Atheist DISPROVES Immaterial God by Assuming Materialism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2020
- Questions are a legitimate way to get people to think. But if questions subtly create confusion, fallacy, or error, they only serve to conceal the truth rather than reveal the truth.
Atheist Forum provides three questions designed to raise doubt about the existence of God. But, to get the answers they want, they rely on an incoherent question (strike one), circular reasoning (strike two), and a confused complaint (strike three).
SUPPORT THE WORK OF RPL: www.str.org/re...
Follow Red Pen Logic with Mr. B:
Facebook: / redpenlogic
Twitter: / redpenlogic
Instagram: / redpenlogic
Follow Stand to Reason:
TH-cam: / strvideos
Facebook: / standtoreason93
Twitter: / strtweets
One day soon we will look back and remember when Red Pen Logic only had two videos and under 100,000 subs.
I found you because of Dr Brown. Much respect for continuing the “tradition”. God Bless you, brother.
The accuracy 💯, I hope he pins this too.
They are so professional! Incredible videos
Nice name .I got out of jail about 7 years ago and had lost a 120 thousand dollar house I had for 9 years , a car I had just paid 4 thousand down on ,everything...I was homeless, in a halfway house
Well all I wanted was a red pen. You see I had been writing verses and memorizing portions of Scripture and I wanted to write Jesus words in red. So I was at the halfway house by myself and I went in a room alone, got on my knees and asked God for a red pen. I was walking down the road about 15 minutes later and a guy walks up out of nowhere and hands me a red pen...
Timothy Helton Great testimony! You’ve probably already learned that ALL the words of scripture are Jesus’s words, since the Father Son and Spirit Who moved the writers to record the God-breathed message are one God.
Response to materialists' argument: your argument does not exist
Hahahaha,😂😂👏
@Darth Quantum Logical fallacy alert! Christians have not failed to prove God exists. There is a difference between their failure to prove it, and their failure to convince you of it. There is plenty of evidence and coherent interpretation of the evidence that proves the existence of God. You might not like the evidence, but that does not negate the existence of the evidence or the validity of its interpretation.
@@ernestliu1584 period
@Darth Quantum Yet you yourself are making a positive claim, namely that "gods... aren't real." Therefore, the burden also lies on you to show us that he is not real. But if you can't do that, then your in the same boat, which would explain why you're so salty. The humurous thing is that atheists tout these "burden of proof" tropes only to claims of a god. They don't apply it anywhere else despite their entire worldview resting on similar positions. No one can prove laws of logic without first assuming them and then using them. For one to "show" you proof of logic, I would have to assume you could use logic (and that I could logically put together such a proof). Same goes for morality and value. You ask for proof, assuming proofs lead to truth, but what on earth led you to believe that truth is a valuable or good thing to pursue in the first place? Why not aim for falsehoods instead? An atheist has no such answer, nor can they. Their worldview affords them no such rights. Atheists merely arbitrarily pursue truth, having no justification that truth is any better (a moral and value statement) than falsehood. And I could provide more examples of atheist baseless thinking if you'd like!
@Darth Quantum
Oh please don't try me with that old stupid argument .
Maby you could make a better argument if you studied science and philosophy rather than posting memes about the flying spaghetti monster .
Straight to the point and so many of us as Christians have come against these 3 logical fallacies from Atheists. Thank you! 🙌
I know an atheist who is one of the nicest men I have met. He is secure in his position and has no need to convince anyone. I see these "atheists" on the internet as actually hostile to God with an agenda. They are not just atheists. They are workers of inequity .
indeed
Same, a friend of mine started dating an atheist and he's made no attempt to turn her from the faith. These more hostile atheists, I wonder what influences them
@@Ap31920 there seems to be a thing that people often become bullies on the internet. All safe at home at the computer.
@@fingerzfrienemy2226 Ok true. I am left to wonder if are they pendantic in person though.
@@Ap31920 How are they planning on raising their children, if they want to have children?
Finally, a LOGICAL Argument that isn't hypocritical. I have been saying for years they do exactly what they accuse us of. God bless you!!
How exacty is it logical to say that something exist and doesn't exist at the same time? That is a classic contradiction and completely illogical.
@@mikewagner8458 who's saying that Mike?
@@originalyou4069 The people who ask those questions say it; they just bury half of it in their hidden assumptions.
@Hlord1109 I disagree. The definition of the word "exist": to have objective reality or being. He says God exists, so God must fit that definition, and have objective reality or being. Then goes on to say God is immaterial, and there is certainly nothing objectively real about an entity that is immaterial, so God doesn't exist in the way other entities exist, ie. immaterially. (Maybe you can name a different entity that both exists and is also immaterial.) More of a special pleading fallacy now that I think about it a bit, but that's still essentially what he's saying.
@@mikewagner8458 you're either making up definitions (i haven't seen the definition you gave searching for the definition of exist) or you are cherry picking a definition.. the first definition i found is from merriam webster "to have real being whether material or spiritual"
but if man would say something that exists needs to be material that doesn't make it true that God isn't real if he's not material.
besides even you believe that material was created by something immaterial.. or rather you believe the scientific impossibility that everything came from nothing at all. no consciousness, no spirit, no material, no energy, no space, no time, no anything.
or you just haven't thought the origin of the universe story through. most likely the latter, as most atheists just rely on what they're told by physics professors etc. who say things like it all started with a big bang and you just take that on faith without thinking through where that big bang came from and if there is an answer given for that, where did that came from?. there has to be something eternal and immaterial at the start of it all doesn't it?
If logic is immaterial, what is it made out of?
If logic is immaterial does it exist?
Maybe this is why so many Atheists THINK they're using "logic" to deny God's existence but fail. They can't really believe logic exists either.
Maybe Red Pen shouldn't use the strawman fallacy ... Vast majority of Atheists don't know if there is a god or not, due to lack of sufficient evidence one way or the other.
@@aralornwolf3140 When you argue against a God, you have to propose an alternative. Atheists have to do it, what are they like the burden of proof or not.
@@noahm44 ,
We do _not_ need to propose an alternative. That's a completely separate issue. That flips the burden of proof. Do you _have_ evidence for your god, yes or no? If no. Then we reject your god claim(s).
However, most atheists argue _for_ everything that has happened has happened because of _natural_ reasons. Thus, you're argument is also stupidly wrong.
@@aralornwolf3140 a good argument does propose an alternative. English 101
@@silentghost751 ,
Oh... _RiGhT._ I was talking about in general... not in specific cases.
We reject your god claim due to lack of evidence. there is no need for us to propose an alternative...
However, the alternative atheists will use is "natural occurrences" as that's what the preponderance of scientific literature shows!
The only problem with this channel is that there are only 2 videos so far!
Amen!!
That problem is now SOLVED. LOL
You are the very 1st TH-camr I've turned on post notifications for. I love your style of videos and clear explanations. Keep it up!
New subscriber! I love this kind of clear, logical, truthful apologetic content; thank you for being a light in the vast chaos of this platform!
Thank you Mr. Barnett. It’s nice when someone can deconstruct a bad argument.
And it's NECESSARY, because many people are misled by such empty argumentation!
WOW! And I thought I had good editing skills! Tim proves once again that he is a next level G!
Love you, brother!
@Andrew Fairfax I forgive you and appreciate your apology. And what dictionary defines theism as - "The belief in God, knowing that one is being dishonest"? This redefining thing with atheists is getting way outta hand...
Andrew Fairfax prove to me that God doesn’t exist.
Prove to me that the bible promotes slavery.
Prove to me Genesis is false.
@Andrew Fairfax Simply being mistaken or in error does not necessarily equal being dishonest. There is a difference by definition.
@Andrew Fairfax What fallacious claims were in this video? Do you disagree with Tim's assessment of this tweet?
I literally LOL'd when I read "If god is immaterial, what is he made of?" 🤣🤣🤣
I'm sorry but the idiocy is strong here!
@ripe socksbro if you follow logical discourse you FIRST ask if God exists, then if it established that He does exist then you ask which God is He or what is He.
It is completely illogical to ask a metaphysical question about a Supernatural existence and what that Supernatural existence is at the same time.
@ripe socksbro Okay then how do you show a Supernatural being does not exist?
@ripe socksbro LOL! Ah the classic I-don't-have-to-prove-anything cop out.
What's absurd is that you confidently made the statement that Supernatural beings don't exist. This automatically puts the burden of proof on you.
@ripe socksbro not really because I have been convinced of a Supernatural God. Also for the fact you stated an absolute. Unless you want to retract your original statement which I am fine with.
Which terms do you want me to define?
@@jrc99us nope.
atheists reject the claim that God exists.
until you provide evidence of it, your claim is pure opinion.
i can say the invisible immaterial cat created the universe.
you can't disprove that.
the burden of proof is on you because it is your assertion that God exists.
but if you don't have such an assertion and it is just your belief, then we are OK with that and there will be no more debate here.
Tim, you did such a good job you seemed to overlook that question #3 brings you right back to #1, making it an incoherent question. You answered 3 as accepting that something is and then trying to find out what it's like, but that wasn't his question. His question was, "How do so many people believe that He (God) exists, BUT CAN'T DESCRIBE WHAT HE IS MADE OF?" Do you see how he is imposing the fact that God must be made of something? He goes right back to question 1. "If God is immaterial what is He made of?" This guy's brain is stuck it a single way of thinking.
Can't wait for more of these videos. I need to increase my knowledge and reasoning against Atheists.
Then don't rely on this clown. Feel free to read my my recent post with questions about this guy's ability to "reason".
You have no show against an informed atheist. No theist does
@@MrAuskiwi101 never have I cringed more at a self-indulgent comment more than yours, congratulations.
@@grubblewubbles You choice to imagine its self indulgent. More a reflection on you.
Maybe you're projecting.
What I said was true. Not ego related, just a statement of fact.
The problem with apologetics is it has no substance. If one if well versed in recognizing logical fallicies and cognitive bias one can deal with any nonsense apologetics comes up with. And its all nonsense
@@MrAuskiwi101 how so is it all nonsense? How so does all of apologetics apparently have no substance? How so is what you said a statement of fact? How exactly is what you said not self-indulgent and how exactly is it just me projecting? Your entire reply to my comment consists of nothing but claims you didn't bother to back up whatsoever in any way. Also, I think you meant to say "you choose" not "you choice".
You’ve set the standard high with these first two videos. Great work!
Wow, thanks!
A twelve year old could see that tweet is ridiculous.
Hello! I just wanted to comment by saying that I just discovered this youtube channel via Mike Winger's latest video on answering 10 atheist questions..
Since then I've watched several videos of yours and wanted to say that I really love your channel. This content is difficult for me to grasp but yet you break it down in bite sized pieces and explain in ways where it's easy to understand. I'm really learning a lot from your videos and I do hope you continue to make more! God bless, sir!
Great work, bro! We need more of these videos!
More to come!
Whaddo You Meme name dropped you. One vid and I'm a sub. Go man, go.
Me too. Whadda u meme got me here.
If Jon McCray (Whaddo You Meme) recommends a channel, I check it out IMMEDIATELY! I'm glad I did! Go Tim go!
In which video is it mentioned?
Fact #1 If the search for truth begins with the presupposition of the non-existence of God, then the existence of God can never be proven.
Fact #2. There is no such thing as "many gods". Zeus, Apollo, Odin, etc, are merely names given to false definitions to the character and nature of the one true God.
Agreed.
How do you know there are not many gods?
"Questions are a legitimate way of getting people to think. If questions create fallacy, error and confuse they only serve to conceal truth, rather than reveal truth!" Love it! Thank you for helping us spot poor logic and reasoning. #truth
Sharon Marie Smith you’re not spoting the bad logic and reasoning if you think he has good logic and reasoning for believing this claim.
M Fitz - i find that Atheists often substitute rhetorical questions for reasoned arguments, and rewriting them as statements universally reveals non sequiturs, misrepresentations, and other logical fallacies. Mr B’s statement is absolutely correct, and your comment substitutes ad hominem for reason.
Rich Wheeler-iPhone I find believers like to assert outrageous claims with nothing more then word arguments for god the time to believe a claim like god is when you have extraordinary physical evidence. What is your physical evidence for god ? That’s not a rhetorical question.
Me. Fitz, do you read? I can recommend some great books that will answer your question..
I read plenty I can recommend books to you too. That’s not the problem. You obviously agree that spirits are real I’m guessing correct me if I’m wrong. How did you conclude this?
When you hear that red pen cap come off! 0__0. Solid content! Keep these up my dude!!
Working on it!
You'd think people who brag so much about their "superior" intellect would not fall into such basic errors.
They are pitting their pitiable intellect against the God that formed the brain and gave us the power of thought. They are therefore clearly punching above their weight.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Corinthians)
I was an atheist unti I was 35.
I was not goofy arguments like this that made me believe.
When I finally came round it was so much simpler. Arguments like this one kept me away for years.
You just earned another subscriber! Well explained indeed. God bless you brother 🙏🏼
I hope this channel get a lot of subs and views. In this time we need a lot of intelligent people who use intelligence to show people that god does exist.
God bless you and keep up the good work.
Mathias Buena This channel found a random tweet and made a completely terrible argument in response to a tweet.
@@dominic5403 I’m still waiting on the “evidence” everyone here is talking about.
Tim, I just found your channel and I love your videos! I agree with your arguments AND conclusions. One small critique (very small): gravity doesn’t exist (03:27), but is an observation. Newtonian physics observed the EFFECTS of an object in motion and assumed a force called gravity. Einstein postulated (and it was proved) that instead of an object falling to the earth (a quick example), instead the earth accelerates TOWARDS the object. That is why two objects of different mass that are “dropped” out of a window will collide with the earth simultaneously.
As I said, a VERY SMALL critique.
God bless!
Richard Dawkins: God does not exist, therefore, God does not exist
His disciples who didn't understand a word in his past hour of talking: "Wow! What a genius!"
When did Dawkins say "god does not exist therefore God does not exist"?....tell you what, I'll answer for you.....he didn't say this, you just made it up.
They will just as easily go the other way and assume someone is an idiot because they do not understand him. It is a grand lottery with atheists.
@@CJFCarlsson what are you actually talking about? You know the comment is completely fabricated?
@@nakkadu My comment is based on personal experience. The initial comment is based on the dimmest possible formulation of the naturalist assumption. You may want to formulate it in a more clever way, but it is not made up, I for one recognized it as the naturalist assumption.
@@CJFCarlsson So you've met people who say 'God does not exist therefore God doesn't exist"?
The only thing that needs to be said:
What is conciousness made of?
Nothing? Does it exist? Yes.
Conciousness is proof of immaterial truth.
It is a process involving neurons.
@@dertechl6628 neurons only produces electrical signals. They don't produce consciousness. You can't have a sum of a multitude of unconscious cells that is collectively conscious. If they're individually unconscious, they're collectively unconscious too. The only solution to this is that what is conscious is immaterial, a spiritual being not connected to any specific part of our brains, but to its entirety.
@@hanntonn2 Consciousness is the process of neurons activating and deactivating. We can map conscious events to neuronal activity and vice versa. There is no evidence for any immaterial.
@@dertechl6628 So a process that is the result of blind evolution is telling me that consciousness is just a process of neurons activating and deactivating. And I'm supposed to believe there is any kind of objective intelligence in that process. Talk about lack of self-awareness.
@@hanntonn2 That's all we know. Proposing the 'immaterial' without any concept of what that actually is and without evidence is not useful. Or can you define 'immaterial'?
I had to pause while watching this so I could think. This is sad but true, I like it when atheists end up saying things like am not convinced when they don’t have anything logical to say not realizing that we could also choose to say we are not convinced of anything they say......
A charitable view of "made of", could be "properties of" e.g. If God is an immaterial spirit, what properties do immaterial spirits have? 4:31 why is raising doubt about the existence of God bad?
Because of 4:36
Also 0:36
What properties can we identify that are not properties of mass or energy? The best I could do would be to point out physical boundaries that do not hinder spirit, for example, spirits are not limited by walls or bodies. (Also, I think the jump from composition to properties is too big to call a charitable view.)
@@richwheeler-iphone5263 it's a bit like asking for the properties of a bachelor. Relative to the fact of being a bachelor, the only property is a negative one: not being married. That doesn't mean an individual (who is a bachelor) doesn't have other, positive properties, but these aren't definitional to what a bachelor is.
Similarly, the properties of being an immaterial spirit are negative (not being made of matter). There is a positive property though, relative to spirit, which is being able to think. Spirits are personal.
New subscriber here. i saw your tribute to Ravi zacharias on “ what do u meme” God bless you brother.
Red Pen Logic...
I'm an Atheist and I like what you are doing. Bad logic is bad logic and should be called out. However, you did say something that caught my attention at 2:51 you seem to imply that Atheists are Materialists by default. If that is what you meant, it's incorrect.
Materialism makes the claim _"the material is all that exists"_ Many Atheists such as myself makes no such claim. I don't see any convincing evidence for the immaterial. *However* I also don't see any convincing evidence against it.
If you did NOT mean to imply Atheists are also Materialists by default, then please ignore everything I just said.
*Either way I'm subscribing*
He did mention that there are atheist philosophers that believe that immaterial things exist.
Agreed! I hope people don't take the video to mean that all atheists are materials.
You're right, "bad logic is bad logic" no matter who is using it. My plan is to Red Pen some believer's who use bad logic as well. Stay tuned for that!
@@garyleemusic I must have missed it. Can you give a me the time stamps.
As a Christian and someone who studied apologetics in seminary - I'd add that everybody, BY NECESSITY, requires circular reasoning with all basic arguments. We can't escape it. Christian: Why is the Bible the word of God? Because it says so. Atheist: Why is materialism the most reasonable approach? Because it's the most rational response.
Bible Breakout Your comment interests me. As someone who has not been through seminary school, I understand fundamentally that the Bible claims itself to be true internally, but also proves itself to be true externally. So I’m wondering how that applies to circular reasoning?
So good! My english is not sooo good, but i understand... We need this in spanish!!!!
Yes we know gravity exists because we can demonstrate it. Can you demonstrate god like gravity? How did you confirm god is the source of the phenomenon? How did you determine the supernatural can exist ? How do you determine one supernatural claim over another? Also how did you confirm sprits exist ?
M Fitz Spirit is not impersonal force or substance that you can biopsy or coerce into subjection to laboratory experiments, and only certain types of events in history are subject to independent, repeatable validation. Asking for scientific proof of what lies outside science’s jurisdiction is a category error, like trying to measure temperature with a compass. Atheists just can’t resist using category errors to produce logical absurdities.
Why is it out of science jurisdiction ? If it is out of science jurisdiction how did you conclude that ? If we can’t test it’s real and can’t confirm the Bible how do you know it is something that manifests in reality?
It’s called just making shit up, that’s all it is. “We can’t detect it but it’s there because we have to say that in order to believe in that which there is no evidence” it’s circular and empty reasoning with no substance. God isn’t made out of matter/atoms but he’s there? Somehow? It’s completely stupid.
M Fitz 1. Science limits itself to naturalistic phenomena. It is inadequate to deal with the philosophical or spiritual domains, or even much of history. In fact, science itself depends on protocols created by religion and philosophy. Your third question is a non sequitur.
Dominic No, the circular reasoning is yours. You reject the evidence and then declare by fiat that there’s no evidence.
I just found a gem...this channel!!!!
I know why he put that lmao, he was laughing at his own tweet.😂
This is so good. I’m subscribed dude .!
Awesome, thank you!
I love watching your animated eyes and eyebrows, they are so animated it makes me giggle and sometimes lose concentration 😂 😂
If objective moral truths are immaterial, then what are they made of?
If they aren’t made of material, then do they exist?
How do many people believe in moral truths but can’t describe what they’re made of?
Who else is here because of Mike Winger? 🙋🏻♀️
Very random... but Did you make a comment on a shark encounter video? Lol
MP not at all lol
I am because if wdymeme?
Was here because of wat do you meme
@@aliMS137 oh loll
Well I just found my new binge channel, thank you!
Uploading it with brazilian portuguese subtitles, if you don't mind...
...the description will be pointing to you, here, of course.
The third question doesn't even make sense for material things. People believed in the existence of trees long before they understood cellular structures, or atoms, or subatomic particles... Their belief in trees was not inferior to ours just because we understand a bit better the material the tree is made of.
I prefer to start my day with coffee and rekt atheists.
Here is a question I just received from an atheist. Can God turn himself into nothing and then create something from nothing ? No ? Then God can’t do anything. And he says that’s why atheism is true.
It's very similar in nature to the omnipotent-being-immovable object 'problem.'
It hinges on the notion that God can perform actions that would lead to a contradicting of His attributes, of who He is. It's fascinating that atheists get surprised that there are 'things' that God cannot do; I guess it's important to define what omnipotent means when having conversations. As Christian's, it's clear that God cannot do everything (or just anything in the sense that your atheist friend stated) - we know God cannot and will not sin and this does not confound us in any way. It's perfectly logical.
Simply put, your atheist friend's argument: if a perfect God exists, we know He cannot contradict His perfect nature being perfect Himself. Because He cannot contradict His perfect nature, therefore He cannot exist. It is a foolish one.
God cannot will Himself out of existence because it would contradict His omnipresence, His fully 'always-being,' so to put it, in place and in time (both of which, funnily enough, would also cease to exist if God ceased to exist).
@@oluwafunmiwosholola7108 just define things to be convenient for you.....
😁😁😁
@@oluwafunmiwosholola7108 omnipotent has a generally accepted meaning and it's not what you stated.
Well, Merry Christmas to me! I just discovered this channel.
I just discovered your channel and my only question is this, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN!? 😂. Seriously though, this is my first exposure to your stuff and it's oh so good 👍.
I first noticed him back when he worked more closely with Stand To Reason. I always THOUGHT he had exceptional talent, and should branch out further! I'm glad he finally did!
They just don't realize that foolishness IS illegal:
[9] *The thought of foolishness is sin* : and the scorner is an abomination to men.
Proverbs 24:9
Honestly if you think about the belief in an immaterial God makes perfect sense. We know that cells were neither CREATED nor destroyed. Science may have theories but no definite fact of where they came from. The most reasonable conclusion I can think of is that and immaterial God made those (material) cells to come about.
Careful, you're making too much sense.
I’ve noticed the confused complaint is always somewhere within there arguments. Great video.
Is “I don’t care” an acceptable answer? I’ve been a believer my whole life and have never contemplated what God is made of. I have enough on my plate just staying on the straight path without wondering where the Holy Spirit is on the periodic table.
Came over from Mike Winger’s shoutout! Great work, definitely subbing!
Me too!
Thanks for the sub! Really appreciate the support.
Me three!
Another great 2 Corinthians 10:5 video. Where were you in all my schooling years Mr. B? You would've helped changed my life at a very early age...but I'm so grateful for all that can benefit from your Red Pen now. Thank you! 🙂
Wow, thank you! I appreciate these sweet words, Tito!
Love it! Keep up the good work Tim.
There's no better reason to not believe God exists than the complete lack of credible evidence that God exists.
What type of credible evidence would prove existence, iyo?
@@TheCljohnso21 That's a hard question to answer without a specific claim. What is the nature of the God we are investigating? For example: A personal God that is active in our lives and is benevolent to Humans should be undeniably obvious to everyone. I would expect to see good things happening to good people almost exclusively, and perhaps even bad things happening to bad people. Obvious displays of God magic would certainly work too. At a minimum, if theist's claims were consistently verified, instead of debunked that would help greatly. If I personally witnessed miracles, fulfilled prophesy, laying of hands, actual angels, demons or if such events were well documented by objective sources that would help. Again, it's hard to be specific without a specific claim to evaluate.
NeoDemocedes The problem with your list is that you judge people good and bad according to your own preferences instead of against the Creator’s standard, and then assume that the Creator is under obligation to the created.
When you say “credible,” you admit that you judge evidence prejudicially to create a circular argument for rejecting further evidence.
You're a great new find!! Mike Winger sent me to your channel..you got a new subscriber =) God bless 💜💜💜
Awesome! Thank you!
So ready to impugn atheism. Yet no self-reflection. "Immaterial being" is just as silly as a married bachelor. Listen to this flawed thinking: "Philosophers...routinely speak of real things that are not made of material like reasoning and argument...and logical fallacies." Sorry, Red. You just committed a logical fallacy. The examples you mentioned are indeed not material but _neither are they beings!_ A thousand gods have arisen in the past and now reside in the graveyard of gods. Is their universal skill at hiding just a coincidence or is remaining hidden a necessary practice of all gods? Scores of physical phenomena have been blamed on gods or "supernatural" forces only to be found to have better natural explanations e.g. the sun, moon, planets and stars, lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, eclipses, comets, the aurora, droughts, floods, twins, plagues, glowing seas, the wind, the rain, blue & green eyes, white skin, blonde hair, red hair, various maladies, stillbirths, the seasons etc. Loads of supernatural explanations have given way to natural ones. Never has it gone the other way. Not once! Furthermore, all gods show the signs of human creation, from the god/goat hybrid Pan to the god/elephant hybrid Ganesha to the god/ape hybrid Jesus and the "male" god Yahweh. According to Red, God has "no mass; no form; no pieces that need to be put together..." Yeah, same as ghosts. Is it rational to lack belief or to disbelieve in ghosts? Yes? Then why not gods? What's the difference?
Here is how Red's god is variously described. God is "immaterial." So is nothing. He "has no mass." Same with nothing. He has "no form." Ditto with nothing. God is not made of "pieces that need to be put together" and is "not extended in space." Same with nothing. The only positive quality mentioned is that Red's god is "a spirit." That's just assuming what you wish to demonstrate i.e. circular reasoning.
Faith-heads like Red don't get it. In their minds Naturalism is a religion like theirs and Naturalists are as closed-minded and faith-driven they are. What stupid nonsense! In truth, I can go on for _days_ naming hypothetical observations; discoveries; occurrences that would compel me to admit that belief in a god _is_ rational. If Red - or any faith-head - prays to their god or gods for the power to walk on water; run 100 MPH, float through the air; free-dive two miles down; see just fine through a blindfold; regrow amputated limbs with healing touch; master a foreign language instantly; turn water into wine - and they do - I'm sold. That wouldn't really "prove" anything more than the acquisition of an extraordinary ability but it _would_ rationally justify belief in a god or gods until and unless a natural explanation is found. I could name _thousands_ of such examples. But invite Red - or any faith-head - to pony up a _brief_ list of _purely hypothetical_ observations; discoveries; occurrences that would compel them to admit that atheism is the rational choice and...crickets! There's your faith!
He did not say that his examples of immaterial things were beings. He just used them as evidence that even "materialists" use immaterial concepts.
TL;DR.
Take this statement replace "God" with "Logical fallacy" and that's my answer
About one minute in, I refuted their claim. Energy is not material, therefore, by the "reasoning" of this atheist, energy doesn't exist. The same thing applies to abstractions like freedom and time. Not having a material body is not a death sentence for something actually existing.
But...but... SKYDADDY!!! ;)
Haw, haw, haw. Oh man...Nice one dude!!! 👍
@@bassmanjr100 - Mate, before I saw the playlist on your channel, I thought you were an angry atheist who did not get like my skydaddy-joke. Never seen anyone write haw, haw, haw, before =) I learn everyday. Lord bless you
@@DanielApologetics It is hard to tell parody from reality these days. For some reason I thought Haw was better than Ha!
@@bassmanjr100 True. And you almost had me there!
God is nothing but made up
Got-damn. Only 2 vids uploaded and 2 thousand subs already? How did that happen?
Getting close to 3 thousand subs. And I have no idea!
Yes, the questions are loaded, I would say.
The second one is not strictly speaking a circular argument. It's a question that could be salvaged by adding some qualifiers. I would change it to "If God is immaterial, then can he exist independently of material things?". All the examples you give are processes performed by material brains. If you can give an example of something immaterial that we both can agree on exists, and that is capable of performing tasks independently of the existence of material things, please do so.
No, you don't need to know what something is made of to know that it exists. But you do need to be able to point to something that it consistently does before claiming that it exists, no matter how much you think you know it.
For the third point I would like to ask a question. Using your analogy, gravity is immaterial that's true but we do know gravity exists because we can see its effect on planets and other things. What is the effect of god through which you can conclude that he exists? So for example we attritube the quality of attraction or a pulling force to Gravity. Meaning no matter where but if there's gravity it'll be a pulling force. The attributes christians apply to God is: loving, caring, all knowing etc... However these attributes are inconsistent and not present everywhere even though god is supposed to be everywhere. Sometimes even the most desperate of prayers aren't answered, there's immeasurable suffering etc. Please explain to me how can you prove the existence of immaterial God the same way we can prove the existence of immaterial Gravity. Also if I'm not wrong "Immaterial" means anything that's not matter or made up of matter. With this definition, even light is immaterial and yet we can observe the effects of light of all wavelengths not just the visible light. So tell me how exactly can we prove the existence of God without saying things like "Oh well the universe cant come put of nothing so it must have been God", if your argument revolves around "hey I can't explain this phenomenon therefore God" then I'd have no further questions since I would get to know your level of delusion. I want clear concrete facts. There are a lot of things science can't explain you can't just assume there has to be a creator because of it.
I would also like to address another line of arguement "well a airplane just can't pop out of thin air there has to be an engineer similarly the universe can't just appear out of nothing there has to be a creator", in the quantum world a lot of things pop in and out of existence what's to say that the big bang wasn't just another such quantum event out of countless similar events that happened and still happen creating universes that have different laws of physics etc etc.
We assumed existence of God when we didn't know any better, now that we do we should stop believing things and assuming we know everything and start, instead, seeking for answers. If it so happens that upon seeking the truth we come across the fact that there in fact is such an entity like God that governs the universe or the multiverse and has all the attributes that christians claim, trust me I will be the happiest person. Basically my point is stop believing in either statement that God exists or he doesn't exist, learn to say "I don't know" this goes for both athiests and religious people.
Also when God was incarnated in Jesus, he was made of flesh
The fact that we still have to explain this... no words. 😒
No words, but red pen.
the funny and interesting thing on Madonna's Material Girl.
is that the materialistic people loses.
Keep this up man! God bless you, keep you, and hold you tight!
I came across these videos just a couple of days ago and they are great! Subscribed! But somehow I can't ring the bell!
I really got the meme that says, «Godzilla had a stroke reading this», in my head when I read the questions.😅
I agree, the format of these questions is weak. If I where posting the questions:
Can you demonstrate something that exists that is immaterial?
Can you provide evidence that your god is immaterial?
Why is the Christian description of their god so inconsistent between believers?
(Not exactly on point but close enough)
Thanks for sharing!
This is brilliant!
Question: why isn’t Logic taught in schools?
If it was, there wouldn’t be so many silly atheists out there asking very silly questions!
But, then you wouldn’t have any material for your very brilliant channel. Well done! Keep it up! 🤓👍
Another home run. I will show this tomorrow to my kids. THANK YOU!
Good stuff, Tim. Looking forward to lots of these!
Glad you like them! Appreciate you guys!!
My Father was an NYPD Cop. During his twenty-five year career, every person he dealt with that was facing immanent death, called out to two beings, their Mommy and God. As they say, there is not Atheist in Foxholes.
To paraphrase the Parable of the Invisible Gardener, "What's the difference between a spaceless, timeless, immaterial gardener and no gardener at all?"
This tweet is ridiculous. I'm not in the mood to watch the rest of the video but here's some quick answers from an antitheist:
1. If god is immaterial, he either isn't made of anything or he's made up of something we're not aware of.
2. If he isn't made of material he could still exist, just like jealousy or the number 5 still exist even though they're not made of material.
3. Nobody needs to know what something is made of in order to believe in it's existence.
These 'arguments' are pathetic. Low hanging fruit. Aim higher
All of those points are exactly what Tim said in the video lol
e546a 850 tbf anyone who knows what the fuck they are talking about could debunk the tweet
Hey Mr. B. I so appreciate your videos. Very Blessed by your God Honoring, scriptural, factual, and amusing format.
Would love to see a video by you; on the world's use of statements like, "No True Scotsman Fallacy", "Circular Reasoning"
"Red Herring Fallacy" and well know "acronyms" today. No pressure, right? Thanks my brother.
1. That's a blatant contradiction.
2. Non material things for the most part are considered concepts.
3. The parts of the question aren't really jointed. Like if a group of your friends said that they saw a guy do some outlandish stuff, you would never ask what's he made of. You'd ask about something superficial.
"God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist. I win."
I love my wife. I don't know what that love is made of, it does exist and I can't describe it. Yet my love is real. And more or less everyone has lived such love too.
Great video Red Pen. You rock. Keep it up brother. I love it!!!!
YES I LIKE THIS. LEARNING HOW TO AGRUE AND DEFEND YOUR POSITION IS SO IMPORTANT
I don't know that the question "What is God made of?" does in fact presuppose materialism.
One way of reading the question is that it's asking about components that come together to form the thing, the configured components being the thing's matter (though, there is a way in which even this can be broader than modern materialism, e.g. Aristotle saying syllables are the matter of words).
Another way of reading it is that it's asking what the substance of the thing is. This is the way I'm inclined to interpret a question about God's makeup. The question under this interpretation doesn't presuppose materialism. Rather, it's just asking what the divine substance is, if not matter. And Mr. B gave an answer to that question: spirit. I don't see it as a sufficient answer (humans have spirits, and angels are spirits, and it would be absurd to say God is essentially like these), but it's an answer to a question that likely is actually coherent, even though it may not have been asked in good faith.
If Tuesday is immaterial, what is it made of?
I just remembered my business studies (or social studies(?)) lessons back at school. I do believe we also learned that there are material and immaterial things,not deeply of course because it's just logical. It must have been some categorizing stuff, probably about wishes or so.
I'd say every Physician knows immaterialthings exist. You mentioned gravity, i know thing of (work) force and other things. We calculate those! If they're not made of anything, we calculate something that doesn't exist. Sometimes we hear people arguing about stuff with things we wonder how they come not know that if it's basic knowledge that was taught at school. Every school may be different, but i'd expect some things to be there. Guess we forget everything and then fall for the internet :/
So if you can't explain to me God's existence, why can't I just say that he doesn't exist? It sounds like something that doesn't exist. It has all the properties of non-existence. Therefore it doesn't exist.
1. If god is immaterial, what is he made of?
=> Restated: If god is immaterial, what presumably non-material thing is he made of?
2. If he isn't made of material, then does he exist?
=> If only material exists, then god can only exist if he is made of material. But he isn't, so he cannot exist.
Philosophical materialism is implicit throughout this argument.
3. How can so many people believe he exist but can't describe what he is made of?
=> So, people should not believe in things which don't exist.
Implicit here is also the idea that we should only believe in things whose composition can be described, which is a statement about what and how we can know (epistemology).
Summary: Naive science fan-boy taunting.
Keep them coming Tim...love it!
Came here from What Do You Meme channel. Looking forward to seeing more videos!
I have a question..if God isn't made of anything(immaterial) how do we have personal relationship with him? I know what it means to say " in the spirit of" something like she's really in the Christmas spirit or in the spirit of it...but how can we have a personal relationship with him?
Hey dude, nice format. The second part about circular reasoning sounded a bit shaky, but as a whole I think you did good. Love seeing the problems with atheist reasoning on twitter. The Bible quoting was a bit odd tho, you should consider using that less. If you’re not careful you may become guilty of circular reasoning yourself at some point.
YES ! You're on to a winner. Do more (please).
Prove that leprechauns don't exist. Go on, prove they don't exist.
Does anyone know the source for that William Lane Craig quote? I want to cite it in a piece I am writing.
I think you could say God is made of spirit. Spirit is integrated mind, heart and will, BTW.
The funniest apologetics channel I have ever seen. Tim(that's your name right?😅) is the best!!😂
This video could have been 3 seconds long:
1. Nothing
2. Yes
3. Irrelevant
Just kidding-very nice work and keep it up!!!
P.S. I don't think the 1st question is incoherent-it's just very easy to answer! And I don't think the 2nd question is circular. It might have circular presuppositions, which you addressed well, but on the face of it, it's not circular. As I said (in jest) above, you can just answer it with "Yes" and then see if the atheist has any further questions.
I believe the first question is both easy to answer and incoherent.
I know many married B.A.
If the biblical god is immaterial, spaceless and timeless then question is whether it is a thing or no thing. Is a mind a thing?
With all due respect, the circular logic isn't because they can't release themselves from materialism but simply because they seek to confuse. They know it is circular logic to begin with.