffaadh was never broken, and thus the Qur'an today has reached us in two forms: the memorized version transmitted through the scholarly chain, and the written version based upon the Companions’ initial recording.

If the Qur’an had been changed, there would be huge discrepancies between these two today, as the Qur’an has reached isolated (and sometimes illiterate) communities through the memorized form of transmission without the written form to correct it. No such discrepancies have ever been recorded or reported. In other words, isolated village A in African Mali and isolated village B in Afghanistan will both produce contemporary huffaadh reciting the same words of the Qur’an, though they did not learn from a similar printing of the scripture nor has there ever been a concerted international effort to rectify would-be discrepancies.

Allah has said in the Qur’an that He alone will protect His book, and indeed He has kept His promise. The Qur’an that we read today contains the same exact words that were revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) over 1400 years ago. This is quite a miracle, especially when you consider that no other group of people can say that their book has not been subject to change by the time it reached the present generation.

Only the Qur’an has survived through the centuries unchanged, and the language in which it was revealed, classical Arabic, still enjoys practical usage around the world. While classic English of the 14th century can be understand by very few native English speakers, the Qur’an can be understood by the vast majority of Arabic-speaking Muslims. When compared to other scriptures, the Qur’an is unique in these two respects.

Furthermore, from the prolific arts that have accompanied Qur’anic learning and transmission, we can learn of the auspiciousness and honor with which the Muslims have traditionally held the Qur’an. The visual arts of calligraphy and binding, and the vocal art of recitation represent examples of such arts, and from them we can see that veracity of transmission would be understood as a fundamental aspect of Qur’anic reverence.

As regards the proofs within the Qur'an itself, they can be found in the following Qur’anic challenges:

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

Surah 4, verse 82:

{Do they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.}

Surah 17, verse 88:

{Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others.}

And Surah 2, verse 23:

{And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.}

It is true that the Qur’an was not compiled into a single book in the Prophet’s time; but the verses were scrupulously written down and passages were recited, not only during prayer, but also on other occasions.

Muslims were taught that the recitation and the contemplation of the Qur’anic verses were acts of piety, worthy of great reward. For this reason, the companions of the Prophet were eager to learn the verses, which fact was to a great extent responsible for the safeguarding the Qur’an in the hearts of the people.

Also, we've been told. If we can remember all verses in Qur'an, it'll be much easier to reach heaven. They said, each single verse would create a foundation to the stairs to heaven. And we can't be touched by hell fire. Knowing this, of course all extremist in middle-east and religious people around the world would do their besst to memorize all of verses in Qur'an.

However some of his examples of impossibilites are not entirely impossible like the Amazon River and the planet Mars. Seriously, they could fit in the box if it was big enough, why the hell not?

The box is in a building and the building is probably too small to fit the Amazon River or Mars.

He then goes into the question, "is there a realm of existance outside of out universe?" This question is completely different from the box question simply because a box is known to hold physical, tangible matter and the realm of existance outside of the universe (and own empirical senses) can hold possibly just about anything since it has no agreed upon definition. This means that it might possibly include the number seven and a bed made of sleep.

But the point of the box analogy was to show how we couldn't possibly come to any conclusions on what was in it if we had such limited information, so whether it's physical or outside the universe is irrelevant to the point. And the information we have on things outside the universe is a lot more limited than the information we would have on what the contents of a box could be.

And I don't think it's aimed just at Christians, it's theists and religious people in general.

-He then uses this example to bring up his point that no one has a right to claim that a god exists. Which based upon the given example after fixing it's flaws can be true, but then that means it's also true no one has a right to claim that a god doesn't exists either. Because of this every philosopher out there and even theologians alike will acknowledge that the statement, "God cannot be proven or disproven" based on the above reasoning alone is true.

-Thanks to captain obvious no would have figured that out... but on what grounds? This is where a I really have a problem with this video.

The second point is obviously true, logic can't show that something exists without evidence, the first point just means that rational people would not accept something if it's completely illogical. If someone told me that there are flying elephants circling the Empire State Building, being a rational person, I would say that makes no sense at all and I wouldn't believe it. And if we're talking about things that are outside our universe it makes things even less acceptable because we have no understanding or way to know anything about things outside our universe, so obviously there can't be any evidence or valid reasons to accept any ideas concerning them.

So if someone comes up to me and says there's a divine, omnipotent being outside our universe that expects us to follow a specific religion or else he'll send us to hell, as a rational person I would have to say that makes no logical sense because there's absolutely no evidence or valid reason for me to think that this idea could be true, and so I would not believe it. It's very possible, but I guess it's also very possible that scientists could have somehow created flying elephants and let them loose in New York. But since there's no valid reason for me to believe these ideas are true, if I accept them to be true then I am irrational. A rational person doesn't accept things just because they're not impossible, if that were true you'd have to accept every crazy idea that couldn't be disproven.

IMO, any ideas people may have on things outside our universe are fine, but because there can't be any evidence for these ideas they are irrational. And people should realize they're irrational. Irrationality isn't necessarily a bad thing (there's some positive aspects to religion and faith), but people shouldn't try to pass them off as rational ideas, the whole point of faith is that you believe in something without evidence.

"IMO, any ideas people may have on things outside our universe are fine, but because there can't be any evidence for these ideas they are irrational. And people should realize they're irrational. Irrationality isn't necessarily a bad thing (there's some positive aspects to religion and faith), but people shouldn't try to pass them off as rational ideas, the whole point of faith is that you believe in something without evidence"

well, logic, reason, and rational are really very subjective terms. It really depends on the philosophy you follow.

Whats logical in philosophy A, may not be logical in philosophy B. All the video was doing is using philosophy B to find flaws in phiolosophy A. But i can take philosophy A and find flaws in philosophy B. I can even take philosophy C and debunk both philosophy A and B.

All im saying is we all adhender (i know i cant spell), to different philosphies governered by different sets of logic and reason. Every Idea in this world is based on some type of philosophy. Science was based on a philosophy of empiricism- the belief that we can only know what we experience through our 5 senses.
religion was based on a different set of philosophies. And so was politics, phychology, and so on.
And all ideas branch off depending on the philosophies. Each with thier own set of inductive and deductive reasoning skills.

Edit: btw, rational/logic/reason can be synominous with scientific. But they can also be synominous with other philosophy's as well, like belief in a higher being. rational, logic, and reason are not limited to only science. Even a great French philosopher once said "i think therefore i am" as a counter argument for empiricism (what science is based off of). What he was saying was that he doesnt have to prove every single thing that comes to mind, using his own rational,logic, and reason, he concluded he existed because he thinks.

But u cant prove your existence with the scientific method. Along with death and life. Niether can be proven or disproven, only assumed. And science does assume reality through our 5 senses. But other philosophies would call such a thing a flaw. Because in Phychology, there r about 7 senses. In religion there r about 6-10(may vary on the religion), ect.

Edit complete.

Though i enjoyed the video, and its strive for open mindedness. Keep in mind, striving for open mindedness is saying that close mindedness is something to shun. Therefore, the video is still subjective and has its "logical" flaws like everything else.peace over war

The author's intention of this video is to discourage people of faith, mainly christian, to stop being intrusive about beliefs based on illogical evidence. This intention is something I don't really mind at all since I'd hate it too if an atheist got in my face about how God doesn't exist when I didn't ask for it. However there's a lot of problems with the author's own arguement, simply because I find it one-sided; that and I honestly don't think he has a good grasp at metaphysics.

1. Possibilities and impossibilities given a metaphysical statement
-He first goes over this with an simple question of what may or may not be in a proposed box. The proposed box is defined as a container but nothing more; the box's size and what's inside is not given. Given that we cannot access the box's contents we have no idea what it may contain. However we know of many things it cannot contain like the number seven, a bed made of sleep and so forth.

-However some of his examples of impossibilites are not entirely impossible like the Amazon River and the planet Mars. Seriously, they could fit in the box if it was big enough, why the hell not?

-He then goes into the question, "is there a realm of existance outside of out universe?" This question is completely different from the box question simply because a box is known to hold physical, tangible matter and the realm of existance outside of the universe (and own empirical senses) can hold possibly just about anything since it has no agreed upon definition. This means that it might possibly include the number seven and a bed made of sleep.

-Despite the previous point, he lists some impossibilities like he did for the box which was basically aimed at christians like an omnipotent being and so forth in the segment of the video at 1:38.

-He then uses this example to bring up his point that no one has a right to claim that a god exists. Which based upon the given example after fixing it's flaws can be true, but then that means it's also true no one has a right to claim that a god doesn't exists either. Because of this every philosopher out there and even theologians alike will acknowledge that the statement, "God cannot be proven or disproven" based on the above reasoning alone is true.

-Thanks to captain obvious no would have figured that out... but on what grounds? This is where a I really have a problem with this video.

-He mentions (paraphrasing) that if one can't find measureable verifiable evidence at any given point in time to a proposed statement (quoth qualiasoup) "all the arguement in the world won't establish your statement as fact". Based on this the statement can immediately be conisidered false and shows that the person who proposed the statement failed to understand what's required to establish such an existance claim.(He then uses this logic in an example about what William Lane Craig said but I'll overlook it because I'm too lazy to look up what Craig said in context and is not entirely related to the subject at hand.)

-First of all, we are dealing with metaphysical question so our evidence doesn't have to be measureable, because how are we supposed to know that all things outside of our own reality is in fact measureable? What he means by verifiable statements I'm not sure of, but I will say not all accepted metaphysical truths are ultimately true or false based on consensus, so the evidence itself may or may not be verifiable based on our understanding.

------------------

-He then uses the bolded statements to bring out his true intention of the video, flawed reasoning within christianity (claim). It was only up to that point i had a real problem with this video. You all may talk amoungst yourselves about this but all I wanted to point out was that the author's base reasonings (the bolds) for his claim is rather rigid which makes the rest of his arguement rather flawed.

his argument was a philosophical one, and all philosophical arguments have thier flaws.

If he is talking about philosophy B. Then he is trying to debunk philosophy A.

The irony of it is that both philosophys debunk each other. I could come up with a philsophy C and debunk both philosophy A and B.

The point im trying to get across is that the way we see the world does not exists. But even so, the video did try to persuade people to open mindedness, but over all its just a philosophy like any other. It started with an obvservation and ended with a hypothesis.

(the entire scienctific method cant be done in reality becuase it limits itself to only one philosophy). peace over war

"IMO, any ideas people may have on things outside our universe are fine, but because there can't be any evidence for these ideas they are irrational. And people should realize they're irrational. Irrationality isn't necessarily a bad thing (there's some positive aspects to religion and faith), but people shouldn't try to pass them off as rational ideas, the whole point of faith is that you believe in something without evidence"

well, logic, reason, and rational are really very subjective terms. It really depends on the philosophy you follow.

Whats logical in philosophy A, may not be logical in philosophy B. All the video was doing is using philosophy B to find flaws in phiolosophy A. But i can take philosophy A and find flaws in philosophy B. I can even take philosophy C and debunk both philosophy A and B.

All im saying is we all adhender (i know i cant spell), to different philosphies governered by different sets of logic and reason. Every Idea in this world is based on some type of philosophy. Science was based on a philosophy of empiricism- the belief that we can only know what we experience through our 5 senses.
religion was based on a different set of philosophies. And so was politics, phychology, and so on.
And all ideas branch off depending on the philosophies. Each with thier own set of inductive and deductive reasoning skills.

Edit: btw, rational/logic/reason can be synominous with scientific. But they can also be synominous with other philosophy's as well, like belief in a higher being. rational, logic, and reason are not limited to only science. Even a great French philosopher once said "i think therefore i am" as a counter argument for empiricism (what science is based off of). What he was saying was that he doesnt have to prove every single thing that comes to mind, using his own rational,logic, and reason, he concluded he existed because he thinks.

But u cant prove your existence with the scientific method. Along with death and life. Niether can be proven or disproven, only assumed. And science does assume reality through our 5 senses. But other philosophies would call such a thing a flaw. Because in Phychology, there r about 7 senses. In religion there r about 6-10(may vary on the religion), ect.

Edit complete.

Though i enjoyed the video, and its strive for open mindedness. Keep in mind, striving for open mindedness is saying that close mindedness is something to shun. Therefore, the video is still subjective and has its "logical" flaws like everything else.peace over war

It's actually followed Schrodinger Cat to proven a thing that could not being proven unless you have evidence to prove the thing inside the Box.

Yes, it is. Religious people always merely followed their belief without questioning what their religion said, especially when they always referred to holy book to prove their statement or belief which is totally illogical to Atheist.

Philosophy A has already stated the illogical things called 'God', it just like science theory, like Darwin Theory, Relativity Theory. It's obvious, there are always Philosophy B that think otherwise. It just common in our history during 1880-1950 or even before that.

The problem is, Philosophy A (religious people)can't accept objection from Philosophy B (Not only Atheist, but also from different religions). Then Philosophy A, as it's described in video condemn and cursing Philosophy B based on their religion without logical explanation, that's why it's a conflict between Philosophy A and B belief. A's statement based on religion while B's statement based on logical or scientific explanation.

This could be solved, if religious people can prove their belief, either holy book or current science, as long as it's logical to Philosophy B and to the rest of another Philosophy C, D, E....etc. The question from beginning is, can they OPEN THE BOX?

Nevertheless, I enjoyed this video too. It offers much more detailed information and their intention than Schrodinger cat. And hopefully could open other religious people as well, if they can open their mind, that's it.

The author's intention of this video is to discourage people of faith, mainly christian, to stop being intrusive about beliefs based on illogical evidence. This intention is something I don't really mind at all since I'd hate it too if an atheist got in my face about how God doesn't exist when I didn't ask for it. However there's a lot of problems with the author's own arguement, simply because I find it one-sided; that and I honestly don't think he has a good grasp at metaphysics.

1. Possibilities and impossibilities given a metaphysical statement
-He first goes over this with an simple question of what may or may not be in a proposed box. The proposed box is defined as a container but nothing more; the box's size and what's inside is not given. Given that we cannot access the box's contents we have no idea what it may contain. However we know of many things it cannot contain like the number seven, a bed made of sleep and so forth.

-However some of his examples of impossibilites are not entirely impossible like the Amazon River and the planet Mars. Seriously, they could fit in the box if it was big enough, why the hell not?

-He then goes into the question, "is there a realm of existance outside of out universe?" This question is completely different from the box question simply because a box is known to hold physical, tangible matter and the realm of existance outside of the universe (and own empirical senses) can hold possibly just about anything since it has no agreed upon definition. This means that it might possibly include the number seven and a bed made of sleep.

-Despite the previous point, he lists some impossibilities like he did for the box which was basically aimed at christians like an omnipotent being and so forth in the segment of the video at 1:38.

-He then uses this example to bring up his point that no one has a right to claim that a god exists. Which based upon the given example after fixing it's flaws can be true, but then that means it's also true no one has a right to claim that a god doesn't exists either. Because of this every philosopher out there and even theologians alike will acknowledge that the statement, "God cannot be proven or disproven" based on the above reasoning alone is true.

-Thanks to captain obvious no would have figured that out... but on what grounds? This is where a I really have a problem with this video.

-He mentions (paraphrasing) that if one can't find measureable verifiable evidence at any given point in time to a proposed statement (quoth qualiasoup) "all the arguement in the world won't establish your statement as fact". Based on this the statement can immediately be conisidered false and shows that the person who proposed the statement failed to understand what's required to establish such an existance claim.(He then uses this logic in an example about what William Lane Craig said but I'll overlook it because I'm too lazy to look up what Craig said in context and is not entirely related to the subject at hand.)

-First of all, we are dealing with metaphysical question so our evidence doesn't have to be measureable, because how are we supposed to know that all things outside of our own reality is in fact measureable? What he means by verifiable statements I'm not sure of, but I will say not all accepted metaphysical truths are ultimately true or false based on consensus, so the evidence itself may or may not be verifiable based on our understanding.

------------------

-He then uses the bolded statements to bring out his true intention of the video, flawed reasoning within christianity (claim). It was only up to that point i had a real problem with this video. You all may talk amoungst yourselves about this but all I wanted to point out was that the author's base reasonings (the bolds) for his claim is rather rigid which makes the rest of his arguement rather flawed.

his argument was a philosophical one, and all philosophical arguments have thier flaws.

If he is talking about philosophy B. Then he is trying to debunk philosophy A.

The irony of it is that both philosophys debunk each other. I could come up with a philsophy C and debunk both philosophy A and B.

The point im trying to get across is that the way we see the world does not exists. But even so, the video did try to persuade people to open mindedness, but over all its just a philosophy like any other. It started with an obvservation and ended with a hypothesis.

(the entire scienctific method cant be done in reality becuase it limits itself to only one philosophy). peace over war

Well ya I do acknowledge your last point about open mindedness, I do mention I don't have a problem with the rest of the video and I do state that I do agree with him to a degree near the beginning of my post. It's just that I found his logic to be obviously faltered. Quoting D'Souza, "he's using science as a battering ram but is not an actual scientist."

Technically yes all philosophies can be debunked by each other and the ones out there that we teach in school like Socrates and Plato were made famous because a lot of people were convinced at some point in time and "professionals" approved of it. That is one way of looking at it but that's just using cold, hard, believeable facts. If so, the witch trail in Monty Python's Holy Grail perfectly makes perfect sense because the facts that were presented made sense in each other's light.

That's why I'm in college to learn about ontology, the above statement just rubs me the wrong way. Yes, in the end philosophical method is just hypothesis it's just the difference between it and scientific method is that science is more tangible and observable.

Any successful layman (or laywoman) will tell you that the secret of lving a fulfilling life is to take the right action. Scientific and philosophical method is like us aiming at the dart board and our application of those fields is like actually throwing to dart. We could definately throw the dart blindly or use bad technique and still hit the target but if we want to get it right the first time we use method. Understanding what's the best method to use makes us progress faster.

So what I'm saying is, I don't think qualiasoup's logic is the best method.