Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof immediately at the start of your video. How kind of you to lay out your inability to conduct logical argumentation in a video based on logical argumentation, it saves us a lot of time.
This was a fair shift of the burden of proof...saying "there's no evidence" is a truth claim - he better be able to back it up. Cameron then gives a brief overview of some of the schools of evidence for God's existence. Your whole point is fairly moot - and a classic unbased personal attack as well.
Cam Richardson He claims his first point in asking for evidence of no evidence. This is a classic ploy and shift in the burden of truth by those who misunderstand the concept of the burden of proof. The consensus of information lays in contradiction to this mans claims, and he is the one making the claims to the contrary. Therefore, it falls upon him to not only show logical reasoning in the pursuit of his own opinion, but provide sufficient and substantial evidence to outweigh the original point. What he has done here is a classic tit for tat question, in the hope that nobody will notice the lack of anything useful at all. I’ll concede the ad hominem, though I’m not that bothered about it.
@][000l][ll0l000] [lll-lll] Thanks for the reply. I am aware of the argument from ignorance, but I disagree that you can't disprove a negative - I can demonstrably prove there are no married bachelors or Muslims in the Supreme Court. As for Santa, there is candidate evidence that he does not exist because the Christian minister responsible for creating most of his fictional qualities himself believed he was creating a work of fiction. Sorry to hear you've found Christians to be people that fear/hate math and science - my experience has been somewhat opposite: Some of the great scientists through the ages, including Francis Bacon (founder of the empirical scientific method), Isaac Newton (discoverer of the law of gravity), Gregor Mendel ('father' of modern genetic theory) and Dmitri Mendeleev (creator of the periodic table of elements) were all bible believing Christians. Newton particularly believed that philosophy and the natural world must be studied inductively, but argued that we can only study arguments for the existence of God. Information on His attributes (such as nature, action, and purposes) can only come from special revelation. Modern day examples include John Lennox, who is an Emeritus Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Oxford University.I myself have a Bachelors Degree in Science (Geology).
@@blusheep2 I don't use fallacies, I spot them and so you should do. Do you understand what fallacies are and why it's important you don't make them in the process of reasoning?
I would agree with you entirely that it is good to be able to spot a logical fallacy. I understand perfectly what they are, although I wouldn't lie and claim to be able to list them all out for you. There are so many. I find that more people then not, learn a basic explanation of a particular fallacy and then apply it poorly. I also find that most people that point them out in arguments use them as the argument itself. Sometimes, by pure definition, a fallacy appears to apply when it doesn't and most I run into don't seem to understand that. I also find that people are often looking to find a way to throw out one fallacy name or another based off of their preconceived expectations of another's argument. That is why I suggest trying minimize how often you bring up a fallacy in a conversation with another. When you do, I believe the conversation should look something like this: A: Pope John Paul said evolution was true B: Well, he may have but I don't place much value in Pope John Paul when it comes to matters of science. Using that to prove your point is therefore, what we would call in philosophy, a logical fallacy called an argument from authority. If you would like to site a source to bolster your position then we need to find one that we both agree is a reputable source of scientific information. You see, the fallacy isn't thrown out as a "haha gotcha. you are so illogical" comment. Rather the responder explains the issue with the person "A's" comment and only uses the logical fallacy terminology as a means of validating his position. In my experience atheists often use a "god of the gaps" (which is an argument from ignorance) against theists constantly without even trying to understand the theists position. An argument from ignorance is gonna say something like "well we have no explanation for it therefore it must be....." It is a negative statement. But a statement like "the only thing that we have observed to create something with complex specified information is intelligence therefore since the most basic parts of the cell contains complex specified information then it is reasonable to infer that intelligence took a part in the creation of the first cell." That would be a positive statement based off of what we have observed in nature. It would therefore NOT be an argument from ignorance. So the use of the argument for ignorance fallacy against this statement would in fact be another fallacy called a "fallacy fallacy." :P What that would lead to is a breakdown in our whole conversation as we begin to debate the use of the fallacies instead of the arguments that were made.
Paulogia the problem is that Hemant made a positive claim that there was NO evidence for God, and there is plenty of candidate evidence for God. I have gone through very serious periods of doubt and skepticism (in fact most of my acquaintances are non-religious) and my belief is built pretty much entirely on the cosmological argument from contingency, teleological arguments, and other arguments from natural theology. Someone could in principle fail to be convinced by them, but it is perverse to fail to engage with the best arguments Christian and theist thinkers have to offer (e.g. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology; Rasmussen's Bridge of Reason; among many) and then say "there is no evidence".
@@mordec1016 Here's the thing... arguments aren't evidence. Arguments can be persuasive, but they're not evidence in the sense Hemant is talking about. A failure to understand that is equally silly from the other side of the fence.
Paulogia arguments allow us to comprehend evidence in large scales and to logically justify and discover facts about reality. Besides, are you somehow implying that atheists (or anyone, really) can simply ignore arguments? Say, if I have a logically valid deductive argument that entails God exists (or that Socrates is mortal, or perhaps some specific metaphysical thesis) and the premises all seem very plausible, am I supposed to just ignore that argument and resist the conclusion? And to say it "isn't evidence"? I can hardly think of something more irrational than that. If you give me a valid argument and the premises all appear true, that DOES count as strong evidence for whatever entity or thesis the conclusion establishes. An argument isn't simply some kind of rhetorical device. It's a prime example of how we can justifiably attain true beliefs by means of valid inferences. Even scientific discoveries ultimately take the form of arguments (often inductive arguments).
@@mordec1016 I know Hemant a little, and I couldn't speak for him, but he's using "evidence" as shorthand for "empirical evidence". I personally avoid a phrase like "there's no evidence for God" for all the reasons you cite. It's sloppy. I doubt I've ever used this phrase publicly. But I will stand by my distinction that philosophical arguments and empirical evidence are different classes of things, even though both are in a broader category of "things that can be persuasive".
You should learn what is a fallacy before even trying to argue anything. Otherwise you are waisting our time. BTW, the universe is fine tuned for life? Try a week-end on Jupiter to see how it goes.
“Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. … The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.” -Stephen Hawking (the Grand Design, pp. 160-1)
@@CapturingChristianity The universe conditions are irrelevant, it is the conditions on earth that are. You can not live in the universe. BTW. Why would a god create an infinite life hostile universe only to have life on one single tiny planet? Isn't it a terrible waiste of time and space creating all that for no reason?
@@CapturingChristianity Does all thinking process your resumes in copying and pasting over and over again what Dawkins said? Really? On top of that, don't you get the word "Appear" in his statement? Instead of a universe that is fine tuned for life, what about life that developped and adapted to its environement? You get the difference?
In order to counter the statement that "there is no evidence for ___ " you would simply need to present some evidence. That is, unless you want to just end all possibility of intelligent discussion and go in circles of "you can't prove ___" _"Well... you can't prove that I can't prove ____."_ "well, you can't prove that I can't prove that you can't prove ___" ... ... ... FYI, this would lead to atheism, because there is no reason to believe that any god exists if there is no evidence that it exists.
@@Collidedatoms ah, the final garbage "argument" to end all possibility of intelligent discussion. Rivaled only by hard solipsism. A fine demonstration of how weak the original stance for which evidence was asked for really is. If you ask someone for evidence to support a claim that they made and they counter with something along the lines of _"well, what evidence do you have that evidence actually exists"_ walk away, there is no chance of worthwhile discussion to be had with them. Also, the person who asks for evidence that evidence exists as a counter, already knows that their earlier claim/stance that was questioned is empty, and that there is no reason to accept it... so there isn't really anything to convince them of through discussion anyway. They already believe something for which they have no valid reason to, and they know it.
@@timeshark8727 It only ends all possibility of intelligent discussion because you don't have a consistent answer for it from your own worldview. I have a reason for evidence to matter. You don't. You just opine that it should functionally. The point of asking the question is to demonstrate that before we even touch the evidence at all, you already have decided that there is no evidence regardless what evidence is put forward. We could innundate you with evidence but because of your worldview, none of it matters; somehow, it doesn't count. And that's the problem, the evidence is not the problem; we look at the same evidence. The problem is the worldview through which that evidence is interpreted and understood. So how do we determine which worldview is representing the evidence accurately? We can test the worldview for internal consistency. The Christian worldview HAS that consistency and other worldviews do not. This is why my question threatens you so much that you advise everyone who exposes the folly of pure empiricism to "walk away" and that "there is no chance of a worthwhile discussion". You're correct in a certain sense; You CANNOT have a worthwhile discussion without ultimately butting up against the self defeat and incoherence of your own position. Here's something, Every single one of our cells has a finely tuned turbine which is powered by proton flow and uses mechanical energy to force Phosphate and Adenosine Diphosphate together into Adenosine Triphosphate. The process can even run in reverse if needed. Flagellum are complex motors made of protein molecules, DNA is a hugely complex data store of information that not only just stores the information but stores itself in such a way that when packed a certain way and unpacked naturally by cellular processes will expose the correct instructions to create the correct proteins and instructions for the cell to function in the way that it does to make everything from tiny bacteria and molds to dinosaurs and people. At the end of the day, EVERYTHING you experience, see, interact with, and even think, is evidence for my God. You have no lack of it. The actual issue is your suppression of the truth in unrighteousness. Finally, The above are part of my reasons for believing the Christian God. I have a ton more but these suffice to justify my belief on their own. And my reasons are indeed valid: Observation and Evidence, but also a worldview shaped by God's providence. It is God who changes hearts and minds and puts an end to our suppression of the truth. One final thought before I go. Everything in your response presupposes rules for logic and rationality and the nature of truth and demands for evidence which in turn presuppose an orderly and governed universe wherein the future will be like the past. None of these presuppositions are justifiable in your worldview. In every single one of them you have to steal from my God and borrow the Christian worldview. So in point of fact it is YOU who believe something with no valid reason for doing so, your rebellion against God's authority for selfishness sake is not a valid excuse, in fact, you are without excuse as Paul says in Romans 1, and YOU know it.
Interesting video. As a Christian, I found some of the argumentation fine. On the other hand, there is a problem with some of the argumentation that I have which should be addressed. Before I go there, I want to say that many of the evidences in the video are good and I use some myself when engaging unbelievers, but I must address three problems I can think of right off the bat. (And I don't mean this to dismiss some of the logic presented here because it is good, but I teach apologetics at my church and there are problems with the way we do apologetics many times. Too much info for this post, but maybe you'll see them in my problems.) 1) There is always a problem when we present evidence to the unbeliever for the existence of God. The problem is that you show evidence to a judge and jury to render a verdict. We now make the unbeliever the judge of whether God exists or not. This is frightening since the unsaved person hates God, Christ, and Christians (Jesus' own words in John 15:18-23), they don't have discernment about spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14), and their carnal minds are enmity (hostile) against God (Romans 8:7). So we are presenting evidence to someone about the very person the Bible says they hate, that can't understand His Word, and they have hostility to. In other words, they will dismiss any evidence you give based on this presupposition; which means they will invent reasons why the evidences you give don't necessarily point to God. While it is fine to give them, they won't be convinced in an existence of God because of it, which leads me to the second problem: 2) Romans 1:18-23 already tells us that unsaved people already know that God exists by their conscience and creation. They just suppress (or hold) that truth in their unrighteous sin nature. In other words, their very nature of sin is enough to make them say they don't believe in God or that they need evidence for God when they know God exists already. This is the reason God says the fool says in his heart there is no God in Psalm 14:1. Yet we jump through hoops giving "evidences" to prove the very thing they know in their conscience. It is fine to remind them, but they aren't convinced by our argumentation, but by the gospel, which is the power to save (Romans 1:16). This leads to my third problem: 3) Christians are fond of giving evidences and philosophical arguments to unbelievers to make God's existence a possibility or probability. In other words, we want to convert them to skeptics/atheists to theists. The problem is, while a Christian is a theist, not every theist is a Christian. Theism is a belief in god, but which god? Just giving evidences mentioned here doesn't take someone to the God of the Bible, but to any god. It could be a Muslim god, a Buddhist god, or a Hindu god. Trying to give an unsaved person evidence to make them believe in the existence of God without specifying may make them into a theist, but unless they trust in the Son, they don't have God the Father (1 John 2:23) because Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6) and no one comes to the Son unless drawn by the Father (John 6:44). Yet notice we are quick to give evidences and leave out the cross of Christ that saves through love and grace (John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9), as well as the Bible itself, which is God-breathed and sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We're so busy trying to "prove" God and the Bible, that we don't quote the absolute truth of scripture in our answers or to lead them to the gospel. We are double-minded in this respect (and James 1:8 gives a serious warning about being double-minded). Now someone may read that and not understand what I mean; I will close with this: When Christians go to church or Bible studies to preach, teach, learn the Word, serve the Lord, worship God, and have fellowship; we know for a fact that God is God and His Word is His Word. Yet the minute we get outside the church doors and a skeptical unbeliever asks us a bunch of questions, we go about "proving" the very thing we believed when we're in church, giving hypothetical reasoning (such as "what if" or "could be") as if it were only possibly or probably true to reason the unbeliever into buying it. It's like me saying my wife is my wife among friends, but when I introduce her to strangers, I go about showing pictures of our wedding day, our marriage certificate, our wedding rings, etc. to give "evidence" that my wife is my wife. In other words, we're sure about God among ourselves as Christians, but speak in a way that seems unsure outside of the church. Read Acts 17:18-34 carefully. Paul didn't give "evidence" to the pagan philosophers at Mars Hill, he took their own ignorance of idolatry and used it as a stepping stone to proclaim who God is as Creator, Sustainer, and Judge, who is powerful enough to do all things. In closing, there is nothing wrong with sharing some of the evidences given, but it's not good to park there. Answer objections from the scriptures and lead them to the gospel; it is God that saves, not our evidences.
Wow, very very good, I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I think it's important as a Christian to know these 'arguments and evidence' for God so that when questions are presented to us we're not left speechless or like we don't even know what we believe in and why, sometimes it's necessary to go to the skeptic/atheist's level do they can understand you. But we should never forget that it's only God that saves and should always direct them to the Bible and the cross ➕ . To God be the glory!
I don’t hate your God, or anyone’s God/Gods. I just see no evidence that they exist. You may as well say I hate the Tooth Fairy. I don’t like it when people’s religions impact on other people, like War, persecution, human rights, that sort of thing, that’s all.
Yeah i really don't understand why atheists love watching Cameron's videos, there's almost always negative remarks in the comments. Maybe the atheists are looking for truth, I hope that they find it. May God have mercy on all of us!
@Rod Veles Asura Your not forbidden, you just can't make the claim that God doesn't exist. You can only have a lack of belief. Believers don't claim to have absolute truth, that would make them omniscience. They have faith in God, only God knows the absolute truth.
@Rod Veles Asura If God exists, you can analyze his creation and draw some inferences. You can analyze the way we are if we are made in his image. That is how you arrive at a certain formulation of God.
@Rod Veles Asura I believe there are many compelling arguments for God. There isn't absolute proof, but who knows what constitutes absolute proof for God. It can be hard to believe that, all there is, is matter and energy and rearrangements of it. Did matter and energy just form a universe, just like that, to exist just to exist? That's hard to believe also. I can safely anyone who claims to have absolute truth is a ideologue. Absolute truth requires omniscience in my eyes.
@@inthedms82 That is like when people say - what evidence would you accept to prove a deity exists. My usual response is - anything that would not be laughed out of any legitimate court on this planet. A miracle would be similar - anything that cannot be explained by any natural means. I lost the tip of a finger and was told it would never grow back - it did. I did not do what conventional medicine said to do, but the then science/medicine is an evolving process and they discover new things daily. Maybe they will catch up with me some day.
@@bocasbeachbum you can not say because something sounds foreign to you it therefore doesn't exist if i were to explain the idea that the earth is moving at 1000/mph in a day to a northern village in Uganda it wouldn't make sense they wont quite understand
@@inthedms82 I didn't say "foreign". Also, trying to prove modern science to uneducated or ancient people is immaterial. I could go there with magnets and be a miracle worker, but here we are dealing with modern, and some, intellectually reasonable people.
Atheists DON'T deny the existence of God, that is completely false... However Theists have the burden to prove it, since they are the ones making the claim.
@Daulton Horton well mr evidence, do share.....dont keep it all to yourself. ull win a Nobel prize and James randi has a check for a million dollars waiting for you and last but not least ull win more souls for jesus than anyone else ever! so come now start spewing evidence!
@Daulton Horton whats wrong? its been over a week and yet u still have yet to provide any evidence.??? surely u weren't just lying....thatd be a sin. so wheres all this evidence?
The universe is not finely tuned for life. Why would consciousness be evidence for a god, or the fact that humans find certain objects and phenomena aesthetically satisfying?
“Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. … The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.” -Stephen Hawking (the Grand Design, pp. 160-1)
@@CapturingChristianity There is however no evidence that these constants *can* have any other value than their current values. And before you say it, asking for evidence for a lack of evidence is ludicrous, which is easily shown simply be responding with the same argument. Stating that there is no evidence for your lack of evidence? I'll just reply with "you have no evidence for the lack of evidence of lack of evidence". This 'argument' is extremely flawed. You don't need to provide evidence for a lack of evidence, since it really can't be done. Replying with actual evidence though, is fair game.
What makes life any more important than any other feature of the Universe,black holes or poisonous to life vacuums for example?Isn't the Universe fine-tunes for these as well?
Soi, you don't know how evidence or logic works huh? Positive claims require positive evidence. Negative claims require negative evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A negative claim 'There is no good evidence!' requires negative evidence. Specifically, a lack of evidence, as claimed. You overturn this by providing one or more pieces of good evidence. This you have failed to do, so the original negative claim stands, until you provide evidence to the contrary.
So, you claim there's evidence, but don't give us the evidence? if there was evidence for a god then the Nobel peace Prize would have been won by now by the person who presented it!
@@althepsyphros3314 he uses candidate evidence then explains exactly what he means by that term. Then provides several examples. That's not illogical at all
Im fed up of all the comments saying that arguments are not evidence. You're right, theyre not. Arguments utilise evidence. If the premises of an argument are true, and the reasoning is valid, then you accept the conclusion.
How I know an all- powerful god does not exist? He needs my money because he doesn't have any of his own. Same reasoning why there are no billionaire clairvoyants. If you wouldn't accept the tactics from a Nigerian Prince email, don't accept it from a holy book.
How can anyone show, "evidence of a lack of evidence" ? your reasoning and critical thinking appear to be broken and this is just #1, how terrible is your responses are going to get?
Simple if Santa clause exists, I would expect to find evidence in the form of Gifts in my house that I know my parents could not afford or did not know I wanted or something like that. If these expectations or predictions are not fulfilled in someway, then I can claim with justification that there is no evidence for Santa Clause for the moment and ,thus, I have a right to conclude that he probably does not exist. Therefore, you not only still have the burden of proof for making that assertion but it is still possible you can substantiated that claim even though it is a negative claim.
@@meerkatsk5170 the very best evidence of Santa would be meeting him in fraganti, that would be better than receiving unexpected gifts from someone that could be Santa though, but it would be infinetely better to see him see him at the moment, I think you're choosing a weak form of evidence. Sorry if any errors, I'm not a native
What I love about these sorts of videos, is everytime they big up this pitch at the start like they have something game breaking and then it's the same old old tired points. Move along people.
And your point is? Because it's old, it's not valid. I like to think that because they keep using these same points, there must be good reasons to believe them hence they haven't ditched them and perhaps if you opened up your mind a bit to the possibility that there's something greater than what you can see and fully understand maybe you'll discover something beautiful. Try it out 😉
You lost me on the first Question: yes absence of evidence does not prove that the figure is true. But there is also no evidence for harry potter existing, does that mean there is some evidence to his existance
_'What evidence does Hemit give that there is no evidence?"_ - *Ugh, what a horribly dishonest, and pointless, way for you to start a video. This is nothing more than a dodge, an attempt to avoid actually presenting evidence by turning it back on the person who is looking for evidence.* - *You mite as well say **_"I don't have any evidence that would convince anyone, but I believe it anyway... so I'm gonna try to turn it on you instead"._* - *If you want, we could go in these dishonest circles forever, just by demanding that you present evidence for your claim that Hemit didn't give evidence.* _"Even if there is no evidence for God, that doesn't mean that no god exists."_ - *Correct, HOWEVER, if no reason to believe in the existence of god is presented, then there is no reason to entertain the belief that god exists. Not believing in something until evidence is presented is the default stance, not the other way around. The only time where people try to assert otherwise is with religions claims, and it is due to indoctrination as children making it seem that belief in god is the default.* _"There is plenty of evidence for God"_ - *Then just present it without wasting 1/5 of your video trying to poison the well and dodge.* _"We don't have to call it real evidence, we can call it candidate evidence"_ - *So... your evidence isn't "real", but it could possibly be evidence? Wow, nice that you spread out your poisoning of the well to include your own arguments too. I guess, since your evidence isn't "real" then there isn't really any reason to bother with it.* - *Philosophical arguments are very, very weak as far as evidence goes. Especially considering that the vast majority of philosophical arguments which argue for "god" don't actually argue for God and instead just assert the possibility of a god-like explanation for something. Honestly looking at philosophical arguments mite get someone to deism, not theism and definitely not belief in your specific God.* - *Again, you mite as well be saying **_"I don't have any argument or evidence that would convince anyone, but I'm gonna pretend"_* So... 2 minutes into a 5 minute video and nothing but pointless diversions and poisoning the well against both your opposition's claims and your own... _"The universe itself"_ - *... is evidence that the universe exists, not that god exists or caused it.* - *Saying "there must be a reason" then asserting that god is the reason is not evidence that god actually did it. Saying that something "could" have done a thing, is not evidence that the something actually did the thing. I could river-dance on my keyboard to type this, but that doesn't mean I did.* - *Your first piece of evidence presented... isn't evidence for your claim, its just more claims.* _"That we can even trust our brains at all... is evidence for god."_ - *lol, again this is an assertion, not evidence.* _"The order and fine tuning of our universe... is evidence for god."_ - *Neither "order" or "fine-tuning" has been actually shown, and even if it could be this is still just an assertion that god is an explanation, not a demonstration that god actually did anything.* _"That our universe can be discovered..."_ - *More empty assertions.* _"... written in the language of mathematics..."_ - *No, mathematics are descriptive, not prescriptive. **_WE_** describe what we see using math, math didn't create anything.* _"Beauty... so god"_ - *So... this is another assertion. Also, beauty is subjective, so its an assertion built on something that is completely intangible and variable.* _"The argument from..."_ - *Miracles haven't been demonstrated.* - *Conciseness is easily explained by the brain. Also, empty assertion.* So... by 3 & 1/2 minutes in we are back to diversions and poisoning the well... finishing up with another quick fire set of assertions about Christianity and some more pointless quotes. _"Hemit gave no evidence that there is no evidence"_ - *And you gave no evidence, that he gave no evidence.* - *You also gave no evidence for the existence of your god.* Remember, "what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"... so I guess your god claims can be dismissed then. *A preponderance of assertions and poor logical arguments and claims, IS NOT EVIDENCE. The plural of "assertion" is not "evidence". You need to actually demonstrate that what you claim is true for it to matter, not just assert that it "could be true" or that "some expert somewhere said something" or "its an explanation". You need to show that it IS true... which you have not done at all, or even attempted to do.*
Let me use your argument against your own beliefs and see whether you can.. answer... " You need to actually demonstrate that what you claim is true for it to matter, not just assert that it "could be true" or that "some expert somewhere said something" or "its an explanation". You need to show that it IS true... which you have not done at all, or even attempted to do." Based on this claim of yours I want you to demonstrate the big bang. Recreate it from nothing in a laboratory please. You- yourself. Not using someone else's experiments, or thoughts. You - yourself.
@@NThTwS lol. maybe I should start acting like theists and demand that they create god in a lab or make a person out of dirt instead of simply asking them for valid evidence and logical arguments that actually point to their actual claims and hold up to even the most basic of questioning.
@@timeshark8727 Man you have a belief about the big bang. And your last comment makes you dishonest as well. What you ask of "evidence" is what there is though. Take it or not, who cares. This is the last part of your comment " You need to actually demonstrate that what you claim is true for it to matter, not just assert that it "could be true" or that "some expert somewhere said something" or "its an explanation". You need to show that it IS true... which you have not done at all, or even attempted to do." If you try it on anything you believe, most of the things that you cannot do on your own falls in this category. So how is that an argument of the non- existence of God? You wrote it not me. It's your argument that if anyone will entertain it at different aspects of anyone's beliefs then all beliefs would fall in this category of yours. There are people that have different expertise, or there aren't? For example: I am not a car mechanic, if I'd open a shop to repair cars, would you come to me, or you'd better go to someone who actually is a car mechanic? But if I take your argument as valid then even if I am not a mechanic then why wouldn't you come to my garage to fix your car? After all, you don't care about "experts", do you?
@@antediluvianatheist5262 So, I'm an ignorant. How's that? Can you answer this argument as I stated it? Do you go your car to be fixed to people that have no expertise in mechanics? If yes, I'd say you are brave enough to do so.
SO BASICALLY . . . 1) stuff exists therefore god 2) we think good therefore god 3) woah its so perfect therefore god 4) science and maths therefore god 5) look how good this looks therefore god 6) miracles totally definitely 100% happened therefore god 7) we think therefore god
No no: YOU need to provide the evidence, not us. Also your Perfect Being argument is a textbook example of a God of the Gaps. Fine-tuning is being consistently debunked as science progresses. And beauty? What has beauty got to do with anything?
Did you seriously just ask "What evidence is there that there's no evidence?" I immediately stopped watching right there. Your ignorance on this matter is astounding. Understanding how the burden of proof works is one of the most basic concepts in any discussion. That you would so ignorantly shift the burden onto the other side tells me that you must not have spent hardly any time reading or digesting the literature on this subject. There's no excuse for this level of sloppiness in your argumentation. You have to know better than this if you're going to engage in this discussion.
Then you didn´understand the video at all. The Atheist claim to make a series to prove there is no God. But even if there was no eividence for God it doesn´t mean that he doesn´t exist. It´s not an argument. He explained that with the big Bang. Just because people had no evidence in the past for it doesn´t mean it the Big Bang didn´t happen
I present as evidence: every believer's total failure to present solid evidence. To dispute this, show it to be wrong, by presenting evidence, that withstands scrutiny.
"Evidence for the lack of evidence" That's a paradox and you probably know it. It wouldn't be a lack of evidence if you have evidence for the lack of evidence. Nothing about this "argument" is logical.
Lack of evidence doesn’t prove nor disprove anything... obviously it wouldn’t be a lack of evidence if there is evidence lacking. But that also doesn’t disprove anything unless there is evidence to disprove it. It’s in the neutral.
@@keithhamilton2240 I believe what CC is saying is that making the claim "there is no evidence for God" means that the person must know with 100 percent certainty that there is no evidence for God and be ready to back up that claim.
Theism can be dismissed that easily because you have NEVER given any one "evidence" to discuss or refute. ALL you have are your opinions and hallucinations.
@@bocasbeachbum I just meant that it should be 'NEVER given any "evidence"' or 'any piece of "evidence"' rather than "any one evidence". Since evidence is an uncountable noun, saying "one evidence" is gramatically wrong.
He really didn't define God in this video. He mentioned Jesus at the end to show there has to be an accumulation evidence; but his primary focus on the video was the candidate evidence of a god in general.
@@johncart07 You can at best proclaim first-causalITY - you cannot even reduce it to monocausality - the Trojan Horse for the introduction of MonoTheism. Well, YOU CAN, but you cannot logically endorse it. And Occam's razor is useless on this occasion: It could suggest "zero"
@@kleenex3000 You can't logically endorse the idea that everything came from absolutely nothing or randomness. Occam believed in God, btw, that means nothing, but it's ironic.
Save The Lost The same way everyone else does except the dishonest. Which is why believers try to divert or shift the goalposts rather than provide it.
Samuel Hunter Fine tuning, ‘intelligent design’ are assumptions, and transparently faulty ones at that. It’s like saying a comic is proof of Superman. Next.
@@kelman727 haha that made me laugh man. In your analogy, i think the creator/author of a comic would be a better comparison to the creator of the universe, pal. Not superman. And it cracked me up that it didn't occur to you cus you're all like "pfft what a transparently faulty argument" 🤣
Yes, god "could" have created the universe, but then you have not proven a god exists, yet science HAS proven the laws of physics and has proven that a god is not necessary.
@@zombieeibmoz747 Lets see, he lies about everything and then Gish-Gallops through absurd opinions and you wonder why people with functional brain cells object. Get a clue.
"Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence." That's playing willful ignorance of the all-encompassing claims that Abrahamism makes about God. The deity's role in people's lives, its alleged relationships with people, its control over fate, its creative abilities, its moralistic tendencies: these are all things that, upon being claimed, require monumental evidence to back them up. Sure, the absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence of *some kind* of superhuman sentient being out there in the universe. But to conclude by saying, "Therefore, that being is precisely the god described in the Judeo-Christian bible" is a wild jump to make which does not logically follow. As for all the "candidate evidence"... let's just say I wouldn't risk pointing out circular reasoning if I were you.
@@wmthewyld i thought it was a quirky / funny in away to say that there is no good reason to believe in any superstition or supernatural things. That as with the teachers presence, gods and godesses are totally absent.
@@northernlight8857 ...Your "no good reason" is nothing but an excuse. There are reasons for the existence of GOD (place "proof for god" in TH-cam search box for some), you just do not want to accept them. You cannot debunk/disprove the reasons. You can only reject the reason without cause or evidence they are wrong/inaccurate. If you give me 1 (one) reason, with evidence/proof/fact, not to accept that GOD does exist. I will discuss it with you. Of course that is if you have a good, common sense, logical, reason with evidence/proof/fact.
@@wmthewyld no. The burdon of proof is on the one making a claim. All the theist proofs i have come across are not any good. Give me your best ones. I dont know if a god or gods exsist. I dont know if its even possible for such beings to exsist. What method do you use to positively show that a god/s exsist that anyone can use to come to the same result.
Your video and videos like it shows there is no evidence of god. You have the chance give evidence for your god, yet all you can come up with is flawed points that have be debunked multiple times. GOOD JOB.
The "fine-tuning": that's the will to power. All things appear to be in harmony because every extant thing is exerting itself as much as it can. Whenever something falls out of balance, it gets crushed and no longer factors into the summation of what is. This is a bottom-up theory of "the harmony of the universe". This same bottum-up format can account for the formation of the universe itself. Start with a tiny crane: it builds a bunch of tiny cranes, those cranes then build bigger cranes, and the bigger cranes continue the process onward and upward. I am suggesting here that the universe was "created" not by the gargantuan act of one great, all-encompassing being, but by an incomprehensibly large quantity of tiny acts made by many many many many tiny entities, all functioning in tandem with each other. As those entities exerted themselves, they grew: the power or energy possessed by the tiniest ones gradually fused into larger entities. This is supported by our own biology. Our very bodies comprise microorganisms that used to be independent single-celled organisms. They eventually coalesced into each other to form multi-celled species. Honestly I could go on all day in response to each point made here, but I've done it nigh a million times already.
You cannot "give evidence proving that there is no evidence", that is where you cannot prove a negative, thinking scares you doesn't it. Essentially what he says is that your opinions and hallucinations are not evidence for a deity.
YOU ARE WRONG If you make a negative claim "there is no evidence (or insufficient evidence) for God", then you DO have the BOP because it suggests that you have an expectation or criteria of what that evidence would look like and thus you are compelled to make that assertion. For example, if Santa clause exists, I would expect to find evidence in the form of Gifts in my house that I know my parents could not afford or did not know I wanted or something like that. If these expectations or predictions are not fulfilled in someway, then I can claim with justification that there is no evidence for Santa Clause for the moment and ,thus, I have a right to conclude that he probably does not exist. Therefore, you not only would still have the burden of proof for making that assertion but it is still possible you can substantiated that claim even though it is a negative claim.
@@meerkatsk5170 If you make a negative claim "there is no evidence (or insufficient evidence) for God", - That is not a negative claim, that is a positive claim of - a level of evidence. but - give evidence proving that there is no evidence - is first absurd, and second, trying to prove a negative - evidence that something does not exist - it either exists, which can be proven, or it either does not exist or appears not to exist and you cannot have "evidence" of non-existence. And yes, saying that there is "insufficient evidence" for something is a positive claim and does require proving. But that is not what was said. All you are doing is tap dancing with a changed statement.
@@bocasbeachbum "give evidence proving that there is no evidence - is first absurd, and second, trying to prove a negative " Its not absurd because I just gave you an example of why it is not but yet you don't respond to it.
@@jamestor6700 First off, that particular claim is unfalsifiable. Second, this is not about proving something does not exist, but providing EVIDENCE that it does not exist. For example, if Santa clause exists, I would expect to find evidence in the form of Gifts in my house that I know my parents could not afford or did not know I wanted or something like that. If these expectations or predictions are not fulfilled in someway, then I can claim with justification that there is no evidence for Santa Clause for the moment and ,thus, I have a right to conclude that he probably does not exist.
3:00 "They've argued this they've argued that.." I can argue that you're a Block of cheese, but arguing doesn't make it true. You have to have proof of that.
I can argue that you’re actually butthurt of your beliefs. And want people to believe in what you believe, calling others” stupid” . That is worse that anything.
God̴IsA̧Fai̧r̷ytale there are something’s everyone can’t prove, and somethings don’t need proof( like knowing that your talking). Sometimes people have to use logic to also know the truth. But when their is proof of something people will still deny it. I meant to say that people like you like to call others or argue with insults.
John Daedalus then I could say there is no evidence of you, like those words you are saying right now isn’t proof. Like how people don’t believe in the word of God, how am I supposed to believe your words?
John Daedalus then if there’s isn’t evidence then I also could say there is no evidence of Julius caesar or Aristotle. Like there is documents of them, like how there are of Jesus. But according to your logic there is no evidence of them.
The problem with your argument here is that you argue evidence for a god, but then hit some hyperspace button to transfer a generalized "a god" into "Christianity". You can't do that. You can't say there are good philosophical arguments that lead me to believe there must be some kind of god, therefore Jesus died to save humanity from eternal torture.
If the proposal is, your god, has always existed, then that same argument can be made about the universe itself. Our known universe could be 0.000000001% of the size of the actual universe and the Big Bang/expansion could be a localized event/cycle. We don't have enough information. We are all trying out best to answer complex questions.
insanity Plus Any kind of being couldn't create the universe, that's the point. Only God, being infinite, eternal, self-existing and self-sufficient, with infinite wisdom, knowledge, and power could. It can be proven using logic and reason.
@Static Charge Red Field You're assuming that I have never done any research to arrive at the truth. Like I said in my previous comment, the God I serve, can be proven with logic and reason, because logic and reason come from God. Also, I have a relationship with God and I have experienced Him in my life. I continue to experience Him. I actually became a Christian because I compared all the beliefs to one another, and only one made sense. Christianity is the *_only_* belief where there is guaranteed salvation, and that salvation is a free gift from God, so no amount of work us humans do can earn our way into Heaven. All God wants is our repentance of our sins and our faith in Him. Christianity is the *_only_* belief where the Creator of the universe, God, is the source of life, love, justice, knowledge, wisdom, logic, power, and all other things good. Where God created us humans in His image and likeness, loves us all, and wants for all of us to have a relationship with Him, and to be able to spend eternity with Him in Heaven. It's the only belief where there is true justice: those who never repent of their sins (murder, rape, lying, etc. are all considered sin) and put their trust and faith in God will be punished.
@Static Charge Red Field You're actually not correct, in the slightest. You are, however, arrogant, prideful, cocky, and full of baseless claims. Unfortunately for you, science cannot and will never be able to explain everything, so if you're waiting for science to prove God in the way you want it to, you'll be waiting for an eternity. I like science too, it helps us humans to better understand certain things in our universe, but I live in reality. Science is very limited, so my hope and faith aren't in it. My hope and faith are in God, the Creator of the universe. I've heard that "the Bible is full of contradictions" argument too many times and I know that people who claim this have not properly studied the Bible, since I have and continue to study the Bible, and have found that all those so-called contradictions don't exist. I've also heard the "it's a cult" and "you Christians just want to scare everyone with eternal torture in Hell" too many times and none of it's true. Many Christians openly disagree with one another and we call out one another. A true Christian knows that we are to walk in the truth, and share the truth, in love with fellow Christians and non-Christians. If a person leaves the faith, no one is coming after them, threatening them with harm. You might have some judgmental individuals, but that's about it. No true Christian is forcing people to keep secrets or any of the nonsense we see in actual cults. If you study cults and compare them to what Christianity is, they are nothing like Christianity. In cults, many times one human is worshipped and trusted over everything, the cult leader. In true Christianity, it's God, the Creator of the universe, who is worshipped and trusted over everything. Big difference. Also, telling the truth isn't trying to scare people. I get that people don't always use the best methods to tell others the truth, but if I tell you that you're about to walk off a cliff and to watch out, when I see that you really are about to walk off a cliff, it wasn't because so want to scare you, it's because I actually care about you and your safety. Lastly, that "God is evil" argument is so incorrect _and_ overused. Anyone who uses it has not properly studied God's word, just as the person in the video you posted. Please read and study the Bible for yourself. You owe it to yourself to seek and to know the truth.
@@alexanderwerner1779 If you don’t know what evidence of the supernatural looks like then why are you asking Cameron where the evidence is? What specifically are you looking for? What specifically does Cameron need to show you to show you evidence?
There's no evidence that there's no evidence? Really? I disagree that there's no evidence (I would say that the evidence that there is isn't good evidence), but that's a really bad line of argument. Also, arguments =/= evidence.
@@CapturingChristianity Let's keep it to a subject we can agree on to hopefully help you understand what is wrong with that statement. There is no evidence for Russell's Teapot (a small, black teapot orbiting the sun somewhere in between Earth and Mars). I trust that you would agree with this statement. Now, what evidence would you give to support the claim that there is no evidence for this teapot?
@@VicedRhino A teapot is a ceramic device specifically meant to be used for the consumption of tea. Tea is a plant native to Asia which - when brewed in water - imparts an infusion of its component chemicals thus giving the water a particular flavor that is desirable by humans for drinking. No nation exports tea into orbit around Jupiter. No human consumes tea in such a manner as to be satisfied with an infinitesimally small teapot. There are no humans from Earth that have ventured into orbit around Jupiter. Water is not naturally in a liquid state while in orbit around Jupiter - it is instead solid due to the natural temperature there. Thus, it is reasonable to ascertain that by definition, there are no teapots in orbit around Jupiter 1.) because no tea is exported to Jupiter for consumption, 2.) Tea cannot be brewed in the absence of an atmosphere in Jupiter's orbit. 3.) Tea cannot be brewed in the absence of temperatures between 0 and 100 degrees Celsius. 4.)No humans live in the immediate vicinity of Jupiter and thus if a pot exists around Jupiter it cannot be used for the human consumption of tea. 5.) No nation exports tea into orbit around Jupiter which would thus deprive anyone of the means to brew tea in orbit around Jupiter. 6.) A pot of undetectable size is insufficient to serve in the capacity of a teapot. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that there are no teapots in orbit around Jupiter.
@@Templarkommando A better example is the tooth fairy. When a child is told there is a tooth fairy, and that child puts a tooth under the pillow which is replaced by a coin in the morning that is evidence of the tooth fairy. 1. The the child was told of the tooth fairy. 2. The tooth was replaced with a coin. 3. Therefore the tooth fairy exists. The purpose of the tea pot is to show that someone somewhere cannot form a logical argument against that kind of teapot that floats in space. So that someone is gullible towards the teapot. That is to say that everyone that believes in some unsubstantiated thing has their metaphorical teapot, or perhaps instead they have a metaphorical tooth fairy. The difference is that the evidence for the teapot is the claim itself, and the evidence for the tooth fairy is the tooth being replaced by the coin. Not all evidence is equal, and not all holders of evidence are equal.
@Viced Rhino So the complexity of the universe is not evidence for a Creator? Hasn't there been work done on the probability of even a single protein randomly forming (I think the odds were like 1/10^124)? Even then, the simplest life form contains multiple interrelated systems that all require each other to function. Even over the course 13.8 billion years, there hasn't been nearly enough time to randomly form a habitable planet AND randomly form even the most simple of lifeforms, much less the infinitely complex world in which we live. If random chance cannot account for your very existence, then something had to create you. That is evidence for God. And that absolutely isn't the only evidence.
This guy is ridiculous. Just names a bunch of nonsense and says "All this is evidence of god". All of that is bad evidence because all of those claims can be refuted.
You just said a whole lot to say nothing. "Candidate" evidence isn't evidence. Saying that "God could", in no way suggests that God did. You provided no evidence, all the while, saying that there is evidence. This is circular nonsense. Before you suggest that God created anything, you must first give demonstrable evidence that he exists. Until such time as that, your argument (if you really even made one) is without substance.
Did you notice: All the "candidate evidence" examples were _God of the gaps_ arguments. They simply input a god at the point their understanding failed. Plus, you tipped your hand to confirmation bias when you said, "what type of thing" could create a universe, etc. // Their arguments go like this: we can't figure out how all this happened.... therefore, God. //
No that is absolutely not the case. These are not God of the Gaps arguments, they are inductive premises based on what we DO know with a conclusion that follows that God exists
I don't get it, he wasn't trying to present evidence in this video, he was saying that even if we don't have evidence, it doesn't mean your position is right. It's logically fallacious to assert this. You can make a case that it's unlikely or that you don't agree, but you can't upfront say God does not exist just because there is no evidence (I think there is evidence, but I'm not playing that game right now). All you can conclude is that there is no evidence. Say 50 years after your death all evidence of your very existence was wiped out and burnt into ashes, does that mean you never existed? No, it doesn't. Does evidence help to verify your existence? Yes, it does. Same with God.
To understand what God actually means at a scientifically perspective based on human knowledge: Set of Forces: 1. Not Physical 2. Act on the physical 3. Created the physical from nothing 4. Predates the universe. What a "coincidence", thats how the bible describes GOD. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
@@kronos01ful when I say God I talk about the deities that have been invented. We thought Zeus was real because of lightning, while it was just a physical activity, then we dismissed it. Since I don't clame that God(s) exist(s), it's not my job to describe it.
Something only atheist believes in, since there is no true Christian that accepts that claim. So no, lacks of evidence don’t prove unicorns or Thor. Lol
@@idontshower I stand corrected as some one else who watched this said - yes there is evidence, really bad evidence, but some evidence, but still no "proof".
Lee Catanese mhm “professionals.” Aka philosophers. He didnt even cite anyone other than philosophers. So i guess you could say “really really bad evidence.”
@@tylerthomas2956 And I bet you thought that was brilliant, how typically fundie. The university of Manchester has proven every aspect of Abiogenesis, thus proving the formation of DNA is a natural process. Why is it that high school drop outs think they can dismiss millions of hours of research by thousands of PhD's.
How exactly is mathematics evidence for god? Sure what your saying is that the same way we make a building out of math your saying that God would have to had done the same but how do you know that a God was responsible? Just because someone says it doesn’t make it accurate.
The colloquial statement that one cannot prove a negative is untrue. Further, even if that were the case, it would not absolve a person of needing to provide supporting evidence for their assertion, so, to claim that the opposing side lacks evidence is an assertion that deserves to be given support if it is in fact true. The rest of the atheist case as it concerns this particular argument relies on dodging the definition of evidence and confusing the word "evidence" with the word "proof." A knife with blood on it can definitely be evidence in a court case, but it is not necessarily proof of anyone's guilt. For a person serving as a finder of fact - as a juror would - your job is to ask "Is it reasonable in this case to believe that the suspect used this knife to kill the victim?" As it concerns theism, the finder of fact needs to ask "Is it reasonable in this case to believe that God created the universe?" Supporting evidence should then be defined as anything given which shows that the question more likely needs to be answered in the affirmative. From here, we can ask a question about the subject line. Is there evidence that God exists? Any honest person should be able to answer that evidence exists. From there, the question is whether the evidence that exists is sufficient to show that God probably exists. That question, in particular, should be answered by every person as they give a fair hearing to the evidence that exists.
You are arguing that "lightening is evidence of god's existence" until we discovered what lightening was. All you are saying is that "we have yet to prove these things - therefore god. Very elementary schoolish of you.
"As nouns the difference between claim and belief is that claim is a demand of ownership made for something (eg claim ownership, claim victory) while belief is mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence. As a verb claim is to demand ownership of." wikidiff.com/claim/belief As you can see, the belief within itself (or the definition of theism) is NOT a claim and thus are not synonymous terms. This is why people who make claims have the BOP while people who profess a belief or call themselves theists even to others do not have the BOP *by default*. This means that when theists or Christians do make claims, they will have the burden of proof; BUT, so do atheists as well. That is what atheists refuse to understand and accept.
You made 2 assertions in one sentence, both of which are incorrect, and would themselves need to be proven. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - that is nonsense. Extraordinary claims need reasonable evidence. Let's say you are fat and ugly and unemployed, and you claim to be dating Heidi Klum. Your claim would be extraordinary, but the only evidence you would need is her to say "yep, he is my boyfriend." You could claim you met the president, but all you would need is 1 photo or 1 credible witness. Artificially creating a different standard of evidence for a claim you dislike is neither scientifically nor philosophically sound. To say evidence you don't like is just an opinion is an assertion that would need to be proved. For example, the evidence of the creation of the universe from nothing is certainly not an opinion. The evidence he referred to is all excellent evidence (although i would not use the argument from beauty, though many people do). He didn't flesh it out in a 5-minute video. The purpose of this video was to refute the claim "there is no evidence" (which is nonsense) not to present all of the evidence.
@@joethomas1146 This has to be one of the most moronic responses I've ever seen, you refuted nothing in your response, in actuality you made yourself sound ignorant. On top of all that you made it sound as if you're coming off intellectually superior which I find to be ignominious. Saying (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - is nonsense) is more nonsensical in itself which is hilarious, it's as if you don't fundamentally understand the quote at all? So then, let us go through your analogies. #1 "The, you are fat, ugly, unemployed, and you claim to be dating Heidi Klum" You claim that her saying "yep, he is my boyfriend" is all you would need. Are you serious? That WOULD be extraordinary evidence, not decent evidence, that would make the unattractive man claims to be a FACT, as the proof is straight from Clum herself, verifying the story, unless she was lying which is a possibility, but then why would she lie about being with a very unattractive man? This whole analogy is just terrible, to begin with, there is nothing even close to that kind of comparable evidence for God or the Bible, or any other religion for that matter. #2 "The, you claim to have met the president, and all you need is one photo or one credible witness" This is almost identical to your first one, in fact, it is besides this one has two potential pieces of evidence. The problem is, with your analogy, which there are a lot of, you say you need "one photo or one credible witness" well someone has to take the photo? The President is normally surrounded by bodyguards and the press, even if the press isn't there, we would have plenty of credible witnesses to ask if the photo is real. If the story needs fact-checked, we could even ask the president himself, again the Bible has nothing comparable to this kind of evidence. Let's get to the video where you say he has "excellent evidence", it starts with him saying "just because there isn't any evidence doesn't mean there isn't a god" starting your argument in a video about evidence for god, with what is essentially the admittance that there isn't any evidence is a terrible way to start off, it's a non sequitur. The majority of Agnostics and Atheists agree that if God can be proven "with real scientifical evidence " that we're okay with that, so starting your argument off with what is essentially the admittance that there isn't any evidence is terrible. He then follows this with your typical "the universe is big and unexplainable so therefore god" argument we've heard a million times, this is NOT evidence, it's merely straight theory. What's even worse is he uses an analogy of saying that explaining the universe using the universe is like using a chicken to explain the existence of a chicken, calling it circular reasoning. He then immediately goes on to say that the only thing that could explain the universe is "God" which uses, you guessed it CIRCULAR reasoning, as then we go on to the usual argument of "who created god and who created that god and so on" at this point, anyone who logically thinks could go ahead click off this video, as the rest is going to be more of the same, you already know it will be based on the first two arguments, as they are not evidence they are theories or opinions. Basically, spare me.
It sounds like you agree with Hemant Mehta on this one. Please correct if my paraphrasing is inaccurate, but it sure sounded like you said 'There's no real evidence, but I just invented a word called 'candiate evidence' and we have plenty of that!'
@@jkm9332 Empirical. Testable. Observable. Repeatable. Logical syllogisms provide a hypothesis, but we need the above to determine if our logic is sound. Anecdotal evidence supports every religion. It leads to contradicting conclusions, so it's not very helpful.
I am genuinely curious why anyone would ever bother to argue in favor of materialism (atheism). If materialism (belief that matter, energy, time, and space are the only things that exist) is true, then one must also conclude that determinism (belief that the universe and everything in it is nothing more than a state machine ticking along mindlessly forever) is true and therefore life has no meaning and all arguments are pointless, thought is an illusion, choice is an illusion, we are all just molecules in motion. Indeed, even the concepts of "self" and "mind" become useless. It is an utterly hopeless conclusion: "I do not exist".
@@althepsyphros3314 When the universe has multiple different factors that had they been changed by the slightest amount Then it isn't subjective to say it was fine tuned (Examples include expansion rate of universe, gravitational force, and oxygen level itself)
@@ChaosJesterYT I'll replace the subject of ''universe'' to ''hole in ground'' and show you how this argument is flawed with the puddle analogy. ''When the hole in the ground has multiple different factors that had they been changed by the slightest amount Then it isn't subjective to say it was fine tuned (Examples include; depth of the hole, absorption of the material the hole was in (i.e wood/vs/concrete), the length of the hole compared to it's width, the slope angle of the holes location on a hill for example.'' This is a reverse equivocation fallacy. Put it like this. If the universe wasn't finely tuned for our existence, then we would NOT exist! It NECESSARILY *HAS* to be fine tuned for our existence, because if it WAS NOT, we would not be here... A 3 foot long puddle in a triangle shape, would NOT exist, if IN FACT the hole was not 3 foot long, and shaped like a triangle! If the hole was shaped like a circle and was 2 foot long, then there would be no triangle shaped puddle that's 3 foot long! Do you not see how this makes sense?
@@althepsyphros3314 Problem is that there can be multiple puddles, and that you can create your own puddles There is no evidence of a universe creating itself, and there is only one time the universe was created Another problem with that puddle analogy is that if one of the factors was changed then there wouldn't be that many bad consequences, with the universe however if ANY of its factors was different, then there wouldn't be life
@@ChaosJesterYT Fine Tuning is a perceived-HOOD, an INFORMATION, a *subjective construct,* an imaginary EFFECT, and the CAUSE is matter as such. Fine tuning DOES exist but as a proclamation on the paper, where it services as a tool aka Secondary Information-SOURCE, in order to describe matter. Anyone who attributes causal agency to the subjective construct "Fine Tuning" as such, is either clueless or a deceptive POS, who is telling an effect (Fine Tuning = subjective inside-brain construct) for cause (matter as such = outside.brain cause), dishonestly lumping together the visible proclamation on the paper and the invisible subjective construct which for itself cannot be DETECTED, it can only be PROCLAIMED. It is fair to say the SuperHeroes on TH-cam (including self proclaimed "Free Thinkers") are mostly clueless about the Semiotic Triangle: REFERENT = Information-SOURCE = primary CAUSE = cosmos as such = world 1 (Popper) REFERENCE = detected-, observed-, perceived-HOOD = INFORMATION = Property = *subjective construct* = imaginary effect = world 2 (Popper) SYMBOL = manifestation, objectification, symbol = SECONDARY Information-SOURCE = world 3 (Popper)
None of what you mention here is 'evidence' that would lead a rational person to god(s) or to even imagine gods. What you've done is here is invent arguments and imagine 'evidence' for your presupposed god(s) and particular religion. Every believer can make the same case for their particular god(s) and religion based on the exact same 'evidence' and arguments. Just swap out the scripture, doctrine and dogma of the religion. What you've argued is, 'I don't know what else to believe so I'll interpret whatever I must to support my presupposed god(s) and particular religion'. Your 'evidence' no more supports the conclusion of your particular god that it does Odin, Zeus, Ra, leprechauns or ghosts. Take a minute to consider the Ontological Argument for god - if we imagine a presupposed god to be the most perfect being, and a real being is more perfect than an imagined one, therefore...god.
@Knowledge Yes, I want to know if I'm overlooking or under appreciating credible evidence. How about you hit us with your most credible evidence...the evidence that convinced you, and should convince me, that your god exists.
@Greg Pearcey Every believer can't make the same case for a particular god. The first argument the video presented, the universe itself, cut out a vast majority of the god claims if you understand the characteristics of those gods. Do know the characteristics of the specific gods a believer makes? What type of evidence are you looking for?
It's called ontological contingency, why is there something rather than nothing? Did matter and energy just exist to exist, then randomly create a universe completely unguided by anything outside of it? You can believe that if you want, but don't act like it's the truth.
@@notwhatiwasraised2b This is all based on Synthetic a priori propositions, empirical data is not needed. It's about ontological contingency, either matter and energy just existed uncaused, then one day created a universe randomly by chance. Or there is a cause, if something caused the universe to exist, it had to be a choice. No universe or universe, otherwise it wasn't caused, it just happened, and we exist to exist. You don't need empirical data to slap you in the face to know this, it can be derived from logic.
@@johncart07 By your 'logic' I can just as easily assert that leprechauns or pixie farting unicorns created our universe. No one other than presuppositional believers in god(s) claims to know how our universe began, or if it 'began' for that matter. Frankly, you sound like my wife, who also 'just knows' things without a shred of evidence. Also, I would direct you to the title and subject of the video...it's about evidence, not whatever you imagine 'logic' to mean. Even if there is merit to your 'ontological contingency' argument, whatever that means, the 'first cause' argument does not infer a god or your particular god any more than it infers Allah, Shiva or Xenu. There is something rather than nothing because we (i.e. something) are here to pose that question. I am not aware of any intentional reason we're here, but there is no denying that we are. How did that start? Who knows! But there is no more reason to suppose god(s) had anything to do with it than there was when Odin, Zeus or Ra were the god-heads.
And Still there hasn’t been any evidence provided that god exists. I clearly understand the point you are making that just because there is no evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But at the same time there has to be evidence to prove it actually exists. By saying the universe is so complex that it must be a creator is not evidence to prove god exists, it’s just another idea with no evidence behind it.
2:57 Hi, Almighty God of the Odds here. I am always amazed when apologists argue for my ability to intelligently design a gigantic universe where life is hard to emerge and is absurdly hostile to it, so later can claim is my miracle when it happens. I have the best lawyers that logic can twist.
@@edgarmatzinger9742 Why is it a stupid example? Cause you cannot entertain it? Does anyone know in Greece that you exist? NO! Does anyone have any evidence of your existence in Greece? NO ONE. DOES THAT MEAN YOU DO NOT EXIST? So, if you will entertain that thought then you'll realise that: the lack of evidence doesn't mean the evidence of absence. Just because there are no evidence of you in Greece, doesn't necessary mean you do not exist.
@@edgarmatzinger9742 Flawed example. A lack of evidence for the existence of a person *in japan* IS weak evidence that the person is not in japan. This could be because they are not in japan, do not exist, or are hiding. It's not evidence that the person does not exist. People do exist. We have evidence of that. We have none for 'gods.'
@@NThTwS Done with your playground insults? Anyone in Greece, Japan or elsewhere can make an effort to get some evidence if I exist or not. And no one can make effort to get evidence your god exists.
Where could the universe come from? 1. Logos 2. Brahman 3. Being 4. Tao 5. Chaos 6. A demiurge 7. Nothingness 8. The One 9. A black hole 10.The Source You see, judeo-Christian culture isn't the only one around
so small , a chrisitan's brain this ''god'' of ours , is just 1 of an infinite amount of ''gods'' in existence at this very moment , but this ''god'' didn't create a damn thing , how could he ? he doesn't exist in this reality he makes other beings do it , beings that aren't human , cause making a universe TAKES TIME the vatican has the complete library of alexandria in their vaults , the FIRST lie in the world of religion guess what these scrolls and books say : that our galaxy ALONE is populated BEYOND BELIEF , it's the reason christianity was created in the west ... so they could control the people , instead of the PEOPLE finding out that THEY ARE ''god'' itself and can figure out THE WAY THEMSELFS ,without the help of a church of a religion !!! people are idiots , religious people are least , and their children are the dumbest kids on the planet , especially christian children , my lord !!! lol a child in africa without an education , has a better understanding then a ANY christian child... are you going to keep doing this to your children ? making them dumber and dumber , every generation ? it's appalling really , and pure child ABUSE do some damn research , about where you're cross comes from , why jesus was INVENTED and from which original story , and so on ... just start at the beginning , with the translations of the word ''god'' , it's almost true , just missing an S at the end , the CORRECT translation is '' THE GODS created the heavens ...'' that's the FIRST LINE of the first chapter , how do you think the rest of the ''good book'' has been DELIBERATELY translated ? EVERY STORY in that damned thing is plagiarized , or just made up entirely ... wake up will you people , it's been 1500 years now , that they invented the bible , isn't it time to wake up , you people have been ASLEEP for 1500 years , and MAKING your children SLEEP too , just sleep walking the world , with no f*cking clue ! isn't it time to wake up ?
But what other explanation is there that actually makes sense? It's not even about knowing everything. Any other options offered are the multiverse theory, which actually only provides an even greater need for God existing; evolution, which cannot explain how life actually came to be, it just says that it did, somehow; intelligent alien life started life here on earth, which begs the question: who created _that_ life?; deism, which says that there is a God, but apparently He just wants to sit back and watch humans destroy themselves, which doesn't make any sense (why would a deistic God even create us to begin with?); and any other options kind of fall into the aforementiomed categories. When you actually study the Holy Bible and understand it, you get an understanding that God created us to know and love Him. Through that knowledge of Him, we can know our purpose here, and through our love for Him, we can also love ourselves and others. Also, us humans, are set apart from the other creatures: God created us in His image and likeness. With every other creation, He just simply spoke it into existence. Basically, the Lord, the God of the Holy Bible, is the only explanation that leads to a solid conclusion of our creation *_and_* makes any sense.
Madars Svikis...Thanks for proving you are brainwashed and deluded. Proof: Just because you do not accept the evidence does not mean there is no evidence. atheism is the religion of hate.
It seems many Atheists believe "evidence" should be something that destroys any dissent. The "evidence" should be unassailable, and therefore any question of this "evidence" is just ignorance, and shouldn't even be entertained, much less taken seriously. This is a reason why so many atheists refuse to engage the arguments of Theists. I think they are paranoid of finding that "evidence" they so fervently assume doesn't exist.
Probably some of the weakest arguments for a god. Everything thing you say that favors the existence of a god ( precisely, your christian god fairy tale), can be used as evidence for any other “god” or myth.
Yeah the point He's trying to make is that the is a God, he's not defending the Christian God yet. If you'd like to get into the evidence of that you'd have to look at reasons to believe the validity of the Bible, find out more on the life and existence of Jesus, the ressurection and cruxifuction of Jesus as well, look into archeological evidence for the Bible and so much more. And I tell you as soon as you start looking into that you'll be blown away by how one book could be so accurate and so preserved over hundreds of years. And you'll have no choice but to believe it.
Haven't most, if not all, of those arguments and "evidences" been refuted already? Nothing new here, effectively answering the posed question by showing that there is no evidence of god.
@@CapturingChristianity 1) There is no evidence. Absence of evidence may not mean evidence of absence, but it’s a strong indicator. As for “candidate evidence”, this is a new term for me, but sounds like something an apologist came up with to bolster weak arguments from personal incredulity. You could easily substitute the word “candidate” in the phrase for the word “not” and still have the same meaning. The fact that theists have to rely on logic word games to define their deity into existence is in itself evidence there is no god. If there was any actual evidence we wouldn’t be discussing anything. Theists warping the meaning of what evidence is comes off as pretty self-refuting. 2) Really? Humans think so therefore god. Assertions are not evidence. You slipped that one past quite quickly, and it is clear why. This is another self-refuter. 3) The Earth isn’t even fine-tuned for life, at least not human life, and what has been observed about the universe is that it is also inhospitable. People adapted to the world, not the other way round. Sean Carrol addressed this when he decimated William Lane Craig’s nonsense in their debate. 4) Mathematics is a human construct to define and explain reality. If mathematics is god given, how come it wasn’t there from the start? The whole fine tuning argument is just the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Sean Carrol has dealt with this as well. The list of what you call candidate evidence may well be long, but that doesn’t make it at all convincing, or even classify it as actual evidence. By the way, nicely produced and delivered presentation, and well done for leaving your comments open.
Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof immediately at the start of your video. How kind of you to lay out your inability to conduct logical argumentation in a video based on logical argumentation, it saves us a lot of time.
This was a fair shift of the burden of proof...saying "there's no evidence" is a truth claim - he better be able to back it up. Cameron then gives a brief overview of some of the schools of evidence for God's existence. Your whole point is fairly moot - and a classic unbased personal attack as well.
Cam Richardson He claims his first point in asking for evidence of no evidence. This is a classic ploy and shift in the burden of truth by those who misunderstand the concept of the burden of proof. The consensus of information lays in contradiction to this mans claims, and he is the one making the claims to the contrary. Therefore, it falls upon him to not only show logical reasoning in the pursuit of his own opinion, but provide sufficient and substantial evidence to outweigh the original point. What he has done here is a classic tit for tat question, in the hope that nobody will notice the lack of anything useful at all. I’ll concede the ad hominem, though I’m not that bothered about it.
@][000l][ll0l000] [lll-lll] Thanks for the reply. I am aware of the argument from ignorance, but I disagree that you can't disprove a negative - I can demonstrably prove there are no married bachelors or Muslims in the Supreme Court. As for Santa, there is candidate evidence that he does not exist because the Christian minister responsible for creating most of his fictional qualities himself believed he was creating a work of fiction. Sorry to hear you've found Christians to be people that fear/hate math and science - my experience has been somewhat opposite:
Some of the great scientists through the ages, including Francis Bacon (founder of the empirical scientific method), Isaac Newton (discoverer of the law of gravity), Gregor Mendel ('father' of modern genetic theory) and Dmitri Mendeleev (creator of the periodic table of elements) were all bible believing Christians. Newton particularly believed that philosophy and the natural world must be studied inductively, but argued that we can only study arguments for the existence of God. Information on His attributes (such as nature, action, and purposes) can only come from special revelation. Modern day examples include John Lennox, who is an Emeritus Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Oxford University.I myself have a Bachelors Degree in Science (Geology).
I just found your channel, can I use your fallacies to teach people how not to reason?
That was an honest question, not being mean at all
@@StambeccoAllaFragola I'd suggest you don't use the "fallacies" at all. They are so over used, abused, and down right pedantic.
@@blusheep2 I don't use fallacies, I spot them and so you should do. Do you understand what fallacies are and why it's important you don't make them in the process of reasoning?
I would agree with you entirely that it is good to be able to spot a logical fallacy. I understand perfectly what they are, although I wouldn't lie and claim to be able to list them all out for you. There are so many.
I find that more people then not, learn a basic explanation of a particular fallacy and then apply it poorly. I also find that most people that point them out in arguments use them as the argument itself. Sometimes, by pure definition, a fallacy appears to apply when it doesn't and most I run into don't seem to understand that. I also find that people are often looking to find a way to throw out one fallacy name or another based off of their preconceived expectations of another's argument.
That is why I suggest trying minimize how often you bring up a fallacy in a conversation with another. When you do, I believe the conversation should look something like this:
A: Pope John Paul said evolution was true
B: Well, he may have but I don't place much value in Pope John Paul when it comes to matters of science. Using that to prove your point is therefore, what we would call in philosophy, a logical fallacy called an argument from authority. If you would like to site a source to bolster your position then we need to find one that we both agree is a reputable source of scientific information.
You see, the fallacy isn't thrown out as a "haha gotcha. you are so illogical" comment. Rather the responder explains the issue with the person "A's" comment and only uses the logical fallacy terminology as a means of validating his position.
In my experience atheists often use a "god of the gaps" (which is an argument from ignorance) against theists constantly without even trying to understand the theists position. An argument from ignorance is gonna say something like "well we have no explanation for it therefore it must be....." It is a negative statement. But a statement like "the only thing that we have observed to create something with complex specified information is intelligence therefore since the most basic parts of the cell contains complex specified information then it is reasonable to infer that intelligence took a part in the creation of the first cell." That would be a positive statement based off of what we have observed in nature. It would therefore NOT be an argument from ignorance. So the use of the argument for ignorance fallacy against this statement would in fact be another fallacy called a "fallacy fallacy." :P
What that would lead to is a breakdown in our whole conversation as we begin to debate the use of the fallacies instead of the arguments that were made.
You always see prosecution lawyers saying "unless the defense can show that we don't have evidence, we obviously have some."
I wonder if they do attempt to twist someone's words as well.
Paulogia the problem is that Hemant made a positive claim that there was NO evidence for God, and there is plenty of candidate evidence for God. I have gone through very serious periods of doubt and skepticism (in fact most of my acquaintances are non-religious) and my belief is built pretty much entirely on the cosmological argument from contingency, teleological arguments, and other arguments from natural theology. Someone could in principle fail to be convinced by them, but it is perverse to fail to engage with the best arguments Christian and theist thinkers have to offer (e.g. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology; Rasmussen's Bridge of Reason; among many) and then say "there is no evidence".
@@mordec1016 Here's the thing... arguments aren't evidence. Arguments can be persuasive, but they're not evidence in the sense Hemant is talking about. A failure to understand that is equally silly from the other side of the fence.
Paulogia arguments allow us to comprehend evidence in large scales and to logically justify and discover facts about reality. Besides, are you somehow implying that atheists (or anyone, really) can simply ignore arguments? Say, if I have a logically valid deductive argument that entails God exists (or that Socrates is mortal, or perhaps some specific metaphysical thesis) and the premises all seem very plausible, am I supposed to just ignore that argument and resist the conclusion? And to say it "isn't evidence"? I can hardly think of something more irrational than that. If you give me a valid argument and the premises all appear true, that DOES count as strong evidence for whatever entity or thesis the conclusion establishes. An argument isn't simply some kind of rhetorical device. It's a prime example of how we can justifiably attain true beliefs by means of valid inferences. Even scientific discoveries ultimately take the form of arguments (often inductive arguments).
@@mordec1016 I know Hemant a little, and I couldn't speak for him, but he's using "evidence" as shorthand for "empirical evidence". I personally avoid a phrase like "there's no evidence for God" for all the reasons you cite. It's sloppy. I doubt I've ever used this phrase publicly. But I will stand by my distinction that philosophical arguments and empirical evidence are different classes of things, even though both are in a broader category of "things that can be persuasive".
Only hearing arguments, not seeing evidence.
What would evidence of the supernatural look like to you?
You should learn what is a fallacy before even trying to argue anything. Otherwise you are waisting our time.
BTW, the universe is fine tuned for life? Try a week-end on Jupiter to see how it goes.
“Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. … The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.”
-Stephen Hawking (the Grand Design, pp. 160-1)
@@CapturingChristianity The universe conditions are irrelevant, it is the conditions on earth that are.
You can not live in the universe. BTW. Why would a god create an infinite life hostile universe only to have life on one single tiny planet? Isn't it a terrible waiste of time and space creating all that for no reason?
Optimus27 you’re not the sharpest, you know that, right?
@@CapturingChristianity Does all thinking process your resumes in copying and pasting over and over again what Dawkins said? Really?
On top of that, don't you get the word "Appear" in his statement?
Instead of a universe that is fine tuned for life, what about life that developped and adapted to its environement? You get the difference?
@@jeveuxpasdechainecal what i wonder is why he cut so much out of the quote he uses?
I legit thought you were going to say "Hello im Cameron Bertuzzi and your watching Disney channel" at the beginning 😅
Lmao
I think we were..." If only you could just believe it all your dreams would come true!" 🧙♂️🌈☃️🦄🎅
In order to counter the statement that "there is no evidence for ___ " you would simply need to present some evidence. That is, unless you want to just end all possibility of intelligent discussion and go in circles of "you can't prove ___" _"Well... you can't prove that I can't prove ____."_ "well, you can't prove that I can't prove that you can't prove ___" ... ... ...
FYI, this would lead to atheism, because there is no reason to believe that any god exists if there is no evidence that it exists.
AND BTW there is no evidence for numbers.
numbers are in and only in your head.
numbers = fairy tales
What evidence do you have that evidence as a concept exists?
@@Collidedatoms ah, the final garbage "argument" to end all possibility of intelligent discussion. Rivaled only by hard solipsism.
A fine demonstration of how weak the original stance for which evidence was asked for really is.
If you ask someone for evidence to support a claim that they made and they counter with something along the lines of _"well, what evidence do you have that evidence actually exists"_ walk away, there is no chance of worthwhile discussion to be had with them.
Also, the person who asks for evidence that evidence exists as a counter, already knows that their earlier claim/stance that was questioned is empty, and that there is no reason to accept it... so there isn't really anything to convince them of through discussion anyway. They already believe something for which they have no valid reason to, and they know it.
Timeshark well said!
@@timeshark8727 It only ends all possibility of intelligent discussion because you don't have a consistent answer for it from your own worldview. I have a reason for evidence to matter. You don't. You just opine that it should functionally. The point of asking the question is to demonstrate that before we even touch the evidence at all, you already have decided that there is no evidence regardless what evidence is put forward. We could innundate you with evidence but because of your worldview, none of it matters; somehow, it doesn't count. And that's the problem, the evidence is not the problem; we look at the same evidence. The problem is the worldview through which that evidence is interpreted and understood. So how do we determine which worldview is representing the evidence accurately? We can test the worldview for internal consistency. The Christian worldview HAS that consistency and other worldviews do not.
This is why my question threatens you so much that you advise everyone who exposes the folly of pure empiricism to "walk away" and that "there is no chance of a worthwhile discussion". You're correct in a certain sense; You CANNOT have a worthwhile discussion without ultimately butting up against the self defeat and incoherence of your own position. Here's something, Every single one of our cells has a finely tuned turbine which is powered by proton flow and uses mechanical energy to force Phosphate and Adenosine Diphosphate together into Adenosine Triphosphate. The process can even run in reverse if needed. Flagellum are complex motors made of protein molecules, DNA is a hugely complex data store of information that not only just stores the information but stores itself in such a way that when packed a certain way and unpacked naturally by cellular processes will expose the correct instructions to create the correct proteins and instructions for the cell to function in the way that it does to make everything from tiny bacteria and molds to dinosaurs and people. At the end of the day, EVERYTHING you experience, see, interact with, and even think, is evidence for my God. You have no lack of it. The actual issue is your suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.
Finally, The above are part of my reasons for believing the Christian God. I have a ton more but these suffice to justify my belief on their own. And my reasons are indeed valid: Observation and Evidence, but also a worldview shaped by God's providence. It is God who changes hearts and minds and puts an end to our suppression of the truth. One final thought before I go. Everything in your response presupposes rules for logic and rationality and the nature of truth and demands for evidence which in turn presuppose an orderly and governed universe wherein the future will be like the past. None of these presuppositions are justifiable in your worldview. In every single one of them you have to steal from my God and borrow the Christian worldview. So in point of fact it is YOU who believe something with no valid reason for doing so, your rebellion against God's authority for selfishness sake is not a valid excuse, in fact, you are without excuse as Paul says in Romans 1, and YOU know it.
Name 1 candidate evidence that turned out to be right. Meaning that it demostrates god's existence, that will hold against scrutiny.
Name 1 candidate evidence that tells me there is no God. Tell me man 💀
Interesting video. As a Christian, I found some of the argumentation fine. On the other hand, there is a problem with some of the argumentation that I have which should be addressed. Before I go there, I want to say that many of the evidences in the video are good and I use some myself when engaging unbelievers, but I must address three problems I can think of right off the bat. (And I don't mean this to dismiss some of the logic presented here because it is good, but I teach apologetics at my church and there are problems with the way we do apologetics many times. Too much info for this post, but maybe you'll see them in my problems.)
1) There is always a problem when we present evidence to the unbeliever for the existence of God. The problem is that you show evidence to a judge and jury to render a verdict. We now make the unbeliever the judge of whether God exists or not. This is frightening since the unsaved person hates God, Christ, and Christians (Jesus' own words in John 15:18-23), they don't have discernment about spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14), and their carnal minds are enmity (hostile) against God (Romans 8:7). So we are presenting evidence to someone about the very person the Bible says they hate, that can't understand His Word, and they have hostility to. In other words, they will dismiss any evidence you give based on this presupposition; which means they will invent reasons why the evidences you give don't necessarily point to God. While it is fine to give them, they won't be convinced in an existence of God because of it, which leads me to the second problem:
2) Romans 1:18-23 already tells us that unsaved people already know that God exists by their conscience and creation. They just suppress (or hold) that truth in their unrighteous sin nature. In other words, their very nature of sin is enough to make them say they don't believe in God or that they need evidence for God when they know God exists already. This is the reason God says the fool says in his heart there is no God in Psalm 14:1. Yet we jump through hoops giving "evidences" to prove the very thing they know in their conscience. It is fine to remind them, but they aren't convinced by our argumentation, but by the gospel, which is the power to save (Romans 1:16). This leads to my third problem:
3) Christians are fond of giving evidences and philosophical arguments to unbelievers to make God's existence a possibility or probability. In other words, we want to convert them to skeptics/atheists to theists. The problem is, while a Christian is a theist, not every theist is a Christian. Theism is a belief in god, but which god? Just giving evidences mentioned here doesn't take someone to the God of the Bible, but to any god. It could be a Muslim god, a Buddhist god, or a Hindu god. Trying to give an unsaved person evidence to make them believe in the existence of God without specifying may make them into a theist, but unless they trust in the Son, they don't have God the Father (1 John 2:23) because Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6) and no one comes to the Son unless drawn by the Father (John 6:44). Yet notice we are quick to give evidences and leave out the cross of Christ that saves through love and grace (John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9), as well as the Bible itself, which is God-breathed and sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We're so busy trying to "prove" God and the Bible, that we don't quote the absolute truth of scripture in our answers or to lead them to the gospel. We are double-minded in this respect (and James 1:8 gives a serious warning about being double-minded). Now someone may read that and not understand what I mean; I will close with this:
When Christians go to church or Bible studies to preach, teach, learn the Word, serve the Lord, worship God, and have fellowship; we know for a fact that God is God and His Word is His Word. Yet the minute we get outside the church doors and a skeptical unbeliever asks us a bunch of questions, we go about "proving" the very thing we believed when we're in church, giving hypothetical reasoning (such as "what if" or "could be") as if it were only possibly or probably true to reason the unbeliever into buying it. It's like me saying my wife is my wife among friends, but when I introduce her to strangers, I go about showing pictures of our wedding day, our marriage certificate, our wedding rings, etc. to give "evidence" that my wife is my wife. In other words, we're sure about God among ourselves as Christians, but speak in a way that seems unsure outside of the church. Read Acts 17:18-34 carefully. Paul didn't give "evidence" to the pagan philosophers at Mars Hill, he took their own ignorance of idolatry and used it as a stepping stone to proclaim who God is as Creator, Sustainer, and Judge, who is powerful enough to do all things. In closing, there is nothing wrong with sharing some of the evidences given, but it's not good to park there. Answer objections from the scriptures and lead them to the gospel; it is God that saves, not our evidences.
Wow, very very good, I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I think it's important as a Christian to know these 'arguments and evidence' for God so that when questions are presented to us we're not left speechless or like we don't even know what we believe in and why, sometimes it's necessary to go to the skeptic/atheist's level do they can understand you. But we should never forget that it's only God that saves and should always direct them to the Bible and the cross ➕ . To God be the glory!
I agree with that last sentence
I don’t hate your God, or anyone’s God/Gods. I just see no evidence that they exist. You may as well say I hate the Tooth Fairy. I don’t like it when people’s religions impact on other people, like War, persecution, human rights, that sort of thing, that’s all.
According to the comment section your video really didn't do too well.
Yeah but if you compare number of views to number of subscribers, it looks much better.
Yeah i really don't understand why atheists love watching Cameron's videos, there's almost always negative remarks in the comments. Maybe the atheists are looking for truth, I hope that they find it. May God have mercy on all of us!
Arguments are not evidence. Even if it's by your fav professionals.
Then there is no evidence for atheism either.
@Rod Veles Asura If that's truly the case, then you should never even bring it up. You can't make any actual claim.
@Rod Veles Asura Your not forbidden, you just can't make the claim that God doesn't exist. You can only have a lack of belief. Believers don't claim to have absolute truth, that would make them omniscience. They have faith in God, only God knows the absolute truth.
@Rod Veles Asura If God exists, you can analyze his creation and draw some inferences. You can analyze the way we are if we are made in his image. That is how you arrive at a certain formulation of God.
@Rod Veles Asura I believe there are many compelling arguments for God. There isn't absolute proof, but who knows what constitutes absolute proof for God. It can be hard to believe that, all there is, is matter and energy and rearrangements of it. Did matter and energy just form a universe, just like that, to exist just to exist? That's hard to believe also. I can safely anyone who claims to have absolute truth is a ideologue. Absolute truth requires omniscience in my eyes.
"YOU CAN'T JUST SAY YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD!"
*procceeds to not give any real evidence about God either*
Gr8 video, m8.
Prove your standard of evidence.
@@boltrooktwo Ok but first prove that you're not a unicorn.
@@Dr.vonKrankenhausen My eyewitness testimony that I am not a single horn. I use a device that needs hands to logically communicate.
@@boltrooktwo Prove that that's actual evidence.
@@Dr.vonKrankenhausen If you are an infinite skeptic it’s not. If you’re a reasonable thinking being who cares about trust and justification it is.
You cannot "show" lack of existence. The is junior high school thinking.
bocasbeachbum It’s extremely easy to show a lack of existence. I can prove, for example, there are no married bachelors.
@@CapturingChristianity And you think that a third grade analogy is brilliant.
bocasbeachbum I actually don’t think it’s brilliant. I think it’s obvious.
@@CapturingChristianity It is obvious, absurd, but obvious.
bocasbeachbum It’s so easy to show the non-existence of something-according to you-even a third-grader could do it! Now read your original comment.
No "miracle" has ever been proven to have happened. And you actually think yourself intelligent, fascinating.
how would you like it to be proven and even if one did happen visibly you would all fro the sake of not believing count it as a coincidence
@@inthedms82 That is like when people say - what evidence would you accept to prove a deity exists. My usual response is - anything that would not be laughed out of any legitimate court on this planet. A miracle would be similar - anything that cannot be explained by any natural means. I lost the tip of a finger and was told it would never grow back - it did. I did not do what conventional medicine said to do, but the then science/medicine is an evolving process and they discover new things daily. Maybe they will catch up with me some day.
@@bocasbeachbum you can not say because something sounds foreign to you it therefore doesn't exist if i were to explain the idea that the earth is moving at 1000/mph in a day to a northern village in Uganda it wouldn't make sense they wont quite understand
@@inthedms82 I didn't say "foreign". Also, trying to prove modern science to uneducated or ancient people is immaterial. I could go there with magnets and be a miracle worker, but here we are dealing with modern, and some, intellectually reasonable people.
bocasbeachbum yes true
Atheists DON'T deny the existence of God, that is completely false...
However Theists have the burden to prove it, since they are the ones making the claim.
There's no evidence for unicorns either, and the fact that there is no evidence is a self evident reality.
@Daulton Horton well mr evidence, do share.....dont keep it all to yourself. ull win a Nobel prize and James randi has a check for a million dollars waiting for you and last but not least ull win more souls for jesus than anyone else ever! so come now start spewing evidence!
@Daulton Horton whats wrong? its been over a week and yet u still have yet to provide any evidence.??? surely u weren't just lying....thatd be a sin. so wheres all this evidence?
@Daulton Horton hey did Horton hear a god or what?
in Christianity, Jesus is God
the big question: did Jesus exist?
@@nzsl368 most likely no!
The universe is not finely tuned for life. Why would consciousness be evidence for a god, or the fact that humans find certain objects and phenomena aesthetically satisfying?
“Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. … The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.”
-Stephen Hawking (the Grand Design, pp. 160-1)
@@CapturingChristianity There is however no evidence that these constants *can* have any other value than their current values. And before you say it, asking for evidence for a lack of evidence is ludicrous, which is easily shown simply be responding with the same argument. Stating that there is no evidence for your lack of evidence? I'll just reply with "you have no evidence for the lack of evidence of lack of evidence". This 'argument' is extremely flawed. You don't need to provide evidence for a lack of evidence, since it really can't be done. Replying with actual evidence though, is fair game.
@@CapturingChristianity It's amazing that god had to adjust his life making plans to those constants. I thought he was mightier than that.
@@CapturingChristianity awe, you can quote mine and ignore the point he was actually making. How quaint.
What makes life any more important than any other feature of the Universe,black holes or poisonous to life vacuums for example?Isn't the Universe fine-tunes for these as well?
Soi, you don't know how evidence or logic works huh?
Positive claims require positive evidence.
Negative claims require negative evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A negative claim 'There is no good evidence!' requires negative evidence. Specifically, a lack of evidence, as claimed.
You overturn this by providing one or more pieces of good evidence.
This you have failed to do, so the original negative claim stands, until you provide evidence to the contrary.
Literally none of the "evidence" you showed is evidence. This was hard to watch.
Let's say all the galaxy's were replaced by slimy triangles then you would be asking why are they not elastic cuboids
So, you claim there's evidence, but don't give us the evidence? if there was evidence for a god then the Nobel peace Prize would have been won by now by the person who presented it!
Watch the video. He uses multiple evidences of a type that logically lead to a creator. He explained it clearly in the video
@@Jstaman No he did not, everything he said was logically inconsistent and a non sequitur fallacy
@@althepsyphros3314 he uses candidate evidence then explains exactly what he means by that term. Then provides several examples. That's not illogical at all
How fallacious can you get in 5 mins? I think you break some records here Cameron.
What would evidence of the supernatural look like to you?
@@jkm9332 I don't know. How do we detect immaterial 'substances'?
@@JohnCamacho I don’t know either 😀
Im fed up of all the comments saying that arguments are not evidence. You're right, theyre not. Arguments utilise evidence. If the premises of an argument are true, and the reasoning is valid, then you accept the conclusion.
these atheists are just butt hurt lol
How I know an all- powerful god does not exist? He needs my money because he doesn't have any of his own. Same reasoning why there are no billionaire clairvoyants. If you wouldn't accept the tactics from a Nigerian Prince email, don't accept it from a holy book.
Nope. All debunked bad evidence.
How can anyone show, "evidence of a lack of evidence" ? your reasoning and critical thinking appear to be broken and this is just #1, how terrible is your responses are going to get?
Appalling start to the video - the presenter falls at the first hurdle. What a chump.
You can prove that there is lack of evidence of something. People do it on a consistent basis.
@Bob Bobbins Evidence that has not yet been found is defined as, lack of evidence. So I think we're agreeing, not disagreeing.
Simple
if Santa clause exists, I would expect to find evidence in the form of Gifts in my house that I know my parents could not afford or did not know I wanted or something like that. If these expectations or predictions are not fulfilled in someway, then I can claim with justification that there is no evidence for Santa Clause for the moment and ,thus, I have a right to conclude that he probably does not exist. Therefore, you not only still have the burden of proof for making that assertion but it is still possible you can substantiated that claim even though it is a negative claim.
@@meerkatsk5170 the very best evidence of Santa would be meeting him in fraganti, that would be better than receiving unexpected gifts from someone that could be Santa though, but it would be infinetely better to see him see him at the moment, I think you're choosing a weak form of evidence. Sorry if any errors, I'm not a native
What I love about these sorts of videos, is everytime they big up this pitch at the start like they have something game breaking and then it's the same old old tired points. Move along people.
And your point is? Because it's old, it's not valid. I like to think that because they keep using these same points, there must be good reasons to believe them hence they haven't ditched them and perhaps if you opened up your mind a bit to the possibility that there's something greater than what you can see and fully understand maybe you'll discover something beautiful. Try it out 😉
I wish to see this problem of evil video very much 😁
Shannon Q It comes out tomorrow!
Where is your evidence that Zeus isn't real?
You lost me on the first Question: yes absence of evidence does not prove that the figure is true. But there is also no evidence for harry potter existing, does that mean there is some evidence to his existance
_'What evidence does Hemit give that there is no evidence?"_
- *Ugh, what a horribly dishonest, and pointless, way for you to start a video. This is nothing more than a dodge, an attempt to avoid actually presenting evidence by turning it back on the person who is looking for evidence.*
- *You mite as well say **_"I don't have any evidence that would convince anyone, but I believe it anyway... so I'm gonna try to turn it on you instead"._*
- *If you want, we could go in these dishonest circles forever, just by demanding that you present evidence for your claim that Hemit didn't give evidence.*
_"Even if there is no evidence for God, that doesn't mean that no god exists."_
- *Correct, HOWEVER, if no reason to believe in the existence of god is presented, then there is no reason to entertain the belief that god exists. Not believing in something until evidence is presented is the default stance, not the other way around. The only time where people try to assert otherwise is with religions claims, and it is due to indoctrination as children making it seem that belief in god is the default.*
_"There is plenty of evidence for God"_
- *Then just present it without wasting 1/5 of your video trying to poison the well and dodge.*
_"We don't have to call it real evidence, we can call it candidate evidence"_
- *So... your evidence isn't "real", but it could possibly be evidence? Wow, nice that you spread out your poisoning of the well to include your own arguments too. I guess, since your evidence isn't "real" then there isn't really any reason to bother with it.*
- *Philosophical arguments are very, very weak as far as evidence goes. Especially considering that the vast majority of philosophical arguments which argue for "god" don't actually argue for God and instead just assert the possibility of a god-like explanation for something. Honestly looking at philosophical arguments mite get someone to deism, not theism and definitely not belief in your specific God.*
- *Again, you mite as well be saying **_"I don't have any argument or evidence that would convince anyone, but I'm gonna pretend"_*
So... 2 minutes into a 5 minute video and nothing but pointless diversions and poisoning the well against both your opposition's claims and your own...
_"The universe itself"_
- *... is evidence that the universe exists, not that god exists or caused it.*
- *Saying "there must be a reason" then asserting that god is the reason is not evidence that god actually did it. Saying that something "could" have done a thing, is not evidence that the something actually did the thing. I could river-dance on my keyboard to type this, but that doesn't mean I did.*
- *Your first piece of evidence presented... isn't evidence for your claim, its just more claims.*
_"That we can even trust our brains at all... is evidence for god."_
- *lol, again this is an assertion, not evidence.*
_"The order and fine tuning of our universe... is evidence for god."_
- *Neither "order" or "fine-tuning" has been actually shown, and even if it could be this is still just an assertion that god is an explanation, not a demonstration that god actually did anything.*
_"That our universe can be discovered..."_
- *More empty assertions.*
_"... written in the language of mathematics..."_
- *No, mathematics are descriptive, not prescriptive. **_WE_** describe what we see using math, math didn't create anything.*
_"Beauty... so god"_
- *So... this is another assertion. Also, beauty is subjective, so its an assertion built on something that is completely intangible and variable.*
_"The argument from..."_
- *Miracles haven't been demonstrated.*
- *Conciseness is easily explained by the brain. Also, empty assertion.*
So... by 3 & 1/2 minutes in we are back to diversions and poisoning the well... finishing up with another quick fire set of assertions about Christianity and some more pointless quotes.
_"Hemit gave no evidence that there is no evidence"_
- *And you gave no evidence, that he gave no evidence.*
- *You also gave no evidence for the existence of your god.*
Remember, "what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"... so I guess your god claims can be dismissed then.
*A preponderance of assertions and poor logical arguments and claims, IS NOT EVIDENCE. The plural of "assertion" is not "evidence". You need to actually demonstrate that what you claim is true for it to matter, not just assert that it "could be true" or that "some expert somewhere said something" or "its an explanation". You need to show that it IS true... which you have not done at all, or even attempted to do.*
Let me use your argument against your own beliefs and see whether you can.. answer...
" You need to actually demonstrate that what you claim is true for it to matter, not just assert that it "could be true" or that "some expert somewhere said something" or "its an explanation". You need to show that it IS true... which you have not done at all, or even attempted to do." Based on this claim of yours I want you to demonstrate the big bang. Recreate it from nothing in a laboratory please. You- yourself. Not using someone else's experiments, or thoughts. You - yourself.
@@NThTwS lol. maybe I should start acting like theists and demand that they create god in a lab or make a person out of dirt instead of simply asking them for valid evidence and logical arguments that actually point to their actual claims and hold up to even the most basic of questioning.
@@timeshark8727 Man you have a belief about the big bang. And your last comment makes you dishonest as well. What you ask of "evidence" is what there is though. Take it or not, who cares.
This is the last part of your comment " You need to actually demonstrate that what you claim is true for it to matter, not just assert that it "could be true" or that "some expert somewhere said something" or "its an explanation". You need to show that it IS true... which you have not done at all, or even attempted to do."
If you try it on anything you believe, most of the things that you cannot do on your own falls in this category. So how is that an argument of the non- existence of God?
You wrote it not me. It's your argument that if anyone will entertain it at different aspects of anyone's beliefs then all beliefs would fall in this category of yours.
There are people that have different expertise, or there aren't? For example: I am not a car mechanic, if I'd open a shop to repair cars, would you come to me, or you'd better go to someone who actually is a car mechanic? But if I take your argument as valid then even if I am not a mechanic then why wouldn't you come to my garage to fix your car? After all, you don't care about "experts", do you?
@@NThTwS Sorry, but your ignorance of how science works, does not make you right.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 So, I'm an ignorant. How's that? Can you answer this argument as I stated it? Do you go your car to be fixed to people that have no expertise in mechanics? If yes, I'd say you are brave enough to do so.
SO BASICALLY . . .
1) stuff exists therefore god
2) we think good therefore god
3) woah its so perfect therefore god
4) science and maths therefore god
5) look how good this looks therefore god
6) miracles totally definitely 100% happened therefore god
7) we think therefore god
No no: YOU need to provide the evidence, not us.
Also your Perfect Being argument is a textbook example of a God of the Gaps.
Fine-tuning is being consistently debunked as science progresses.
And beauty? What has beauty got to do with anything?
We have yet to see any evidence to prove a god! just lots of rants and claims...
Candidate evidence? Hmmm, sounds like a fancy way of saying that we don’t have evidence yet, come back later to see if what we have pans out
What would evidence for the supernatural look like to you?
Did you seriously just ask "What evidence is there that there's no evidence?"
I immediately stopped watching right there. Your ignorance on this matter is astounding. Understanding how the burden of proof works is one of the most basic concepts in any discussion. That you would so ignorantly shift the burden onto the other side tells me that you must not have spent hardly any time reading or digesting the literature on this subject.
There's no excuse for this level of sloppiness in your argumentation. You have to know better than this if you're going to engage in this discussion.
Bless your little heart . You don't understand evidence.
ROFL!
I’m 30 seconds into this video and facepalming
Then you didn´understand the video at all. The Atheist claim to make a series to prove there is no God. But even if there was no eividence for God it doesn´t mean that he doesn´t exist. It´s not an argument. He explained that with the big Bang. Just because people had no evidence in the past for it doesn´t mean it the Big Bang didn´t happen
"What is your evidence that there is no evidence?"
Wut?
You serious?
I present as evidence: every believer's total failure to present solid evidence.
To dispute this, show it to be wrong, by presenting evidence, that withstands scrutiny.
There is no irony. Well, not on Hemant Mehta's side.
Oh, and please provide some tangible evidence. Not some philosophical nonsense.
please stop beLIEving in numbers (fairy tales) if you're atheist
I believe aliens created us
@@zombieeibmoz747 if you have evidence then just present it instead of making random, empty claims.
@@timeshark8727
numbers don't exist
@@rustyblonchjr8660
good on you
"Evidence for the lack of evidence" That's a paradox and you probably know it. It wouldn't be a lack of evidence if you have evidence for the lack of evidence. Nothing about this "argument" is logical.
Lack of evidence doesn’t prove nor disprove anything... obviously it wouldn’t be a lack of evidence if there is evidence lacking. But that also doesn’t disprove anything unless there is evidence to disprove it.
It’s in the neutral.
You have to justify your claim.
@@keithhamilton2240 I believe what CC is saying is that making the claim "there is no evidence for God" means that the person must know with 100 percent certainty that there is no evidence for God and be ready to back up that claim.
Theism can be dismissed that easily because you have NEVER given any one "evidence" to discuss or refute. ALL you have are your opinions and hallucinations.
Any evidence* evidence is uncountable.
@@illoney5663 Could you translate this to where it makes sense?
@@bocasbeachbum I just meant that it should be 'NEVER given any "evidence"' or 'any piece of "evidence"' rather than "any one evidence". Since evidence is an uncountable noun, saying "one evidence" is gramatically wrong.
1. Arguments implying a "first cause"
2. Define your god as first cause
3. Therefore god defined in (2) exists, and he is Jesus
SMH
"God is invisible so that proves there is no god"... really? Try again.
He really didn't define God in this video. He mentioned Jesus at the end to show there has to be an accumulation evidence; but his primary focus on the video was the candidate evidence of a god in general.
What else can be the first cause? Already existing matter and energy, that randomly create a universe by chance?
@@johncart07 You can at best proclaim first-causalITY - you cannot even reduce it to monocausality - the Trojan Horse for the introduction of MonoTheism. Well, YOU CAN, but you cannot logically endorse it. And Occam's razor is useless on this occasion: It could suggest "zero"
@@kleenex3000 You can't logically endorse the idea that everything came from absolutely nothing or randomness. Occam believed in God, btw, that means nothing, but it's ironic.
yet your god won't say hello to us. bigfoot and unicorns are real. prove me wrong.
I read about both unicorns _and_ Bigfoot in this really old book. That is all.
I really like bigfoot and unicorns (:
Sending His Son to die on a cross was a pretty big hello 👋
Where is your evidence that I haven't met Odin?
I have plenty of candidate evidence, like it ?
None of the assertions were evidence
Ralph Petrie how do you define evidence then
They were based on evidence ie The universe, fine tuning, intelligent design. We draw inferences to conclude that there is a designer
Save The Lost
The same way everyone else does except the dishonest.
Which is why believers try to divert or shift the goalposts rather than provide it.
Samuel Hunter
Fine tuning, ‘intelligent design’ are assumptions, and transparently faulty ones at that. It’s like saying a comic is proof of Superman.
Next.
@@kelman727 haha that made me laugh man. In your analogy, i think the creator/author of a comic would be a better comparison to the creator of the universe, pal. Not superman. And it cracked me up that it didn't occur to you cus you're all like "pfft what a transparently faulty argument" 🤣
Yes, god "could" have created the universe, but then you have not proven a god exists, yet science HAS proven the laws of physics and has proven that a god is not necessary.
boi. you are so BUTTHURT that you made atleast 20 comments like this
and i have evidence
@@zombieeibmoz747 Lets see, he lies about everything and then Gish-Gallops through absurd opinions and you wonder why people with functional brain cells object. Get a clue.
@@zombieeibmoz747 Your hallucinations are only evidence of your mental state.
@@bocasbeachbum
if you call me stupid and delusional for believing in G-D
that means i can call you insane for believing in numbers
Wow so much talking and not a single piece of evidence actually presented but wishful thinking. "Look how pretty stuff is" is not "evidence" for god.
"Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence." That's playing willful ignorance of the all-encompassing claims that Abrahamism makes about God. The deity's role in people's lives, its alleged relationships with people, its control over fate, its creative abilities, its moralistic tendencies: these are all things that, upon being claimed, require monumental evidence to back them up.
Sure, the absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence of *some kind* of superhuman sentient being out there in the universe. But to conclude by saying, "Therefore, that being is precisely the god described in the Judeo-Christian bible" is a wild jump to make which does not logically follow.
As for all the "candidate evidence"... let's just say I wouldn't risk pointing out circular reasoning if I were you.
How to teach a bunch of kids about God-who He is, and what He does?
Gather them all in a classroom. Then never show up.
Hehe...good one
@@northernlight8857 ...What is good about what zerototal posted?
@@wmthewyld i thought it was a quirky / funny in away to say that there is no good reason to believe in any superstition or supernatural things. That as with the teachers presence, gods and godesses are totally absent.
@@northernlight8857 ...Your "no good reason" is nothing but an excuse. There are reasons for the existence of GOD (place "proof for god" in TH-cam search box for some), you just do not want to accept them. You cannot debunk/disprove the reasons. You can only reject the reason without cause or evidence they are wrong/inaccurate.
If you give me 1 (one) reason, with evidence/proof/fact, not to accept that GOD does exist. I will discuss it with you. Of course that is if you have a good, common sense, logical, reason with evidence/proof/fact.
@@wmthewyld no. The burdon of proof is on the one making a claim. All the theist proofs i have come across are not any good. Give me your best ones.
I dont know if a god or gods exsist. I dont know if its even possible for such beings to exsist.
What method do you use to positively show that a god/s exsist that anyone can use to come to the same result.
Your video and videos like it shows there is no evidence of god. You have the chance give evidence for your god, yet all you can come up with is flawed points that have be debunked multiple times. GOOD JOB.
DJH316007 stay in school
show me that numbers exist
@@zombieeibmoz747 Yeah. State the evidence and what god it is evidence for.
@@DJH316007
numbers don't exist
@@zombieeibmoz747 You for real?
Does that only apply to your god or all the other god's because they make the same claims based on blind faith.
No they don't. Obviously Zeus, Thor, or any Hindu deity is vastly different from Jesus. So different claims.
The "fine-tuning": that's the will to power. All things appear to be in harmony because every extant thing is exerting itself as much as it can. Whenever something falls out of balance, it gets crushed and no longer factors into the summation of what is. This is a bottom-up theory of "the harmony of the universe".
This same bottum-up format can account for the formation of the universe itself. Start with a tiny crane: it builds a bunch of tiny cranes, those cranes then build bigger cranes, and the bigger cranes continue the process onward and upward. I am suggesting here that the universe was "created" not by the gargantuan act of one great, all-encompassing being, but by an incomprehensibly large quantity of tiny acts made by many many many many tiny entities, all functioning in tandem with each other. As those entities exerted themselves, they grew: the power or energy possessed by the tiniest ones gradually fused into larger entities.
This is supported by our own biology. Our very bodies comprise microorganisms that used to be independent single-celled organisms. They eventually coalesced into each other to form multi-celled species.
Honestly I could go on all day in response to each point made here, but I've done it nigh a million times already.
Cameron prove to me Leprechauns don't exist.
Other teligions make the same claims you are makjng. They cant ALL be right
in fact, they all be wrong.
@@SjN7HETIK agreed
You cannot "give evidence proving that there is no evidence", that is where you cannot prove a negative, thinking scares you doesn't it. Essentially what he says is that your opinions and hallucinations are not evidence for a deity.
YOU ARE WRONG
If you make a negative claim "there is no evidence (or insufficient evidence) for God", then you DO have the BOP because it suggests that you have an expectation or criteria of what that evidence would look like and thus you are compelled to make that assertion. For example, if Santa clause exists, I would expect to find evidence in the form of Gifts in my house that I know my parents could not afford or did not know I wanted or something like that. If these expectations or predictions are not fulfilled in someway, then I can claim with justification that there is no evidence for Santa Clause for the moment and ,thus, I have a right to conclude that he probably does not exist. Therefore, you not only would still have the burden of proof for making that assertion but it is still possible you can substantiated that claim even though it is a negative claim.
@@meerkatsk5170 If you make a negative claim "there is no evidence (or insufficient evidence) for God",
- That is not a negative claim, that is a positive claim of - a level of evidence. but - give evidence proving that there is no evidence - is first absurd, and second, trying to prove a negative - evidence that something does not exist - it either exists, which can be proven, or it either does not exist or appears not to exist and you cannot have "evidence" of non-existence. And yes, saying that there is "insufficient evidence" for something is a positive claim and does require proving. But that is not what was said. All you are doing is tap dancing with a changed statement.
@@bocasbeachbum
"give evidence proving that there is no evidence - is first absurd, and second, trying to prove a negative "
Its not absurd because I just gave you an example of why it is not but yet you don't respond to it.
@@meerkatsk5170 prove that there isn't a floating tea cup in space
@@jamestor6700
First off, that particular claim is unfalsifiable. Second, this is not about proving something does not exist, but providing EVIDENCE that it does not exist.
For example, if Santa clause exists, I would expect to find evidence in the form of Gifts in my house that I know my parents could not afford or did not know I wanted or something like that. If these expectations or predictions are not fulfilled in someway, then I can claim with justification that there is no evidence for Santa Clause for the moment and ,thus, I have a right to conclude that he probably does not exist.
3:00 "They've argued this they've argued that.."
I can argue that you're a Block of cheese, but arguing doesn't make it true. You have to have proof of that.
I can argue that you’re actually butthurt of your beliefs. And want people to believe in what you believe, calling others” stupid” . That is worse that anything.
@@tan1591 Yes, you could, but arguing doesn't make it true, you have to prove it.
I did not once say anyone was stupid.
God̴IsA̧Fai̧r̷ytale there are something’s everyone can’t prove, and somethings don’t need proof( like knowing that your talking). Sometimes people have to use logic to also know the truth. But when their is proof of something people will still deny it.
I meant to say that people like you like to call others or argue with insults.
John Daedalus then I could say there is no evidence of you, like those words you are saying right now isn’t proof. Like how people don’t believe in the word of God, how am I supposed to believe your words?
John Daedalus then if there’s isn’t evidence then I also could say there is no evidence of Julius caesar or Aristotle. Like there is documents of them, like how there are of Jesus. But according to your logic there is no evidence of them.
If there is "evidence" for God, he is doing a suckish job at providing them.
Understand the difference between personal interpretations and evidence.
The problem with your argument here is that you argue evidence for a god, but then hit some hyperspace button to transfer a generalized "a god" into "Christianity". You can't do that. You can't say there are good philosophical arguments that lead me to believe there must be some kind of god, therefore Jesus died to save humanity from eternal torture.
"What kind of thing could create the universe? God could." Prove that any being could create the universe.
God is not necessary to create the universe.
If the proposal is, your god, has always existed, then that same argument can be made about the universe itself. Our known universe could be 0.000000001% of the size of the actual universe and the Big Bang/expansion could be a localized event/cycle. We don't have enough information. We are all trying out best to answer complex questions.
insanity Plus Any kind of being couldn't create the universe, that's the point.
Only God, being infinite, eternal, self-existing and self-sufficient, with infinite wisdom, knowledge, and power could.
It can be proven using logic and reason.
@Static Charge Red Field You're assuming that I have never done any research to arrive at the truth.
Like I said in my previous comment, the God I serve, can be proven with logic and reason, because logic and reason come from God.
Also, I have a relationship with God and I have experienced Him in my life. I continue to experience Him.
I actually became a Christian because I compared all the beliefs to one another, and only one made sense.
Christianity is the *_only_* belief where there is guaranteed salvation, and that salvation is a free gift from God, so no amount of work us humans do can earn our way into Heaven. All God wants is our repentance of our sins and our faith in Him.
Christianity is the *_only_* belief where the Creator of the universe, God, is the source of life, love, justice, knowledge, wisdom, logic, power, and all other things good. Where God created us humans in His image and likeness, loves us all, and wants for all of us to have a relationship with Him, and to be able to spend eternity with Him in Heaven.
It's the only belief where there is true justice: those who never repent of their sins (murder, rape, lying, etc. are all considered sin) and put their trust and faith in God will be punished.
@Static Charge Red Field You're actually not correct, in the slightest.
You are, however, arrogant, prideful, cocky, and full of baseless claims.
Unfortunately for you, science cannot and will never be able to explain everything, so if you're waiting for science to prove God in the way you want it to, you'll be waiting for an eternity.
I like science too, it helps us humans to better understand certain things in our universe, but I live in reality. Science is very limited, so my hope and faith aren't in it.
My hope and faith are in God, the Creator of the universe.
I've heard that "the Bible is full of contradictions" argument too many times and I know that people who claim this have not properly studied the Bible, since I have and continue to study the Bible, and have found that all those so-called contradictions don't exist.
I've also heard the "it's a cult" and "you Christians just want to scare everyone with eternal torture in Hell" too many times and none of it's true.
Many Christians openly disagree with one another and we call out one another. A true Christian knows that we are to walk in the truth, and share the truth, in love with fellow Christians and non-Christians.
If a person leaves the faith, no one is coming after them, threatening them with harm.
You might have some judgmental individuals, but that's about it.
No true Christian is forcing people to keep secrets or any of the nonsense we see in actual cults.
If you study cults and compare them to what Christianity is, they are nothing like Christianity.
In cults, many times one human is worshipped and trusted over everything, the cult leader.
In true Christianity, it's God, the Creator of the universe, who is worshipped and trusted over everything. Big difference.
Also, telling the truth isn't trying to scare people.
I get that people don't always use the best methods to tell others the truth, but if I tell you that you're about to walk off a cliff and to watch out, when I see that you really are about to walk off a cliff, it wasn't because so want to scare you, it's because I actually care about you and your safety.
Lastly, that "God is evil" argument is so incorrect _and_ overused. Anyone who uses it has not properly studied God's word, just as the person in the video you posted.
Please read and study the Bible for yourself. You owe it to yourself to seek and to know the truth.
😂😂😂😂 so where is the evidence for your god 😂😂😂😂
What would evidence of the supernatural look like to you?
@Jkm I don't know, I just know that the "evidence" so far isn't in any way convincing.
@@alexanderwerner1779 If you don’t know what evidence of the supernatural looks like then why are you asking Cameron where the evidence is? What specifically are you looking for? What specifically does Cameron need to show you to show you evidence?
@@jkm9332 Cameron claims to have evidence and then gives none.
@@alexanderwerner1779 But you don’t know that because you don’t know what evidence of the supernatural looks like.
There's no evidence that there's no evidence? Really?
I disagree that there's no evidence (I would say that the evidence that there is isn't good evidence), but that's a really bad line of argument.
Also, arguments =/= evidence.
Viced Rhino Hemant gave no evidence that there’s no evidence. That’s inescapable.
@@CapturingChristianity
Let's keep it to a subject we can agree on to hopefully help you understand what is wrong with that statement.
There is no evidence for Russell's Teapot (a small, black teapot orbiting the sun somewhere in between Earth and Mars). I trust that you would agree with this statement.
Now, what evidence would you give to support the claim that there is no evidence for this teapot?
@@VicedRhino A teapot is a ceramic device specifically meant to be used for the consumption of tea. Tea is a plant native to Asia which - when brewed in water - imparts an infusion of its component chemicals thus giving the water a particular flavor that is desirable by humans for drinking. No nation exports tea into orbit around Jupiter. No human consumes tea in such a manner as to be satisfied with an infinitesimally small teapot. There are no humans from Earth that have ventured into orbit around Jupiter. Water is not naturally in a liquid state while in orbit around Jupiter - it is instead solid due to the natural temperature there. Thus, it is reasonable to ascertain that by definition, there are no teapots in orbit around Jupiter 1.) because no tea is exported to Jupiter for consumption, 2.) Tea cannot be brewed in the absence of an atmosphere in Jupiter's orbit. 3.) Tea cannot be brewed in the absence of temperatures between 0 and 100 degrees Celsius. 4.)No humans live in the immediate vicinity of Jupiter and thus if a pot exists around Jupiter it cannot be used for the human consumption of tea. 5.) No nation exports tea into orbit around Jupiter which would thus deprive anyone of the means to brew tea in orbit around Jupiter. 6.) A pot of undetectable size is insufficient to serve in the capacity of a teapot.
Thus, it is reasonable to believe that there are no teapots in orbit around Jupiter.
@@Templarkommando A better example is the tooth fairy. When a child is told there is a tooth fairy, and that child puts a tooth under the pillow which is replaced by a coin in the morning that is evidence of the tooth fairy. 1. The the child was told of the tooth fairy. 2. The tooth was replaced with a coin. 3. Therefore the tooth fairy exists.
The purpose of the tea pot is to show that someone somewhere cannot form a logical argument against that kind of teapot that floats in space. So that someone is gullible towards the teapot. That is to say that everyone that believes in some unsubstantiated thing has their metaphorical teapot, or perhaps instead they have a metaphorical tooth fairy. The difference is that the evidence for the teapot is the claim itself, and the evidence for the tooth fairy is the tooth being replaced by the coin. Not all evidence is equal, and not all holders of evidence are equal.
@Viced Rhino
So the complexity of the universe is not evidence for a Creator?
Hasn't there been work done on the probability of even a single protein randomly forming (I think the odds were like 1/10^124)? Even then, the simplest life form contains multiple interrelated systems that all require each other to function. Even over the course 13.8 billion years, there hasn't been nearly enough time to randomly form a habitable planet AND randomly form even the most simple of lifeforms, much less the infinitely complex world in which we live.
If random chance cannot account for your very existence, then something had to create you. That is evidence for God. And that absolutely isn't the only evidence.
You have seriously missed what is meant by evidence. You could have 1000 arguments for the existence of god and not one of them is evidence.
This guy is ridiculous. Just names a bunch of nonsense and says "All this is evidence of god". All of that is bad evidence because all of those claims can be refuted.
I cant believe i just came across these videos of mr bertuzzi. This is awesome stuff!! Binge watching now
You just said a whole lot to say nothing. "Candidate" evidence isn't evidence. Saying that "God could", in no way suggests that God did. You provided no evidence, all the while, saying that there is evidence. This is circular nonsense. Before you suggest that God created anything, you must first give demonstrable evidence that he exists. Until such time as that, your argument (if you really even made one) is without substance.
Did you notice: All the "candidate evidence" examples were _God of the gaps_ arguments. They simply input a god at the point their understanding failed. Plus, you tipped your hand to confirmation bias when you said, "what type of thing" could create a universe, etc. // Their arguments go like this: we can't figure out how all this happened.... therefore, God. //
No that is absolutely not the case. These are not God of the Gaps arguments, they are inductive premises based on what we DO know with a conclusion that follows that God exists
Gravity doesn't exist! Your'e just assuming a force because you don't know why stuff falls to the ground!
What would evidence of the supernatural look like to you?
I don't get it, he wasn't trying to present evidence in this video, he was saying that even if we don't have evidence, it doesn't mean your position is right. It's logically fallacious to assert this. You can make a case that it's unlikely or that you don't agree, but you can't upfront say God does not exist just because there is no evidence (I think there is evidence, but I'm not playing that game right now). All you can conclude is that there is no evidence. Say 50 years after your death all evidence of your very existence was wiped out and burnt into ashes, does that mean you never existed? No, it doesn't. Does evidence help to verify your existence? Yes, it does. Same with God.
To understand what God actually means at a scientifically perspective based on human knowledge:
Set of Forces:
1. Not Physical
2. Act on the physical
3. Created the physical from nothing
4. Predates the universe.
What a "coincidence", thats how the bible describes GOD.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
So many assertions with nothing to back it up. Pretty bad to make a point about the existence of your god.
Hi ! I don't understand your comment. So you implying that there's no evidence for God or there is evidence for God?
@@kronos01ful sorry if my point was not clear, I was saying that we don't have any valid evidence for the existence of God.
@@tuxlinuxien what will be a valid evidence?
@@tuxlinuxien also ,when you hear the word God ,what does that mean to you? How do you describe God , he's attributes ?
@@kronos01ful when I say God I talk about the deities that have been invented. We thought Zeus was real because of lightning, while it was just a physical activity, then we dismissed it.
Since I don't clame that God(s) exist(s), it's not my job to describe it.
lack of evidence proves unicorns and Thor thank you
And Harry Potter!
rod Sherwood we can prove there mythological
Something only atheist believes in, since there is no true Christian that accepts that claim. So no, lacks of evidence don’t prove unicorns or Thor. Lol
And you proved his point - you lack evidence, so there is no evidence.
I'm pretty sure you missed some part of the video if you think that. Try watching around 1:20
@@idontshower I stand corrected as some one else who watched this said - yes there is evidence, really bad evidence, but some evidence, but still no "proof".
Lee Catanese mhm “professionals.”
Aka philosophers. He didnt even cite anyone other than philosophers. So i guess you could say “really really bad evidence.”
@@bocasbeachbum DNA. Checkmate
@@tylerthomas2956 And I bet you thought that was brilliant, how typically fundie. The university of Manchester has proven every aspect of Abiogenesis, thus proving the formation of DNA is a natural process. Why is it that high school drop outs think they can dismiss millions of hours of research by thousands of PhD's.
How exactly is mathematics evidence for god? Sure what your saying is that the same way we make a building out of math your saying that God would have to had done the same but how do you know that a God was responsible? Just because someone says it doesn’t make it accurate.
The colloquial statement that one cannot prove a negative is untrue. Further, even if that were the case, it would not absolve a person of needing to provide supporting evidence for their assertion, so, to claim that the opposing side lacks evidence is an assertion that deserves to be given support if it is in fact true. The rest of the atheist case as it concerns this particular argument relies on dodging the definition of evidence and confusing the word "evidence" with the word "proof." A knife with blood on it can definitely be evidence in a court case, but it is not necessarily proof of anyone's guilt. For a person serving as a finder of fact - as a juror would - your job is to ask "Is it reasonable in this case to believe that the suspect used this knife to kill the victim?" As it concerns theism, the finder of fact needs to ask "Is it reasonable in this case to believe that God created the universe?" Supporting evidence should then be defined as anything given which shows that the question more likely needs to be answered in the affirmative. From here, we can ask a question about the subject line. Is there evidence that God exists? Any honest person should be able to answer that evidence exists. From there, the question is whether the evidence that exists is sufficient to show that God probably exists. That question, in particular, should be answered by every person as they give a fair hearing to the evidence that exists.
You are arguing that "lightening is evidence of god's existence" until we discovered what lightening was. All you are saying is that "we have yet to prove these things - therefore god. Very elementary schoolish of you.
*lightning
The person making any claim has the burden of proof. That is what theists refuse to understand, and just offer verbal gymnastics.
"As nouns the difference between claim and belief
is that claim is a demand of ownership made for something (eg claim ownership, claim victory) while belief is mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
As a verb claim is to demand ownership of."
wikidiff.com/claim/belief
As you can see, the belief within itself (or the definition of theism) is NOT a claim and thus are not synonymous terms. This is why people who make claims have the BOP while people who profess a belief or call themselves theists even to others do not have the BOP *by default*. This means that when theists or Christians do make claims, they will have the burden of proof; BUT, so do atheists as well.
That is what atheists refuse to understand and accept.
Cry
"one piece of evidence" means one "opinion" and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You made 2 assertions in one sentence, both of which are incorrect, and would themselves need to be proven.
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - that is nonsense. Extraordinary claims need reasonable evidence. Let's say you are fat and ugly and unemployed, and you claim to be dating Heidi Klum. Your claim would be extraordinary, but the only evidence you would need is her to say "yep, he is my boyfriend." You could claim you met the president, but all you would need is 1 photo or 1 credible witness. Artificially creating a different standard of evidence for a claim you dislike is neither scientifically nor philosophically sound.
To say evidence you don't like is just an opinion is an assertion that would need to be proved. For example, the evidence of the creation of the universe from nothing is certainly not an opinion.
The evidence he referred to is all excellent evidence (although i would not use the argument from beauty, though many people do). He didn't flesh it out in a 5-minute video. The purpose of this video was to refute the claim "there is no evidence" (which is nonsense) not to present all of the evidence.
@@joethomas1146 This has to be one of the most moronic responses I've ever seen, you refuted nothing in your response, in actuality you made yourself sound ignorant. On top of all that you made it sound as if you're coming off intellectually superior which I find to be ignominious.
Saying (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - is nonsense) is more nonsensical in itself which is hilarious, it's as if you don't fundamentally understand the quote at all? So then, let us go through your analogies.
#1 "The, you are fat, ugly, unemployed, and you claim to be dating Heidi Klum" You claim that her saying "yep, he is my boyfriend" is all you would need. Are you serious? That WOULD be extraordinary evidence, not decent evidence, that would make the unattractive man claims to be a FACT, as the proof is straight from Clum herself, verifying the story, unless she was lying which is a possibility, but then why would she lie about being with a very unattractive man? This whole analogy is just terrible, to begin with, there is nothing even close to that kind of comparable evidence for God or the Bible, or any other religion for that matter.
#2 "The, you claim to have met the president, and all you need is one photo or one credible witness"
This is almost identical to your first one, in fact, it is besides this one has two potential pieces of evidence. The problem is, with your analogy, which there are a lot of, you say you need "one photo or one credible witness" well someone has to take the photo? The President is normally surrounded by bodyguards and the press, even if the press isn't there, we would have plenty of credible witnesses to ask if the photo is real. If the story needs fact-checked, we could even ask the president himself, again the Bible has nothing comparable to this kind of evidence.
Let's get to the video where you say he has "excellent evidence", it starts with him saying "just because there isn't any evidence doesn't mean there isn't a god" starting your argument in a video about evidence for god, with what is essentially the admittance that there isn't any evidence is a terrible way to start off, it's a non sequitur.
The majority of Agnostics and Atheists agree that if God can be proven "with real scientifical evidence " that we're okay with that, so starting your argument off with what is essentially the admittance that there isn't any evidence is terrible.
He then follows this with your typical "the universe is big and unexplainable so therefore god" argument we've heard a million times, this is NOT evidence, it's merely straight theory. What's even worse is he uses an analogy of saying that explaining the universe using the universe is like using a chicken to explain the existence of a chicken, calling it circular reasoning. He then immediately goes on to say that the only thing that could explain the universe is "God" which uses, you guessed it CIRCULAR reasoning, as then we go on to the usual argument of "who created god and who created that god and so on" at this point, anyone who logically thinks could go ahead click off this video, as the rest is going to be more of the same, you already know it will be based on the first two arguments, as they are not evidence they are theories or opinions.
Basically, spare me.
Wow, friend, that right there is an extraordinary claim, where's the extraordinary evidence?
Argument boils down to this exist so god
Just because we have no evidence of Witches and Wizards that doesn't mean a school like HOGWARTS doesn't exist.
We have evidence that Hogwards doesn't exist. JK Rowling invented Hogwarts.
What would evidence of the supernatural look like to you?
It sounds like you agree with Hemant Mehta on this one. Please correct if my paraphrasing is inaccurate, but it sure sounded like you said 'There's no real evidence, but I just invented a word called 'candiate evidence' and we have plenty of that!'
He did not say there is no real evidence; corrected.
Also, he said the case for theism has many types of evidence, as well. Evidence from science was included.
What would "real" evidence of the supernatural look like to you?
@@jkm9332 Empirical. Testable. Observable. Repeatable.
Logical syllogisms provide a hypothesis, but we need the above to determine if our logic is sound.
Anecdotal evidence supports every religion. It leads to contradicting conclusions, so it's not very helpful.
@@kenhilker2507 I was asking for a specific example.
I am genuinely curious why anyone would ever bother to argue in favor of materialism (atheism). If materialism (belief that matter, energy, time, and space are the only things that exist) is true, then one must also conclude that determinism (belief that the universe and everything in it is nothing more than a state machine ticking along mindlessly forever) is true and therefore life has no meaning and all arguments are pointless, thought is an illusion, choice is an illusion, we are all just molecules in motion. Indeed, even the concepts of "self" and "mind" become useless. It is an utterly hopeless conclusion: "I do not exist".
Just found your channel. Solid content all around. Already waiting for the POE livestream jan 7. Cheers brother!
But there is evidence: the resurrection of Jesus and his work
@Mitchell klein If we proved you Gospels are accurate, that would prove Jesus's miracles and His Resurrection.
Mitchell klein Theres evidence though. Respond if you want to here the truth.
No evidence at all, it would appear.
The "fine tuning" is ONLY evidence that fine tuning exists, nothing more.
That also isn't an argument, because fine tuning is subjective. A puddle might say the hole it's in is fine tuned.. but it's not
@@althepsyphros3314 When the universe has multiple different factors that had they been changed by the slightest amount
Then it isn't subjective to say it was fine tuned
(Examples include expansion rate of universe, gravitational force, and oxygen level itself)
@@ChaosJesterYT I'll replace the subject of ''universe'' to ''hole in ground'' and show you how this argument is flawed with the puddle analogy.
''When the hole in the ground has multiple different factors that had they been changed by the slightest amount Then it isn't subjective to say it was fine tuned (Examples include; depth of the hole, absorption of the material the hole was in (i.e wood/vs/concrete), the length of the hole compared to it's width, the slope angle of the holes location on a hill for example.''
This is a reverse equivocation fallacy.
Put it like this. If the universe wasn't finely tuned for our existence, then we would NOT exist!
It NECESSARILY *HAS* to be fine tuned for our existence, because if it WAS NOT, we would not be here...
A 3 foot long puddle in a triangle shape, would NOT exist, if IN FACT the hole was not 3 foot long, and shaped like a triangle!
If the hole was shaped like a circle and was 2 foot long, then there would be no triangle shaped puddle that's 3 foot long!
Do you not see how this makes sense?
@@althepsyphros3314 Problem is that there can be multiple puddles, and that you can create your own puddles
There is no evidence of a universe creating itself, and there is only one time the universe was created
Another problem with that puddle analogy is that if one of the factors was changed then there wouldn't be that many bad consequences, with the universe however if ANY of its factors was different, then there wouldn't be life
@@ChaosJesterYT Fine Tuning is a perceived-HOOD, an INFORMATION, a *subjective construct,* an imaginary EFFECT, and the CAUSE is matter as such. Fine tuning DOES exist but as a proclamation on the paper, where it services as a tool aka Secondary Information-SOURCE, in order to describe matter. Anyone who attributes causal agency to the subjective construct "Fine Tuning" as such, is either clueless or a deceptive POS, who is telling an effect (Fine Tuning = subjective inside-brain construct) for cause (matter as such = outside.brain cause), dishonestly lumping together the visible proclamation on the paper and the invisible subjective construct which for itself cannot be DETECTED, it can only be PROCLAIMED.
It is fair to say the SuperHeroes on TH-cam (including self proclaimed "Free Thinkers") are mostly clueless about the Semiotic Triangle:
REFERENT = Information-SOURCE = primary CAUSE = cosmos as such = world 1 (Popper)
REFERENCE = detected-, observed-, perceived-HOOD = INFORMATION = Property = *subjective construct* = imaginary effect = world 2 (Popper)
SYMBOL = manifestation, objectification, symbol = SECONDARY Information-SOURCE = world 3 (Popper)
The ending was fantastic lol
None of what you mention here is 'evidence' that would lead a rational person to god(s) or to even imagine gods.
What you've done is here is invent arguments and imagine 'evidence' for your presupposed god(s) and particular religion.
Every believer can make the same case for their particular god(s) and religion based on the exact same 'evidence' and arguments. Just swap out the scripture, doctrine and dogma of the religion.
What you've argued is, 'I don't know what else to believe so I'll interpret whatever I must to support my presupposed god(s) and particular religion'.
Your 'evidence' no more supports the conclusion of your particular god that it does Odin, Zeus, Ra, leprechauns or ghosts.
Take a minute to consider the Ontological Argument for god - if we imagine a presupposed god to be the most perfect being, and a real being is more perfect than an imagined one, therefore...god.
@Knowledge Yes, I want to know if I'm overlooking or under appreciating credible evidence. How about you hit us with your most credible evidence...the evidence that convinced you, and should convince me, that your god exists.
@Greg Pearcey
Every believer can't make the same case for a particular god. The first argument the video presented, the universe itself, cut out a vast majority of the god claims if you understand the characteristics of those gods.
Do know the characteristics of the specific gods a believer makes?
What type of evidence are you looking for?
It's called ontological contingency, why is there something rather than nothing? Did matter and energy just exist to exist, then randomly create a universe completely unguided by anything outside of it? You can believe that if you want, but don't act like it's the truth.
@@notwhatiwasraised2b This is all based on Synthetic a priori propositions, empirical data is not needed. It's about ontological contingency, either matter and energy just existed uncaused, then one day created a universe randomly by chance. Or there is a cause, if something caused the universe to exist, it had to be a choice. No universe or universe, otherwise it wasn't caused, it just happened, and we exist to exist. You don't need empirical data to slap you in the face to know this, it can be derived from logic.
@@johncart07 By your 'logic' I can just as easily assert that leprechauns or pixie farting unicorns created our universe. No one other than presuppositional believers in god(s) claims to know how our universe began, or if it 'began' for that matter. Frankly, you sound like my wife, who also 'just knows' things without a shred of evidence. Also, I would direct you to the title and subject of the video...it's about evidence, not whatever you imagine 'logic' to mean.
Even if there is merit to your 'ontological contingency' argument, whatever that means, the 'first cause' argument does not infer a god or your particular god any more than it infers Allah, Shiva or Xenu.
There is something rather than nothing because we (i.e. something) are here to pose that question. I am not aware of any intentional reason we're here, but there is no denying that we are. How did that start? Who knows! But there is no more reason to suppose god(s) had anything to do with it than there was when Odin, Zeus or Ra were the god-heads.
As a Christian, these are not arguments I would ever use.
And Still there hasn’t been any evidence provided that god exists. I clearly understand the point you are making that just because there is no evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But at the same time there has to be evidence to prove it actually exists. By saying the universe is so complex that it must be a creator is not evidence to prove god exists, it’s just another idea with no evidence behind it.
What happen to... "Whaddo you meeeeeme?!" 😊
2:57 Hi, Almighty God of the Odds here.
I am always amazed when apologists argue for my ability to intelligently design a gigantic universe where life is hard to emerge and is absurdly hostile to it, so later can claim is my miracle when it happens.
I have the best lawyers that logic can twist.
Yes, the complete lack of evidence is the BEST argument for lack of existence.
You mean that since there is no evidence in Japan of your existence, then that actually means you do NOT exist.
@@NThTwS Stupid example. And is just grasping at straws.
@@edgarmatzinger9742 Why is it a stupid example? Cause you cannot entertain it? Does anyone know in Greece that you exist? NO! Does anyone have any evidence of your existence in Greece? NO ONE. DOES THAT MEAN YOU DO NOT EXIST? So, if you will entertain that thought then you'll realise that: the lack of evidence doesn't mean the evidence of absence. Just because there are no evidence of you in Greece, doesn't necessary mean you do not exist.
@@edgarmatzinger9742 Flawed example. A lack of evidence for the existence of a person *in japan* IS weak evidence that the person is not in japan.
This could be because they are not in japan, do not exist, or are hiding.
It's not evidence that the person does not exist.
People do exist. We have evidence of that.
We have none for 'gods.'
@@NThTwS Done with your playground insults?
Anyone in Greece, Japan or elsewhere can make an effort to get some evidence if I exist or not. And no one can make effort to get evidence your god exists.
Where could the universe come from?
1. Logos
2. Brahman
3. Being
4. Tao
5. Chaos
6. A demiurge
7. Nothingness
8. The One
9. A black hole
10.The Source
You see, judeo-Christian culture isn't the only one around
so small , a chrisitan's brain
this ''god'' of ours , is just 1 of an infinite amount of ''gods'' in existence at this very moment ,
but this ''god'' didn't create a damn thing , how could he ? he doesn't exist in this reality
he makes other beings do it , beings that aren't human , cause making a universe TAKES TIME
the vatican has the complete library of alexandria in their vaults , the FIRST lie in the world of religion
guess what these scrolls and books say : that our galaxy ALONE is populated BEYOND BELIEF , it's the reason christianity was created in the west ...
so they could control the people , instead of the PEOPLE finding out that THEY ARE ''god'' itself and can figure out THE WAY THEMSELFS ,without the help of a church of a religion !!!
people are idiots , religious people are least , and their children are the dumbest kids on the planet , especially christian children , my lord !!! lol
a child in africa without an education , has a better understanding then a ANY christian child...
are you going to keep doing this to your children ? making them dumber and dumber , every generation ?
it's appalling really , and pure child ABUSE
do some damn research , about where you're cross comes from , why jesus was INVENTED and from which original story , and so on ...
just start at the beginning , with the translations of the word ''god'' , it's almost true , just missing an S at the end , the CORRECT translation is '' THE GODS created the heavens ...''
that's the FIRST LINE of the first chapter , how do you think the rest of the ''good book'' has been DELIBERATELY translated ?
EVERY STORY in that damned thing is plagiarized , or just made up entirely ...
wake up will you people , it's been 1500 years now , that they invented the bible , isn't it time to wake up ,
you people have been ASLEEP for 1500 years , and MAKING your children SLEEP too , just sleep walking the world , with no f*cking clue !
isn't it time to wake up ?
How many universes have you created?
...only God could be the explanation? So....do you know everything? You know there could be no other explanation?
But what other explanation is there that actually makes sense? It's not even about knowing everything.
Any other options offered are the multiverse theory, which actually only provides an even greater need for God existing; evolution, which cannot explain how life actually came to be, it just says that it did, somehow; intelligent alien life started life here on earth, which begs the question: who created _that_ life?; deism, which says that there is a God, but apparently He just wants to sit back and watch humans destroy themselves, which doesn't make any sense (why would a deistic God even create us to begin with?); and any other options kind of fall into the aforementiomed categories.
When you actually study the Holy Bible and understand it, you get an understanding that God created us to know and love Him. Through that knowledge of Him, we can know our purpose here, and through our love for Him, we can also love ourselves and others.
Also, us humans, are set apart from the other creatures: God created us in His image and likeness. With every other creation, He just simply spoke it into existence.
Basically, the Lord, the God of the Holy Bible, is the only explanation that leads to a solid conclusion of our creation *_and_* makes any sense.
This video truly proves - there is no evidence for god. Thanks Cameron!
Madars Svikis...Thanks for proving you are brainwashed and deluded.
Proof:
Just because you do not accept the evidence does not mean there is no evidence.
atheism is the religion of hate.
I think we have differnt ideas about what constitutes evidence.
Think Club Yeah, I avoided arguing the semantic side of things. I find it less interesting.
@@CapturingChristianitysemantics are the worst.
It seems many Atheists believe "evidence" should be something that destroys any dissent. The "evidence" should be unassailable, and therefore any question of this "evidence" is just ignorance, and shouldn't even be entertained, much less taken seriously. This is a reason why so many atheists refuse to engage the arguments of Theists. I think they are paranoid of finding that "evidence" they so fervently assume doesn't exist.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Nope, evidence is tangible. And you have no clue what atheism really is.
Probably some of the weakest arguments for a god. Everything thing you say that favors the existence of a god ( precisely, your christian god fairy tale), can be used as evidence for any other “god” or myth.
Yeah the point He's trying to make is that the is a God, he's not defending the Christian God yet. If you'd like to get into the evidence of that you'd have to look at reasons to believe the validity of the Bible, find out more on the life and existence of Jesus, the ressurection and cruxifuction of Jesus as well, look into archeological evidence for the Bible and so much more. And I tell you as soon as you start looking into that you'll be blown away by how one book could be so accurate and so preserved over hundreds of years. And you'll have no choice but to believe it.
No evidence to see here, folks.
Haven't most, if not all, of those arguments and "evidences" been refuted already? Nothing new here, effectively answering the posed question by showing that there is no evidence of god.
Bob Whelan No, they haven’t been refuted.
@@CapturingChristianity 1) There is no evidence. Absence of evidence may not mean evidence of absence, but it’s a strong indicator. As for “candidate evidence”, this is a new term for me, but sounds like something an apologist came up with to bolster weak arguments from personal incredulity. You could easily substitute the word “candidate” in the phrase for the word “not” and still have the same meaning. The fact that theists have to rely on logic word games to define their deity into existence is in itself evidence there is no god. If there was any actual evidence we wouldn’t be discussing anything. Theists warping the meaning of what evidence is comes off as pretty self-refuting.
2) Really? Humans think so therefore god. Assertions are not evidence. You slipped that one past quite quickly, and it is clear why. This is another self-refuter.
3) The Earth isn’t even fine-tuned for life, at least not human life, and what has been observed about the universe is that it is also inhospitable. People adapted to the world, not the other way round. Sean Carrol addressed this when he decimated William Lane Craig’s nonsense in their debate.
4) Mathematics is a human construct to define and explain reality. If mathematics is god given, how come it wasn’t there from the start? The whole fine tuning argument is just the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Sean Carrol has dealt with this as well.
The list of what you call candidate evidence may well be long, but that doesn’t make it at all convincing, or even classify it as actual evidence.
By the way, nicely produced and delivered presentation, and well done for leaving your comments open.
@@CapturingChristianity Yes, they have been. All of them. Only christians must have a god to give their lives meaning.