A thing about Pascal's Wager is that whether it can be an argument for God, it can't be the reason to why you choose to believe in God. If your only reason to believe in God is because of the potential benefit you may gain from it and nothing else then it kind of defeats the purpose of believing in god in the first place, since what ties you to that belief isn't morality or logic but just the benefit you may gain from it. This means that if someone were to offer you something better than what god gives you, you would reject god, which means you didn't truly believe in him in the first place.
It's more fear mongering as well. Basically the same as "if you don't believe in god you'll burn in hell for eternity." More mind games that the biblical literalist use to trap people.
From my perspective the benefit is getting into Heaven. The benefit is being with God. There is nothing wrong with one of your reasons for believing in God is to get into heaven with Him. You also can't say there's something better than what God gives you, because the reward He gives you is eternal and there is nothing possibly better than it.
@@noahr1126 There's nothing bad with wanting to be with god, the bad thing is ONLY believing in him because of you wanting to get to heaven, not because you believe in the moral good of god, in christian values and ideals or because you came to the logical conclusion that he's real. What I mean by "something better" is a hypothetical. Of course that by the literal definition of heaven there can't be anything better, but I'm saying that if hypothetically something better was offered to people that believe in god only because of pascal's wager then they would stop believing in god; which means there's no believing there in the first place. One shouldn't believe in god solely becauee of the benefits it provides you, but also because you think it's logically and morally right to believe in him. One reaps the benefits of god because they believe in him; you can't truly believe in him solely because you want to reap the benefits of it. It's kind of like saying that you want to get married to someone solely because of the tax benefits it has to be married; sure that can be a reason for you to get married, but if that's your only reason for it then you probably don't truly love your wife.
I think Pascal's Wager isn't a terrible place to start. To expect someone unfamiliar with God to choose to believe in Him out of love and respect seems absurd. I think people unfamiliar with God should use the motivation of Pascal's Wager to seek out more information about God and begin to love and respect Him only once they've learned what His motivations and desires are. I became a Christian as a teenager with a very fundamental understanding of who God is and what He wants, but as I've grown older, I've worked on my relationship with Him and I'd like to think I've begun to understand Him better. My biggest problem (as is the case with many) is practicing what I preach and living the way I see God wants me to in the Bible. Also, if anyone's reading this, it's only too late to turn your life around once you're dead. Make sure you know exactly when you're gonna die, and if you can't do that, learn more about God and what He wants to share with you, because the offer's too good to miss
6. Ontological: A pizza that is indestructible cannot be eaten, so it is not the greatest possible pizza since it cannot fulfill the fundamental purpose of pizza.
I think what you're hitting here is that the concept of a greatest possible being ("being" used in the philosophical sense) is not well defined. Better example. I am thinking of the greatest possible pickup truck. One of the attributes of this truck is that it should carry a lot of cargo. But it should also be easy to park. The first attribute means it needs to be big, but the second means it needs to be small. "Greatest possible" just doesn't make sense outside of trivial cases.
Honestly Pascal’s Wager reminds me of a different side of the same coin (sort of). Marcus Aurelius essentially stated, “Live a good life. If there is a god and they are just, they will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are unjust gods, then you will not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then your memory will live on in those who you have lived virtue by.”
In the context of pascals wagger, if there was an unjust god then causing finite harm to create infinite pleasure would be the right call. If everyone did this, then everyone would be able to live in infinite pleasure with earth just being a bad dream. And a second issue is people cannot agree on what a Just God would be. Some people’s Just God is other people’s Unjust God after all.
But this is an argument for not believing in any particular religion and just doing what feels right to you, this is the literal opposite of what pascal's wager actually wants to achieve.
As a mathematical physicists, I would like to make one comment about the mathematical view: the reason why math is so general is because it is essentialy the study of relations between concepts. The concepts (axioms) are entirely arbitrary to ones choice (such as the existence of i, it can only exist as an axiom), but, once you accept it, you may find how other results derive from it. As another clear example, once you accept Euclides axioms for geometry, it is a fact that Pythagoras theorem is True, no matter where you are in the universe or the time you are in. The real surprise, though, comes from the fact that, when applied to explaining the World, mathematical models give such a good description within a range that it is possible to measure, and that suxh description is somehow understandable to us (e.g newtonian mechanics). For those more interested, I recommend a paper called "the unreasonable effectiveness of math in rela world" (or something like that) by Wigner
I’m not smart enough to understand a word you just said but as a mathematical physicist (congrats on having an iq 3x as high as mine) would you agree that maths can prove God or be argued to show a God or not?
@@Jack-bi8mgin his comlent he states that math is subjective and requires certain assumptions. Therefore yes, god could be proven when the right axioms are chosen, even tho id have no idea how. But math's axioms are reasonable. The axioms required to prove a god might not be
@@Jack-bi8mg For such thing, you would have to give a very objective and non ambiguos definition of what God is (which is not only problematic, but I believe it can be a heresy according to some religious beliefs). Given such definition, you could in principle conceive a set of axioms to prove that the existence of this concept or theorem or whatever that you defined as God. Although I believe you would wish for such axiomatic system to not have contradiction, i.e, to be consistent, which is something that you unfortunately cannot prove if this is the case, this is due to Godel Incompleteness theorem, probably the most important result in mathematics proved in the last century. Yet, a very big problem still remains: you do not have any kind of clue whether or not such a system applies somehow to the World we live in, because we did not create the axioms of the reality that we live (you could argue that God did it, but that is an unfalsifiable statement, and therefore cannot be taken seriously in the search of really finding out about the truth) So, to sum it up, my answer is: depends on what you mean by God. If it is just an abstract well defined concept within an axiomatic set, then yes. But I also believe that you would wish to place that concept somehow in our living World, and, in which case, I would unfortunately have to say that this is just impossible inside any religious/transcendental concept of God that religions usually have, particularly the most influent religious in the West.
Also, if I may extend myself more than I already have, there were some historical events when famous mathematicians tried to define God in an axiomatic system. George Cantor, for instance, when dealing with set theory and was defyning the kinds of infinite (yes, there are more than just one infinite) related the greatest type of infinite (absolute infinity) to God.
I love the fact that you use meme language and simple explanations to explain old, complex ideas. I often watch these when I just need a simple reminder when I get too lost in the complex theological train of thought. Thank you for all of your videos!
the fact he uses meme language is one of my favorite things, because it makes it easier for a lot of people to understand. If he would be explaining theology in its default and complex form then most of his audience would probably not exist.
Just wanna point out the absolute banger "You see, it all started in the establishment of the first Russian state in 862" at 1:29 , a funny note to the Tucker/Putin interview
@@shooey-mcmoss I don't want to assume you actually think that his 30 minutes history lesson starting from the Kievan Rus was a valid reason to invade a non-aggressive independent country, so what did you mean by this comment?
@@failtolawl okay, I allow Biden to read some speech about democracy and freedom to explain aggression against Iraq for example Is he young enough for that?
@@shooey-mcmoss Who is talking about Biden? We are talking about Putin invading the Ukraine based on zero valid pretense and getting hundreds of thousands of young Russian and Ukrainians killed all for some allegedly unresolved incident back before the Mongol invasion.
@@maikv750Because something happened that caused the universe. The universe is known to not be eternal, ask any scientist and they will tell you the universe had a beginning. Thus its not eternal, but God is eternal, nothing caused him, he is unmovable etc. So nothing created God. Edit: “Time came the same moment the universe was created according to the theory of relativity.” Ok… eternal means to not have a beginning, since the universe had a beginning roughly 15 billion years ago, this means the universe has a beginning, whether that beginning also was the beginning of time doesn’t truly matter.
"Darwinian evolution can't explain the 4 constants of the universe" That's because Darwinian evolution is part of biology, not physics. It's also a bit of a misnomer to say darwinian evolution, as there is alot more to modern evolutionary biology than, just what Darwin contributed with
I mean that's correct, but you're missing the point. Evolution was brought up because the default example was biology, the comment that it didn't explain the constants wasn't a critisism of darwinian evolution, it was a segway into the stronger example. I don't agree with the Teleological argument by the way, or any of the arguments in this video, but this video really does a good job at just presenting them in an intelectually honest way without arguing they're correct, and I find nitpicking on a segway to be a little unfair, or at least you're missing the point.
Darwinian evolution can be applied to reality itself to counter the argument that the universe is intelligently designed bacouse of the fact that a signle value change in one of the 4 constents would make realty fall apart. Our reality survived and there for exists becouse others didnt.
This doesn’t really make sense because biology is just applied chemistry, which is applied physics. They’re not distinctly separate “branches” of science as you imply. Everything in science has to be consistent within the same paradigm, otherwise the entire paradigm needs to shift. That being said, physics has to be consistent with the laws of evolution (which it is). He was just saying that evolution can explain part of how the natural world operates, but not all of it. So you’re agreeing with him while phrasing it as a disagreement while also showing you know less about science.
For a bit of context on the Euler argument, e^i*x is a rotation of x radians (a more mathematical unit for angle [instead of degrees]) in the complex plane around 0. I don’t fully understand the proofs of this, but you can research them if you would like to know more. Pi radians is the equivalent of 180 degrees, and a 180 degree turn around the complex plane is -1. (This is obvious if you just visualise a 180 degree turn). Therefore e^(i*pi) = -1 and if you add 1 to both sides you get e^(i*pi) +1 = 0 The argument that this is proof for god is because this is a very beautiful equation due to its simplicity and bringing together all the nice numbers. However, you can break every part of this equation down to the fundamentals of maths and understand why it works this way, so it’s not really an inexplicable mystery as to why this equation is so beautiful and neat.
It's not a mystery as to HOW it's so beautiful, but it's still extraordinary that a system capable of making something so beautiful could exist in the first place
"I have experienced divine intervention" SOOOOOORCE? "I am standing before you now, basking in the audacity of your ignorance, instead of resting 6 ft below a tombstone in a child-shaped casket" yeah if my argumentation and speaking skills were even 1/32 as strong as my faith, I feel like there would be more Catholics running around, instead, The Lord keeps blessing me with the inherent martial prowess and poison resistance that comes from being Polish
Redeemed Zoomer was actually first discovered by zooming in on a Mandelbrot set infinitely to the point where it becomes impossible to deny the existence of God, and one is forced to accept Him as Savior and is thereby redeemed through zooming.
Numbers change = God :/ W H A T I S N T G O D T H E N That kind of reminds me of this TH-cam short where a mom points at the make up and middle inside cross-section of an eggplant to her daughter and says that you “can’t deny the existence of God” and that’s kind of what this is like, fractals appear E V E R Y where, even in eggplants, in vegetables like that weird broccoli, in flowers, trees, in non plant organisms and ect. Edit: I tried to make and write this so that it’s like I don’t have a side or option in this argument in this religion related stuff that definitely goes on in the comment sections..
I’m studying pure mathematics and it feels like you are missing the point that mathematics is just an abstract perspective on what we can learn given a set of rules. All math we come up with must be built upon axioms (rules) we have made from the start. The goal is to see how far we can go with them.
You are right, but the fact we have made it this far with the math we have discovered (or invented, take your pick) is really not something to take for granted. I don't believe in god but I can see why for some people, god acts as an explanation that ties everything together.
@@Quincy_Morriswhy not? I mean, axioms are just assumptions that we make that all of math can be derived from. They have been revised in the past. Also, there alternate rule sets that we can follow that generate totally different structures that also can be studied. To say that math was discovered implies that the axioms foundational to math are universal which is flat out wrong!
@@fctucycy8v8yvy67 I think a key word you used is "generate." Yes we choose and list our axioms, but the abstract structures that those axioms "generate" or apply to seem to have an independent existence whether or not we would have ever figured out their respective axioms. By listing our axioms, we are not creating the structures, they exist whether or not we do, we are simply "pointing" at a particular structure that we are interested in.
It's important to explain that Pascal's wager is not at all an argument. It can be a good thought experiment or a reason to dig deeper, but it's not at all an argument, especially since it's a false idcotomy.
Pascal doesn't so much neglect the other options as he has already considered them unreasonable by the time a person gets to the point of considering the wager.
@@acog_quarks8753 It's not meant as a final reason but as a bridge to true faith. "Endeavor then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured."
@@acog_quarks8753 Pascal also doesn't make that wager in a box. The wager is made only after one comes to believe that its at least a 50/50 chance that God is real.
Somehow, he doesn't understand such a simple concept himself. If God could exist because he does, why can't the universe? I can simply say that the universe doesn't have a cause and has always existed; what's the difference?
@@hopelesslyoptimistic8231 I think you can't make that claim because the universe obviously has a cause, has physics, and laws, that can't be explained reasonably. If there was an eternal, perfect, unmoved intelligent universe then you could make that claim i guess.
@@hopelesslyoptimistic8231 you are completely ignoring the statement he said at the end of the video. He isn't defending them or supporting those arguments, just giving you a summarized version of their argument.
@@ThomasDemonte-fb6jj My point is there could be an explanation for one thing that could exist without a cause. Perhaps the existence of such a thing is the cause of itself. There are plenty of other subjects that are beyond human thought processes, so the idea of something without a cause confuses us. There does not need to be a God for everything to exist, and all the “perfection” of your universe could be used and explained by trial and error. There could have been eons of failed universes, but we happen to live in a stable one
The problem with pascal's wager is their is a possibility the actual "god" disagrees with everything you believe in and knows your god is false cause it's the real god.
That wouldn't make sense though. If God is real you would expect all the other "false gods" to die out or at least have a minority of worshippers in the world, and that's exactly how it is regarding God (the Abrahamic God). Even Hinduism, which is polytheistic, has the concept of "the supreme reality, Brahman", which is the closest thing to God in that religion.
@@greg77389 The idea this comment proposes is that the “real god” doesn’t have an input in peoples beliefs, he exists but humanity has come to different conclusions on how he exists. He just watches and let’s us decide, and if he doesn’t like our decisions then you’ll got to hell
As an Atheist, the Consciousness argument definitely gets me thinking about the possibility of a world beyond the material. I doesn’t convince of any religion, but I gets me thinking.
consciousness remains some time in body after death... for some reason. so yea before either going to afterlife or disappearing you are alive in a dead body. this detachment of body and consciousness is pretty interesting and must be researched.
Funny because consciousness is the argument I dislike the most. There is no difference between us and animals. We just are more advanced. We function with our instincts and our desires. I am talking to you about an “abstract’ subject because I have a “data base” of knowledge in my brain, which connect to make ideas, and my desire is to share it with you. I don’t see how that’s so mystical or spiritual.
@@elali64 humans are animals, i rather saying non-human animals.. or simply aloteras. and the desire to share information is because knowledge sharing causes evolution.. so its instinctive aswell
@@jktech2117 Your brain is still active for a short while after death, there is still definitely a connection, just a near severed one on the brink of destruction
@@basic6735 just look for news, many people who have already passed the threshold of death and resuscitated on the hospital had some signs of consciousness during dead short period. whats the most interesting are the famous out of body experience where people could explain stuff that happened during this short period. could be just the remains of consciousness trying to interpret whats going on, but is hard to define since during death u cant see as much activity on the brain. i really do think people with high chance of death on surgeries should volunteer to a study about this, because if there is something more or at least understanding the foundations of the self and consciousness is important. until rn we dont know if the consciousness is destroyed or it just leak out of the body, or remain in the body and slowly breaks into pieces while the body rots and all the energy that make up the consciousness is dissipated to dirt turning us into billion pieces.
As an atheist, I've always been "turned off" by religious conversations because all of my friends who are Christian go towards "Because he just does exist", but they never mention anything scientific, nor if they believe Adam and Eve were the first human, if Mary is a Virgin and if that's possible, etc. However, with the Telelogical argument, I feel I could have an amazing convo with someone irl. Thanks redeemed zoomer!
I just chum it up too he exists and be on my merry way. Because when any atheist wants an argument, they just get bent out of shape. The best interaction I have found is having none at all. Better than having pure vitriol spewed at you. Nope, had enough of that in my younger years.
I think the main problem with it is, in general out of all the analogies, the thing (watch, painting, building, etc.) that is too complex to have come out of nothing or by chance should therefore be made by a designer namely humans and since humans are complex they must have also been made by a designer namely God. But then, wouldn't that make God complex too? Who is God's creator? From there, you can think of many ways to reason out. - It just stops with God cause why not he's God? - God is not complex, hmmm he is simple? I'm too dumb for this everything is just a dead end not to mention if there was an actual good reason, why would it specifically be the Christian god out of all the many many gods?
@@cagedgandalf3472 exactly, a lot of the arguments in the video rely on some assumptions that contradict the normally theological perspective. If god is the creator of the first thing to be created he did not create himself and cannot create himself therefore is he not all powerful? If god is the embodiment of power itself that is barely a god to worship and more a philosophical concept without any real presence.
There’s probably an infinite number of beautiful mathematical concepts he could of brought up. None of them would be an adequate proof of the existence of a god.
@@ryanc970 It’s true, maths being beautiful doesn’t prove gods existence. Maths is beautiful because it consists of a web of interconnected logic. You can attribute it to being the creation of your god, but it is not proof that they exist. We lack knowledge outside of the universe to say definitively that a godless universe cannot have beautiful math.
The constant “i” does have uses in real world mathematics, mostly in physics. Modern mathematicians dislike the fact that they are referred to as imaginary because of this. However, that isn’t to say there aren’t fields of mathematics that don’t apply to the real world. There certainly are, and they are typically referred to as “pure mathematics.” In my opinion, this probably stems more from math’s infinite nature rather than an intelligent designer. Rant over
The mathematical argument is literally using a deity to fill up gaps in understanding. "This seems too perfect to be caused by anything we currently know, therefore it's Gods work". Same with the cosmological one: "We don't know how time or causality works beyond our universe, therefore God just made everything".
Also the word deity is related to polytheism and means a created god God by definition is uncreated also it isn‘t filling a gap in our knowledge we know that everything has a begining and the begining must be god because then we devolve into to the pointless question of yes but what happened before that
In electrical engineering, using irrational numbers is essential, and also applied to the real world in terms of circuits and their behaviour (inductors, capacitors and phasors).
@@Kioley123 hurting your own species when theres no apparent reason is bad for the survival of the species. So due to evolution its mostly discouraged since well reproduction is the instincutal endgame for any organism and taking away that potential endgame for no reason is bad for the survival of your own species
As an Atheist, I appreciate this video because it shows me what christians have been trying to tell me but couldn’t. I am grateful for seeing this because it made me understand the world better and the people who don’t share the same ideals or logic as me.
@@matheuscabral9618I can't speak for the poster, but most of these arguments can be reduced to arguments from incredulity. "How can evolution create something as complicated as modern cells?" "How can math make an infinite pattern and go so far without being tied to reality?" "How can consciousness be created from non-conscious atoms?" All of the ones I quoted are essentially saying "I don't know the answer to this question, so God explains it." While it's not definitively incorrect, it's fallacious and I ultimately don't currently buy into reasoning of this nature. Also, if you ask an atheist any of these questions they'll likely just admit they don't know, which is a more honest and powerful answer than it's given credit for.
@@matheuscabral9618 Because religion is also a feeling, and if it isn’t genuine then I can’t say I believe in God. I never fully did believe in him no matter how hard others tried, I never felt connected. Then after realising that the bible goes against basic science that was the point I became an atheist. Even with the arguments about how you need something infinite to make our universe, that can be also said about the Big Bang which is the scientific answer. So it is hard to argue for God with me when he can be replaced with a scientifically accurate phenomenon. The math one doesn’t hold for me either because math also says that there are 25% chances we live in a simulation and so much less than 1% that God exists. (25% is less than 50.(1)% so I don’t believe in that either) For morals I don’t believe morals can be fully objective. There is always an element of subjectivity in it, even in the morals of “as long as nobody is or will be hurt then it is ok”. Because that is based on the fact that we don’t like to be hurt which can be a subjective thing because hurt isn’t universally hated, just mostly hate, some people like hurt, there are even kinks about that. Or people who are ok with some hurt because they don’t think that some hurt is a big fuzz (when applied to themselves as well, not just others). So this means even the most common and sensible moral basis is still subjective. And being religious outside of needing faith in something non-observable from a source that as far as I am concerned is also unreliable, it needs spirituality, and I am not spiritual at all. So I can’t believe in God because I don’t feel spiritually connected to anything, and whenever I see spiritual stuff (which religiousness ≠ spirituality), I always feel like it is a waste of time because it’s better to just be honest and reflect than make stuff up to help reflect. So this is why I don’t believe in God despite seeing this video. I can’t connect to it, I disagree with some of the premises used for the arguments in the video and when that isn’t the case there is always a more on point scientific explanation that goes against that. And because of the lack of spirituality within me I am not open to the idea of god no matter what. If I can’t connect with it, then I can’t say that I believe in it.
@@andreimircea2254 ok fair enough, I still think continuousness and theological are way beyond anything science could ever explain, and the chance of everything just happening by chance would be crazy, but I appreciate you took the time to write that
@@quadrewplex6782 Well said. Sometimes we just don’t know, and it’s okay and it doesn’t mean anything unless there is proof that it does. For instance, IDK why cells can form something so complex, but I know that trough evolution they do. The rest is above me.
@@dankrigby5621 Yeah, basically. It's the idea that if you vomit words so much that people cant keep track of what you're saying, and ideally just accept your argument because you push so many words and give 0 room for thinking. Its a favorite Apologist live debate strat, but it usually gets shut down by moderators because it's overtly fallacious.
IF YOU CAN NOT COVINCE THEM THEN CONFUSE THEM HERE ARE SOME ARGUMENT AGAINST HIS MATHS PROOF I COULD SAY THAT TOA IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PI WHAT HE SPOKE IN NAME OF EULER IDENTITY WAS UTTER BULLSHIT HE DOES EVEN KNOW HOW EULER IDENTITY WAS FORMED HUMANS (WHO MADE MATHS IN WRITTEN FORM) GENERALLY TRY TO MAKE THINGS SIMPLE EULER IDENTITY ORK BECAUSE THE COODINATE SYSMTEM WAS DEFINED IN SUCH A WAY ETC
Since you wanted to give everyone a brief overview of these arguments so they can look into them on their own, allow me to provide brief rebuttals so everyone can look into those too. 1. Teleological - "Seems to have" is not an argument, and in order to claim that the constants have been fine-tuned, you need to know two things: how many values the constant could have had, and the odds of those values occurring. For example, we know that the odds of rolling a six-sided die and getting a four are 1:6. We know this because we know how many sides there are (6), and we know the values of those sides (1,2,3,4,5,6). To say that the gravitational constant was fine tuned, you need to know how many sides that dice had, and the values on each side. Did it have a 1 in 1000000000 chance of being what it is? Or 1 in 1000? What about 1 in 50? Could it be that the gravitational constant could only ever have one value, which means it was 100% certain that it would we what it is? I don't know. No one knows. And BECAUSE no one knows, there is no justification for claiming that anything has been fine-tuned. Also, evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth. Given that the gravitational constant is not a form of life, OF COURSE evolution doesn't explain it. Evolution has nothing to do with it. That's not a problem any more than my printer not making me waffles is a problem. The purpose of a printer is to print. The purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain the diversity of life. 2. Pascal's Wager - Maybe a god exists that rewards atheists with cupcakes and sends a Christian boys named Thomas to hell, which is a completely dry waterpark. Maybe a god exists that sends EVERYONE to heaven because he's not a maniac. Maybe the ancient Norse gods are real, and modern day theists are in for a rude awakening when they die. There are an infinite number of possible Gods, possible Heavens, possible Hells, and possible reasons for going to any of them. Believers are not mathematically safer than anyone else. Pascal's Wager also assumes that God doesn't dinstinguish between true believers and "Just covering my ass" believers. 3. Cosmological - Everything has a cause except this thing that doesn't have a cause. It's self-contradictory on its face. The moment you allow for ONE thing that can exist without a beginning, you've opened the door for any number of things existing without a beginning. And I can provide two options that require fewer assumptions than God: the universe, and existence. It also assumes that causality predates time as it exists today. Since causality is a function of time as it exists today, and time as it exists today is the result of the Big Bang, it's absurd to assume that causality applies *before* the Big Bang, or if there even *was* a "before" at all. The Cosmological argument is an attempt to dumb down an enormously complex question. The tools we have for explaining why the universe is the way it is work wonderfully until you hit the Big Bang, at which point they become useless, like a compass at the North Pole. That doesn't mean the answer is "God did it." It means "We don't know yet, but we're working on it." 4. Morality - "If we want to say that something is objectively bad, we need a God to justify that, therefor God exists"? This isn't even an argument. It doesn't demonstrate that objective morality (and therefor God) actually exists - it only says that IF objective morality exists, it must come from a God. Until that "IF" can be proven true, this is a big pile of nothing. 5. Ontological - Do me a favor. Go look up the logical syllogism form of this argument, replace every instance of "God" with "He-man," then tell me how the argument *doesn't* prove the existence of He-man. The Ontological argument is an attempt to define God into existence, and unfortunately for God, that's not how existence works. 6. Transcendental Argument - "Science needs axioms" says the theist while wearing their fancy "God Exists" axiom hat. We both rely on baseline assumptions. The difference is we can test our assumptions. Theists can't. 7. Consciousness - Has only ever been observed in living things with functioning brains. We know that altering a brain can alter consciousness; we know that damaging a brain can damage consciousness; and we know that destroying a brain destroys consciousness. If one wants to posit the existence of some hidden explanatory mechanic, they need to pony up the evidence. 8. Mathematics - The reason math still works is because **math is manmade**. It is a tool that we created to help explain the world around us. There's nothing surprising here.
I really can’t take this comment seriously, it just OOZES “take that!” Energy. The amount of spite in these ‘brief’ rebuttals is palpable. Take a quick note, you’re not fighting a war on theism. You’re discussing philosophical arguments on the internet, and most of these debates can’t reach an answer. If you really cared to discuss these topics earnestly, I’m sure you wouldn’t format these topics to be as mean-spirited as possible towards a specific group of people. If I believed in any sort of god, you sure as hell wouldn’t convince me of anything
@@kitchen_sponge First off, I'm a big fan of the scare quotes around "brief." It's a good way to let the viewers of this 10+ minute video that an extra 90 seconds of reading is just plain unreasonable. The only thing I'm waging a war on is bad arguments. People believing in God doesn't bother me, but people trying to dress that belief up in big boy clothes and insist that they should get to sit at the adult table this Thanksgiving do. The only group of people I'm attacking here are those putting high heels on their arguments and insisting that they're tall.
I agree, and i have a bit more to see about the responses saying "We don't know". "We don't know" is a perfectly valid response. But an even better one (imo) is "We don't know YET". 2500 years ago, we had no way to explain how waves existed and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later, so they had to explain it with god. Now, physics has an answer with fluid equations and physics. 500 years ago, we had no idea how life appeared, and how there were so many different forms of life and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later, so they had to explain it with god. Now, with evolution, science has an answer too. 100 years ago, we had no way to explain how life appeared from earth and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later, so they had to explain it with god. Now, we still don't have a perfect answer, but we start to understand how. (Do you start to see the pattern ?) 100 years ago, we also had no way to explain how the universe formed and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later. So they had to explain it with god. Now, the big-bang kinda explains it (but not fully). Right now, we have no way of explaining how conciousness exists and we can't imagine that we will have an answer later, so "we have to explain it with god". But how can we be so sure that for this, we won't have an answer in 50, 100 or even 500 years ? Why would we do the same mistakes thinking that now, for conciousness, we will never have an answer and continue to explain it with god ?
I think one of the best arguments for God's existence is the fine-tuning of the universe Edit: Wow, this is the most likes I have ever gotten, thanks guys
@@denkillen suppose 50 universes with different random laws of physics and one of them happens to be able to support life this would seem like fine-tuning to the creatures but be a product of random outcome
@@roode2123 1) the multiverse hypothesis is literal science fiction with no evidence whatsoever 2) if you still want to argue the multiverse hypothesis, this does not actually refute the fine tuning argument since it just pushing the question back as the "universe generator" that is producing these infinite universes must be even more fine tuned to do what it does
@@astralite8769 they've all been debunked and most debunked five minutes after they were dreamed up. why do people who claim to have god by their side 24/7 feel the need to be reassured constantly that their talking snake cult isn't silly? i've been atheist all my life, never needed an apologist to reassure me people die and stay dead and that all gods are mythology.
Not hating, just stating my opinion. Correct me if i'm wrong: Argument 1: Not understanding things that happen already was evidence for god in the middle age. Assuming something cant happen naturally and blaming it on god is mostly the lack of knowledge about what ist happening. Its also an individual emotional experience which cannot be used as an rational argument. Storys from people who died because saying they saw what christ did might seem convincing, because people wouldnt die for made up things. But these storys are 2000 years old and could easyly have been altered over time. Argument 2: Objective Moral is actually not real. We as a society have the illusion of an objective moral. It is actually a collective subjective moral, because we as human beeings and a society have the same interests, which lead to a enjoyable human life. That is the reason why we all say killing ist bad as example. Objectively right and wrong dont exist, because for moral to exist wee need individual conciousnesses, which all perceive right and wrong in another way. Seeing 8 Billion Individuals perceive the same things as good and bad, leads to an illusion of objective moral. Argument 3: This argument is known in philosophy as the "prima causa" (the first cause). It is undenyable that everything has to have a cause so there needs to be a first cause of everything. The only thing we know about it is that it exists or existed. It has to either be its own cause or have existed forever. Thats the philosophical god. But two things we need to think about here: firstly, the prima causa does not have to exist today. It just needed to cause everything. After the Existence of something had started, the prima causa could have stopped existing, because other things existed which could be causes for other things. And secondly, the prima causa does not have to be a god like we think about, it doesnt even have to be concious. It could just be a physical force or a cosmic event. So yeah, there is a cause, but as I just explained, it does not have to be a god. And also the common question: If it is god, which one? Which religion is true? Argument 4: Pascals Wager has no meaning because anything could be put in there. If we replace god with the flying spagetthi monster, everyone would have to believe in it after his logic. Or what if we put in a god that punishes people for believing and rewards them for not believing? My point is that this argument loses credibility, because Pascals wager can be used on everything and therefore have contradictional outcomes. Argument 5: Darwinism is not the entirety of biological knowledge. With the synthetical theory the existence of complex biological systems can be explained and proved. With experiments we can even recreate the emergence of life from non alive matter. And the physical constantes: In order to be a human being that is able to measure that these constantes are fine tuned, they firstly need to be. In all the billions of possible existences where they are not fine tuned, no one would be there to notice. The chances are still horrendously low, but the finde tuned physical constantes can only be noticed if they are perfect. Argument 6: It is a thought experiment that cannot be proven. Also it is very theoretical and hypothetical but very interesting. Argument 7: It is assumed that everything has to make sense. But that is not true. Existence and Things can be a product of senseless randomness. Might sound weird but The Sense of things isnt a thing that is objectively there, but gets made up in our minds. Argument 8: Conciousness is still a scientifical problem but can be explained. There are different parts in our brains, which are responsible for different tasks. Some controll the non concious vegetative nervous system which controlls heart,bloodflow, digestion, etc. . Other parts make up our personality and Conciousness. When these parts are destroyed the person is no longer an individual and could be called dead, but the vegetative brain parts are still working so the heart is beating, the lungs are breathing etc. . Conciousness in the product of complex neuronal networks which isnt completely understood. But it is dependent on the physical structure of the brain. Digital neuronal networks in AI's might get very interestic for science once we can create strong AI's, not like ChatGPT, which are concious. Argument 9: The seeming perfection of math can be described with the fine tuned physics explained earlier. If math would not be that perfect, we would not exist. That is because math is based on observations of the universe. Imaginary numbers and non-world-related math are also just theoretical and therefore cannot be projected on a practical world. Argument 10: "Trust me bro." Sorry i cannot debunk that, too strong I dont mean this comment in any anti theological way, im just writing what I think about these arguments. I cannot prove that god exists, neither can I prove that he does not. Overall I think that religion is a beautiful thing, which helps people deal with fear and live better lives, wether it is real or not. Maybe god is just a societal concept that lives from the believe in it. No matter what, believing is a great help for people, and gives us moral instances. As I said, I like religion (except if its destructive) and dont want to hate on it. Thank you all for reading this book i wrote here and have a great day!
Amazing comment! I thought a lot of the same things as you while watching and you even surprised me with some stuff I hadn’t realised. The only thing I might say is that imaginary numbers despite their poor choice of name, do describe physical phenomena in our universe. This means they’re not as abstract as they might sound
1. Cosmos only explains Big Bang, not the existence of god. 2. Morals are made by humans and have been changing by the pass of the history, we used to sacrifice childrens to god but that's now considered bad and heretical, so it is not a value to consider if god exists or not. 3. Theology was made by humans, the bible is a human construction, why bible should be more important than any other relgious text? Who say your god is real? What if we're all wong? Because at the end god is a human creation to explain the history and how the world works. (Just read sumerian tales written about the kings and you will find great simmilities with the bible, like the origin of Mosses and more) 4. How do you know there is a god and not a godess? How do you know is not different deities having different works? You can't, because there is nothing that proves the existence of god but there is millions of tests that prove the evolution, big bang, and multiple other things. 5. The personal experience argument as the previous point it breaks by themselves, i can say Goku is the real god and Toriyama just made it to gave him a representation we all can see, and he died after see the degeneration of humanity. And no, this won't work, if i say i saw goku and he took me flying over the sky and you have to believe me because is my personal experience... Bad. 6. The pascal wager only contemplates one kind of god, what if there is a god who doesn't need of praying? And just want us to improve our world and society? What if you go to hell because that god doesn't like how instead of do his work (end with poverty, fight inequalities) there are their "servitors" who istead of help the world they just try to convert people into their fake religion? While the real god is against that... What about this? 7. No, all of this makes sense with or without god, there is no need of a god to make science work, this is why science exists and humans abandoned Theology to explain the world. Otherwise we would still thinking it rains because god says so, or because is sad, or because we sacrified our childrens, and we know why it rains, because the condensation of the air, bla bla bla... 8. Sir, our minds are creation of the nature, all what we think is because or origins. Why do you think fats and sugar are so good for our brain? Why you think people likes it so much? Because fats were incredible good for us when we started to explore and expand, because it helped us to move for longer, why do you think we are two-foot creatures? Because energetically talking is more efficient, and why we love sugar? Because is HARD to find in Nature... ALL we are, ALL we think, ALL we believe, is explained looking at our past, why humans don't marry with their family? Because genetically talking that would lead to worse childrens, by consequence daughters were exchanged between the primitival people to increase the numbers of humans with more diverse genes, making they better at running, carrying, etc. All animals cooperate to survive, monkeys make chains to transport fruit, birds warn each other about predators, etc. And humans feed each other to survive for longer, but animals do it too, all our brain is what it is because of dozens of thousands of years of evolution since the firsts humans to today. Why people wants to fly? Because humans never have been able to look whats behind the clouds. Why people fear darkness? Because at night predators can hunt us, etc... 9. Sir, maths works because maths explains how the existence works, at difference of your god you can ask for rain and will not produce rain, because there is an alternative explaination with REALLY explains why it rains, the same happens with math, this is just sad how you try use math at your favor when is more at the contrary, it all works not because god, but because maths is an excellent system to explain our world, but is not new, it always existed, the thing is we're expanding those knowledge thanks to discard the believe to god. 10. There is not a single evidence of the existence of god, is not about arguments, is about PROVE it is exists, for now it has been proved through math and science it doesn't exist, and if it does, is not so powerfull or is not so good. Or is a weak god who only supervises what the people do or is a maniac who love to see pain and suffering, also, we don't know if there is a god or multiple ones, if they're good and bad or just bad or just good, or if they're male, female, or both... At the end of the day the believers can't prove god exists, that's why they're BELIEVERS, because they see the world, they see god doesn't exist on it, but they still choose to BELIEVE "Just in case". This video is excellent to show up why religious people can't prove the existence of god and instead of that they just choose to create weak "arguments" that can't take a logical observation. I studied theology for more than a decade, i was about to be a priest, all i seen in the clergy was all the opposite is on the bible. I never found god or anything like that, a part of me stills being a bit religious, but we must accept god doesn't exist until is proven, because who says our Christian god is the real god? Who? What if they're other gods? What if we're been wrong and the real gods are the roman ones? There is no way to know, and if you dedicate your life to a wrong god maybe you go to hell anyways, so this is more like: Exists a one or multiple gods? Yes - No You believe on it? Yes - No If a god exists: You believe in the wrong one and you go to hell because of it - Nothing happens because once the deities have been revealed you're not late to pray to they If a god doesn't exist: You just wasted your life and did nothing to improve this world, only skinking it more into the abyss, condemning the whole civilization to pain, death and suffering in exchange of things - You improved the society by seeking alternatives to "god will provide" and probably you fighted poverty and inequality, improving this world. We all can make these manipulative charts, this chart i made is not even realistic, is just to show we all can do the same. The only realistic thing of my chart that yours doesn't have is the consideration of multiple deities and the consideration of make they angry if you believe in the wrong one. So is all especulation, the only thing proved is we can explain everything in our minds, world and universe without the need of a god, and by consequence it doesn't exists until somebody can prove it.
The biggest issue about the moral argument is that morals *are* subjective. While it would be difficult to find someone who thinks something like cannibalism is good in more modern cultures, you don't have to go that far back into history to find an account, like mummia. The Iliad contains Odysseus beating an ugly person up because he spoke out because Odysseus was the hero and it was morally good at the time.
i think the moral argument can just be debunked by evolution. Why don't most animals reproduce with family. Because inbreeding produces inferior offspring. Why don't most animals cannibalise. because the survival of the species is beneficial to reproduction. Everything mainly focuses on reproduction. You could call reproduction a god heh. Of course theres always going to be outliers.
Refreshing to see arguments for god portrayed in a calm, humorous and yet still logical way Im atheist, and have my rebutals, but i can tell youre a good hearted person who is doing a good job at relaying very important arguments and discussions, keep it up!
Rebuttals please! My theological curiosity will not be sated if I don't get them. Really tho. I am curious about how to argue against these, which can inturn improve the arguments by finding a way that works
@@troydunnage6749 one rebuttal i would have is, for example, the teleological argument. It is fundementally based on human bias, not a universal truth. The claim that most things in the universe display a purpose is generally incorrect. Only about 0.0001% of observable things appear to show "purpose." And is it much coincidence that most things that show purpose are those around and similar to us? As humans, we generally like classifying and deciding how things should work, so when we see things like ecosystems and organisms functioning, it is only natual to assume they must have been intended to be this way, but they only "work" in the way we humans have decided is working. (That is, the assumption that things maintaining their status quo is generally good.) Most of these things that do allegedly "function" simply do so because they're stable, able to perpetuate themselves further, which is what the law/theory of evolution would dictate would happen with or without a god.
@troydunnage6749 Ill try my best, but im not sure if OP agrees with that I'd say. Evidential: This is a case by case one, you can just look at different sources and whatnot to refute this argument as required. Moral: Morality is a complicated subject, why it exists is explained by our modern understanding of evolution and how "moral" humans would be selected for since our species is a social one. Morality has to be assumed as an objective truth for this argument to work, when it isnt, in most religions you can easily point out how their own morals are ever changing, if this isnt enough then we could easily explain morals away through rational thought. Morality is also case by case too, "is it ok to kill babies? No? What if that baby caused WWII? Still no?", etc. Cosmological: This one is also based off of an assertion with no proof of its validity. Why cant all things be caused by other things? Why does there have to be a first cause? What does a first cause mean if time didnt exist? If a first cause does have to exist, and it can and did exist, why would it be a god? It could just be a particle with 0 consciousness, it can be a single noodle with no will, it could be anything. Why god specifically? Why pick god over say a turtle? Pascal's wager: Its absolutely wrong, this is rhe easiest to disprove so instead of recounting everything from memory and doing a botched job of disproving it I'd HIGHLY recommend a channel called TheraminTrees and their famous video on Pascals Wager. Theological: Also very easy to debunk. Lets start with fine tuning, if things were different we wouldnt exist, so things must be the way they are for us to make the observation that they are the way they are, and this also assumes that the constants CAN change, it also assumes that these constants are the only way to "construct" a universe, it also assumes that theres a chance factor if god didnt exist. All baseless claims, without any tangible proof. As for cells acting like machines, evolution can explain it, this requires basic understanding of biology. Ontological: These are human definitions of "greater than", why is existing greater than not existing? Why is bigger better than smaller? Etc etc. Also, theres so many different paradoxes that follow the assumption of a All knowing all powerful and all good god. Simple one being: God is all knowing, he knows what you will do, you have no free will, and then you go to hell in some religions, but you had no choice, god could change that due to his infinite power, but he doesnt, so god cant be all good? Or he cant be all knowing? Or he doesnt have the power thus cant be all Powerful? Badly explained but hopefully you get the gist. Experience: I dont think i have to explain this, countless times has it been proven that personal experience is not reliable, society would collapse if we went off of persinal unsubstantiated experience. Transcendental: This one is so nonsensical, you assume a worldview where god exists, but where's the basis in that view? Everything still crumbles from the ground up? This is the god of the gaps but fancier. Consciousness: An emergent property is a property of a group/thing that cannot be found in any individual part of the said group/thing. This argument is founded on ignorance. A single ant is worthless, yet get enough together and you have a colony. A Motherboard itself is worthless, combine it with different parts of a computer and suddenly you can play fortnite. This one needs basic thought and reasoning to disprove. Mathematics: This one is built upon misunderstandings and presumptions. Imaginary numbers are real, they're jsut badly named. Finding complexity in maths to prove god is stupid, why does the mandelbrot set require god to exist? It assumes that god created so it can say that it cant exist without a god. This is a circular argument? Euler's discovery is incredible indeed, he was brilliant, but it does not mean god exists, just because he discovered an equation does not mean a god exists. Why does math require god to exist? No idea why this presumption was made. Maybe someone can shed more light on this, its my first time seeing this argument. And thats all.
@@troydunnage6749 I actually posted my rebuttals in the main comments, but I'll post them here so you can examen them as you please. Firstly, this argument is weak as a "supernatural event" isn't at all well documented, nor is at all a good idea to rely on random miracles happening in profession of a faith. Yes strange things may happen, but in relation of a faith is cherry picking a coincidence at best. Now, I just want to be logical with this to be unbiased. However, I do want to note that there has been no evidence by the Romans of Jesus' resurrection, and with an event of that magnitude, it seems suspicious at best again. Again, people dying for their faith isn't a crazy weird thing only with Christianity. Just look at cults. Second, very weak argument; not sure why he put it in. It's a baseless claim. Objective morality is not real. However, human nature is. We see murder as bad in most of us because we were evolved to need each other to prosper as a society. If we were hard wired with pure subjective morality then we wouldn't be where we are today. I recommend looking into Game Theory if you're interested. Third, this is an interesting one. Everything has a cause as per the axiom of causality. However, we're tracing it back to the big bang times. Where all our current understanding of time and causality breaks down. To say that the only solution of a universe is due to God because everything has a cause is disingenuous as most our instruments break down around this time, so we cannot accurately pertain an answer as to what may happen. Further note, a "first cause" does indeed break an axiom of causality, so a God being a "first cause" would break science as we know it. Where as with science, we may see an extension of this axiom instead. The comments about actualizing a potential is just an extension of causality; not sure why he brought it up to be honest. Fourth, I really hope I don't have to explain why this is wrong. I am anyway, but never use this an argument. A major issue is that this relies on fear and punishment rather than an actual faith. Is faith real if you're being held at gun point? ie, would you truly love your parents if you know that result of not loving them would be getting slapped eternally. An extension of pascal's wager is also to believe in the worst god because the worst god will have the most damning punishment, hence it reduces suffrage. Another issue is that it can be applied to literally anything. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Nazi's. Just a terrible argument indeed. Fifth, there are many routes with this one. Firstly, this is built on a baseless claim of "purpose". To believe this argument would to be believe the universe has purpose, and from a completely logical standpoint, it has none. Now with items such as our cell, it does have a purpose. The purpose is to keep us alive to breed, hence why we have evolved complex systems for thousands of years. I'm not sure on his argument that the ecosystem works as a machine. It can be explained. Again, not by Darwin but by Game Theory. Research it if you're interested. It explains the most curious facet of nature to date, collaboration. The point with the forces seems logical, however, it is not. If you were to look at the universe as it has been made for 14 billions years with such forces then applied different ones, of course it will collapse. However, if you were to alter those constants then let the universe run its course, it'd look plenty different. My point is, you can't suddenly change a varible and say it's evidence. Another point to this that we don't know why these constants are. So to try and explain this is bad practice. Six, this isn't an argument? It's just making a definition and saying it must be true because this is a definition. The pizza analogy doesn't work because the perfect pizza wouldn't be an infinitely large slice, unless your subjective opinion is to have one be that way, but most probably it's the one that tastes the best. Seven, never base logic on just "experience that you think you saw". I cannot technically disprove this with argument because Seven isn't even an argument. It's a claim that people think they see God. Eight, this one actually is my personal favorite as it did make me think for a moment. These logical pillars are true to the universe. Logic, continuity, truth, and with which we can build other bricks out of. However, we can prove pillars from other pillars. We can observe logic and continuity and build truth. We can observe truth and logic and form continuity that are consistent. (This does delve into the realm of meta physics a tad). However, God doesn't fit with these pillars. There is nothing about logic that has to observe God existing. Even if these pillars could not be observed true, they can still be held as axiomatic. Logic should be consistent, and then we build bricks from there. If you're wondering, well what would be the case if we found that logic wasn't consistent, then we'd most likely have to rebuild foundations for further science, however keep current ones as "good enough" answers to old. An example of this is Classical Newtonian Mechanics getting replaced with Einstein's theories, but we still use Newtonian mechanics for simple, old problems. Nine, perhaps the worse argument here. His point was, well an atom isn't consciousness. Nor is two atoms. Nor is three. Thus consciousness has to be God's work. Large issue with this. It's what's know as fallacy of composition. How the parts must equal the whole. The atom itself wouldn't be consciousness, but the interact thereof. Think of a car. Well an atom isn't a car. Nor is two. Nor is three. Hence a car must be God's work. Well no, we know it's interaction of complex systems that form into this beautiful work of man. Lastly, the math one is also weak. Humans created math to explain nature. A beautiful formula such as Euler's Identity doesn't prove the work of God. However, it does prove that logical axioms in math hold up because it is a natural sequence and the Euler's Identity can be proven. Math is much like a work of art. It fits together, and when stepped back from, it completes itself. However, we know that work of art is made by man explaining facets of life. This does not mean the art is God. The point with infinity also can be disproven with the same logical as before, and even more so as if I were to make an infinite series that doesn't mean I'm God. The technical last point is a joke so I won't comment on it. It took me a while to write
I personally find half of these outright unconvincing or disingenuous, however I think the mind, ontological, and cosmological arguments are compelling and look forward to reading more about them. Good video btw
For the ontological argument, there is no reason to assume that being “greater” is something universal. E.g. there is no reason to say why existing is objectively better than not existing, or that being eternal is better than having a start and an end. Therefore there is no reason to say that a greatest being must necessarily exist.
@@immoloiser6134 So that was my first thought, but I have seen some rephrase it that it's better than *just existing in the mind alone.* Though it still kinda comes back to presuming existing in multiple states is inherently "greater." It's interesting to think about
I don’t find the cosmological argument to be very compelling. The argument seems to imply that something must have always existed without cause. This could be God, but it could also be energy itself. We can trace our universe back to a time when only energy existed in a dense, singular point. We also know from observation that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so it is sensible to think that energy could be uncaused. The question of “what came first” is a hard one to answer, but why answer it with God, something we don’t know exists, instead of answering it with energy, something we do know exists. The creator of this video just asserts that the first uncaused thing must be all powerful and outside of the natural world, but this need not be true. God existing within the supernatural world doesn’t mean something outside of the supernatural world needs to have caused him, so why would something that exists in nature need a cause beyond nature. These are unfounded assertions meant to lead you away from naturalistic explanations.
And you're Lutheran just because that's the religion you were taught to believe as a child? (I don't know you, but that's certainly the overwhelming pattern of religious belief, worldwide. If you'd been born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a devout Muslim now, don't you think?) So, if you care about the truth, maybe you should watch videos from people who disagree with you. I'd recommend Paulogia, a former Christian. But I hope you at least _talk_ to us atheists, occasionally. I regularly watch videos from Christians, Muslims, religious Jews, etc. I have yet to hear any good evidence that a god is real, but I still like to talk to intelligent people who disagree with me about religion.
@@paldennorbu8808 _"Find an apologist, they know best, excepting clergymen"_ The only people who run away _faster_ from a conversation with an atheist than apologists are clergymen. That's been _my_ experience, at least. If you know of a religious apologist _or_ a clergyman who is willing to have a conversation, a back-and-forth discussion, with an atheist, please send them my way. But in my experience, as soon as I ask them for one piece of good evidence - just *one* - religious apologists (Christian and Muslim alike) run for the hills. And it doesn't usually take a pastor even _that_ long to run away. (I've had a good conversation with a Christian philosophy professor, but even that was extraordinarily rare. And he didn't even _attempt_ to defend Christianity. But he had some wild arguments for a generic god I'd never heard before - not at all persuasive, but interesting. So I enjoyed our discussion, and he said that he did, too. I still hear from him, occasionally.)
There is an argument that was really compelling during my conversion and that I would like to add to this. French Mathematician and Philosopher Blaise Pascal said "There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of each man which cannot be satisfied by any created thing but only by God the Creator..." The structure for religion is within all of us. If we don't fill that with God, we'll fill it with something else, but the structure is the same. It involves some kind of salvation, hell, and saints, as figures that illustrate different aspects of greatness. Many make their careers, hobbies, relationships, or worse, vices, into their quasi-religion, with precisely those characteristics. But those can never lead to proper fulfillment. As for me, I spent a long time trying to find a replacement for religion before I decided to look into the real thing. And then, as Chesterton said, after going around the world, I found that home was right there beside me, all along (having been baptized early and schooled in Catholic schools). Edit: For some reason, TH-cam isn't registering my replies to the people below, so here's how I'd expand on the topic There is overwhelming evidence for a "God-shaped hole" throughout history. Every great civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece, from Rome to modern day America, has had God(s) and religion at the core of its social structure. And when religion started to decline in mainstream thought, Nietzsche - an atheist - claimed that God was dead, and that we had killed him. And then he tells us to beware of what we would replace Him with. Now, we don't replace something (or someone) unless there's an inherent need for it in the first place. But look, you don't have to agree with me, naturally. I'm more than fine with having great philosophers in Pascal and Nieztsche and every great civilization in history by my side in this argument. I hope you eventually find God!
1) how do you know other avenues can't lead to fulfillment, you got evidence? 2) how do you figure out which religion is true. They could all fill the void, but they can't all be correct.
The argument for a god-shaped hole in us has overwhelming evidence in its favor out there. Every civilization, from mesopotamia to ancient Greeks, from Romans to modern states have had religion as part of its social structure. And once religion was in decline, Nietzsche claimed that we had killed God... But more importantly, he then asked: and what shall we put in Its place? You only need to replace something if there's an inherent need for it in the first place. Thence a god-shaped hole. But hey, if you're not convinced, that's fine. Many great philosophers and every great civilization before you have been, and that's more than enough for me.
@@PvlmVIsHere There is overwhelming evidence for a "God-shaped hole" throughout history. Every great civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece, from Rome to modern day America, has had God(s) and religion at the core of its social structure. And when religion started to decline in mainstream thought, Nietzsche - an atheist - claimed that God was dead, and that we had killed him. And then he tells us to beware of what we would replace Him with. Now, we don't replace something (or someone) unless there's an inherent need for it in the first place. But look, you don't have to agree with me, naturally. I'm more than fine with having great philosophers in Pascal and Nieztsche and every great civilization in history by my side in this argument. I hope you find God eventually!
@PvlmVIsHere There is overwhelming evidence for a "God-shaped hole" throughout history. Every great civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece, from Rome to modern day America, has had God(s) and religion at the core of its social structure. And when religion started to decline in mainstream thought, Nietzsche - an atheist - claimed that God was dead, and that we had killed him. And then he tells us to beware of what we would replace Him with. Now, we don't replace something (or someone) unless there's an inherent need for it in the first place. But look, you don't have to agree with me, naturally. I'm more than fine with having great philosophers in Pascal and Nieztsche and every great civilization in history by my side in this argument. I hope you find God eventually!
In a sense, nothing other than counting numbers truly is "real". (You can't have -3 apples any more than you can have 3i apples.) But in another sense, ALL numbers, even complex numbers, are useful in explaining real-world phenomena.
You can't really do any physics, outside of Newton's laws, without imaginary numbers. But it does seem to be the case that all natural constants and properties have real values. (Not just positive values - electric charge for example comes in both positive and negative varieties). Imaginary numbers are necessary "under the hood," but whenever you make an observation, you can only ever measure a real number.
The imaginary number i is used in conceptual practices and for defining and visualizing various models. It never once appears in any physical measurements or values. It is, in fact, an imaginary number, because its value does not exist anywhere other than solely as a concept. All numbers are concepts, but all real numbers have an actual physical value they are associated with that can be observed and measured according to said concepts. Like another person mentioned, you can have 2 apples, and know for a fact that there is more than 1 apple and less than 3. You can't have 2i apples, because imaginary apples don't exist anywhere outside the mind.
@@camerapasteurize7215 Yes, but you also can't have -2 apples, so are negative numbers imaginary? You can't have pi apples, so is pi imaginary? (Though you CAN have apple pie, which is absolutely not imaginary and is delicious.) So negative numbers don't exist outside the mind either. Nor do lots of other types of number. In fact, the only numbers that have true concrete meaning in the real world are, as mentioned, counting numbers (that is to say, integers greater than zero). Everything else is a construct of logic.
Just wanted to mention that imaginary numbers are very real in the physics of electricity and magnetism. Look up the explanation of apparent power which has a “real” component called true power and an “imaginary” component called reactive power. Reactive power is very real and measurable, and so-called imaginary numbers are the way we describe its existence.
@@freshbakedclips4659 I mean real numbers, digits and equations also don't "exist". They're something that people made up to make it easier to describe and analyze things from the real world. It's just that we're so used to them, that they seem like something that the world can't exist without.
@@Quincy_MorrisBut you also can't show me π apples, or √2 apples, because the number of cells in an apple is not divisible by √2 or π (as they're irrational). By that logic, irrational numbers also don't exist, not just imaginary ones. You can't show me -1 apples either. You can't divide an apple among one and a half people, because "one and a half people" isn't a thing. You can't define the existence of these concepts, they're just a made up abstraction in our minds that let us better describe the world around us. Examples where imaginary numbers (or any abstract concept) doesn't make sense aren't useful and don't prove anything.
It’s not even the correct equation. The correct one is e^(i*theta)=cos(theta)+i*sin(theta) At theta=pi (halfway around a circle) you get e^(i*pi)=-1 I went into more detail (along with arguing for tau as the correct choice of circle constant) in my own comment.
@Shettykettyofbettys That response is postmodernist relativism, in a nutshell. "If it exists beyond human experience, well then it just doesnt actually exist, because I dictate reality."
1) Impossbility of natural origin of life 2) Fine tuning of natural constants 3) Natural laws cannot have a natural origin 4) People having religious experiences 5) Genetic research revealing marvelous molecular engineering
1. just a baseless claims 2. No evidence of fine tuning, but if you want to claim that, why was your god so stupid to make the sun give us cancer? 3. baseless claims 4. that means any religion's god is as real as yours. You good with that? 5. DNA fails often and horribly.
1) Allah is not needed to explain our existence 2) survivorship bias 3*) how so? 4) I assume your talking about near death experiences which can be explained by the brain acting as if you were in a dream state 5*) what do you mean by this ?
I seriously don't understand the point you made at 4:05 when you said "there are things Darwinian evolution can't explain, like the 4 constants of the universe". Why on Earth would anyone expect evolutionary theory to explain this? Evolution is COMPLETELY irrelevant in that discussion; it's not even in the same scientific discipline. The physical constants are in the realm of cosmology/physics, not biology.
...Huh? Did bro really just go "This BIOLOGICAL theory can't explain physics!" Like, no shit. It's about how animals changed into different species through milennia. Not about how gravity works.
I think he is trying to explain that some things couldn't of happened by chance. some things are just too finetuned to be made up by just luck and time. and Darwinism is grounded in that there is no God.
well he is just creating a piece in the chain and defining it as the end piece. its really similar to the ontological argument in a sense that a definition of something cannot force it into existence. If i define a unicorn as a horse with a horn that exists doesn't mean it exists
@@PvlmVIsHere right. And same with the mathematical argument. It completely shatters once you realize that math is nothing more than humans' way of interpreting quantity. It doesn't inherently exist
@@iamShinyGeodude Maybe 3000 years ago you could've said that math was simply the way we interpret quantity, but it has been way more than that ever since the medieval period. Sequences, patterns, graphs, statistics, theories, formulas and proofs get incredibly abstract, and simplifying the field into being "our way of interpreting quality" is doing the field a disservice and neglecting its beautiful complexity.
@@Matdrox yes, it has beautiful complexity. Yes, we've nailed it down to a point where it gets abstract. That doesn't prove anything. Ultimately, it's all the derivative of Ook telling Grook "me have rock. Me have other rock. One rock.. TWO ROCK???"
@@PvlmVIsHere He is saying that since there can't be an infinite regression of causes, there must be an uncaused cause. The argument isn't meant to prove that a particular God exists, nor that God is all good, omnipotent, or omniscient, just that an uncaused cause exists. It is in conjunction with the other arguments that we conclude that the uncaused cause has those attributes.
The Cosmological argument does not necessitate that god is the 1st cause. It could have been anything else that had the ability to create a universe. Not just that, you cannot exclude the possibility that the universe is eternal.
the cosmological argument has always fallen flat for me because, at least in my opinion, claiming that god is eternal and has always existed is just as ridiculous as claiming that the universe just showed up out of nowhere (or, like you said, claiming that the universe is eternal, since we don't really have any way of knowing what existed, if anything, before the big bang). there isn't really anything about the argument that makes god's existence seem more logical or rational than god not existing at all and the universe just existing on its own
@muresic2948 Claiming the universe is eternal is actually less absurd than saying god created the universe, because we can actually test and see the universe, so assuming the universe has always existed is not out of the realm of possibility when we are talking about something we can test and observe. We have no proof of a consciousness or subject that exists extigent of the universe that has the power to create the universe, so it is much more absurd to claim such a being exists than positing that the universe is eternal.
@@TheLeftistOwlyeah, that’s true. For my money, the contingency argument is the best form of the cosmological argument. It still doesn’t actually imply that the necessary existence is a personal being though, so the possibility of the universe being necessary and eternal still excludes it from being a definitive argument.
@@kiroshakir7935 Cosmo is also interesting 😋 And clearly, I don't find tag (or any) arguments convincing, but some are definitely more interesting than others. I made a separate post where I (subjectively) rank how compelling these arguments are...
In college my math tutor discussed euler's identity and pascal's wager as possible reasons God might exist. He was agnostic but had the intellectual humility to admit and teach us that.
Pascal's wager, even if it wasn't misused, isn't a reason god might exist. The whole point of Pascal's wager is to demonstrate that even if god doesn't exist you should believe he does.
@@User-lo6sx No anime is biased on old american rubber hose cartoons that were brought over after the war, but was adapted into Japanese culture and arts to get the final form you see today.
Pascal's Wager only works if you accept that the christian god is the only possible god that could exist, which is an absurd claim. It also tacitly implies that god existing cannot be known currently.
I works by think there has to be the God of god's. there might be other god's sure but there's only one with ultimate control. For God to be real he would have to be eternal, all knowing, all powerful. if a god has flaws, then there is no God. As far as i know, all gods are flawed except for one. The Christian God. It also not suposed to be an argument but a statement "Believing in something is better than believing nothing". if an atheist is right then nothing happens if there is wrong hell. if a Christian is right heaven, if they're wrong nothing happens.
@Mrjlff But how do you know any gods exist and if they are imperfect compared to the christian god? How do you come to these conclusions in the first place. Pascal's wager tacitly implies that knowledge of god is impossible or at the very least uncertain.
on top of that it seems to completely ignore any cons that come along with the "I followed this religion, but it turned out not to be true" result. it's painted as neutral but if you're dedicating your life to something and following a strict set of rules then the religion turns out to be false then it was all for nothing, you wasted part of what little time you had while existing. one specific example that comes to my mind is following a religion that explicitly condemns homosexuality when you yourself are a homosexual, and in that case by taking the "safe" bet you might wind up living a miserable life where you can't be yourself or engage with love (which is a really important aspect of life for most people) if you want to satisfy god. in the event that the religion you were following ends up not being true, then you just wasted your time on earth and were miserable in the only life you had. that example is heavily simplified to get my point across but pascal's wager completely ignores the fact that religion has the potential to make people unhappy and miserable, not everyone can just follow a religion without it having a huge negative impact on how they live their life. if there turns out to be no afterlife then living an unhappy life on earth is most definitely *not* just a neutral outcome.
@@muresic2948 2 things 1. compared to hell heaven or nothing i would say nothing is the neutral one of those two. it is a bad end if you devout your life to something for it to be untrue. 2. this is more of a thought exparement than and argument. If your choises were believe in athiesm or christantity i would pick christianity. same would be if it was islam or athiesm. the worst i can get with the christian life stile in the end is the neurtal ending then i would pick that. Athiesm in the sense of afterlife is a more risky bet for less payout.
@@TheLeftistOwl With pascals wager it gives you two options for belief. you could still swap religions and still have the same results. like he says this isnt a argument but just a thought experiment. and practicly id choos the less risky and better payout option.
Imaginary numbers do actually correspond to stuff in the real world, basically there's this thing called the laplace transform which is used to model the response of systems in a time-independent manner, and imaginary numbers represent oscillatory responses, and if you didn't have them you couldn't describe a simple pendulum with laplace. Also there's an imaginary number in the Shrödinger equation which is literally fundamental to the universe.
Well, yes and no. You will never find a property of a real particle with an imaginary number. Laplace transforms are applied math. Certainly the technique is useful, but that's not the same as physically real. No physical thing exists in the Laplace domain. Usually the example people use is the Navier-Stokes equation, which at least describes real fluids, but which is also a mathematically convenient approximation rather than a description of the underlying reality.
@@fluffysheap Well it's only not a "property of a real particle" if you consider every instance of time as separate to every other one. Sure it also requires infinite time but that's just a formality, and a realisable continuously decaying oscillation of a particle is still modelled with a complex number in the s-space. No physical thing exists in the Laplace domain, but only in the sense that no physical thing has velocity either. You can measure the position of something at two points in time, but you then need to mathematically derive velocity. Derivatives don't really exist but you can still see that things are moving faster than other things, just like how you can see that a thing is oscillating.
@@fluffysheap I would use the normal example of electrical circuits (also kinda linked to laplace) since inductors and capacitors do have a complex modellation to them, to compensate some "blndpower" (really cant do this stuff in english lmao). The same you apply to complex numbers could also be applied to other mathematical models tho. Nothing we ever calculate, be it real or complex numbers, is completely grounded in real life. Its all just observatiuosn, and then building formulas that give you a clear approximation how the model works. Even the maxwell equations were changed a few years ago, bc a missing factor was just found to be calculated. (current dissipation). We use math to calculate what we observe. That isnt a proof, nor a disproof for a divinie deity. If our modesl wouldnt work, we would have come up with other working models until now.
The cosmological argument has always been the most convincing to me. Even the big bang theory, as detailed as it is, only postulates the existence of an impossibly dense ball of matter which exploded with the amount of energy necessary to encompass our entire universe. But even if it were to one day answer where that ball of matter came from, you're right back at square 1 by asking where that precursor came from. It's an eternal cycle that can only end in God.
Not really. I don't really know how to explain but here goes: Matter either exists or it doesn't. This videos says if matter exists then you would need god to explain it. So if matter didn't exist, you wouldn't need god to explain it. If matter didn't exist, there wouldn't be anyone there to witness it and explain anything, since conciousness doesn't exist without matter. By that logic when conciousness exists, matter always exists. In a universe where we exist, conciousness always exists. We always exist because we'd have to exist to make that statement. We always exist, therefore conciousness always exists, therefore matter always exists. Matter either exists or it doesn't. (No, matter always exist) This videos says if matter exists then you would need god to explain it. (This is the only possible situation) So if matter didn't exist, you wouldn't need god to explain it. (Now this situation is impossible because matter always exist) Now this isn't an arguement at all since in the arguement, the situation that requires god is the only situation. (This is definitely very easy to understand)
@@RyanChen-m9l If you're trying to make a coherent argument, you're doing a really horrible job of it. Go pick up your grammar text book and start over from the beginning.
@user-xh4xg1jf8c If your inability to write properly actively hinders your ability to communicate, then there is a need to criticize your grasp of the English language. Particularly when you're attempting to discuss topics like the intersection of physics and religion. As for what you were trying to explain, your train of thought is incomplete. You make the two claims that if consciousness exists, so does matter, and if I'm to fill in the blanks, you're postulating that if matter does not exist, neither does consciousness, and thus neither does God. This is flawed logic, as the very definition of God is an infinite, supernatural entity from which all reality proceeds. If we are to examine it from the perspective of cause and effect, the existence of matter without God would ultimately imply the existence of an effect without a cause. This fundamentally violates the most basic of logic.
What swayed me towards believing in God was actually evidence found in history. I discovered that the existence of the modern world (i.e. the reason we're not living to the ripe old age of "died in childbirth") could be traced back to Britain's inability to conquer France due to God speaking in Joan of Arc's ear. That seemed WAY too crucial of a hinge and too seemingly random, to be mere coincidence. From there, I looked throughout history and found a BUNCH of crucial moments like that scattered throughout the historic record, and now I'm pretty convinced God intervenes, not quite in history as a whole, but certainly in small and very crucial parts of it periodically.
“It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.” ― Richard P. Feynman
I think you are not properly analyzing the history you're reading. You must consider who is writing that history, and why they might write that "God" intervened. There is rarely an unbiased history writer.
@@JesusOrDestruction Yes, his channel really gained a lot of popularity with the "History of the entire church, i guess...", which is ased off of Bill Wurtz' video.
As a Baptist I really enjoy your content brother. I am the type of person that is constantly thinking about anything and everything. And I think about God quite a bit. Your content really helps shore up my beliefs and help witness to others
i think the math one is the easiest to debunk. in my opinion the best one is the personal experience one as no one can really tell you you didnt experience something, and religion is all about finding your own purpose in life.
@@energeticgorilla Agreed, but at the same time, someone who's personal experience contradicts the Christian view of God (maybe someone who feels a loving god can't exist because of their own unanswered prayers or requests for a sign) could use their experience as just as strong of an argument against religion. So, like Zoomer said, personal experience is really useless to everyone except your own self. Maybe even to your own self because one of those people's experiences has to be wrong.
Ive had personal experience with God but I never use it in arguments against athiests, as they imply that it must be a lie or whatever. But when I was in preschool or around that time, I had a dream my grandmother had to take medicine that made her hair fall out. The dream GREATLY upset me, and I would constantly bring it up to my family until they said she should probably go to the doctor. When she went, she had stage 3 almost stage 4 breast cancer. If she would have gone any later she would have died. I would have obviously had no idea about cancer, the results of chemo-therapy, let alone if my grandmother had it or not. No one suspected her to have been sick or had any prior issues, either. Really crazy situation that strengthens my faith in God.
I also had a personal experience with god. But I'm an atheist because I realized that it actually wasn't a personal experience just my dumb human brain being weird.
@@Dock284 Ok, so you've had an experience with God, and you still don't believe? If that hasn't convinced you, then nothing will, most likely. If God came to you right now at this very moment, and told you that He is real, you probably still wouldn't believe it, because you simply don't want to believe. I'm sure you would probably just say "oh it was just a dream" or "my brain was just lying to me" or something like that. If 1000 different people came up to you and told you their stories of how God has changed their lives, I'm sure you would probably still refuse to believe. Do you realize that Jesus performed miracles, healing the sick and driving out demons, and many of the people of His day still refused to believe? You're no different from them. If you were honest then you would simply admit that you don't believe in God because you don't want to. If you want to believe in God's existence and change your mind, eventually something will happen that will convince you that He is real. I can tell you that because I've seen it happen to other people. If you use your free will to reject God, He won't force you to believe.
how is that related to god? this could have been a coincidence since many people have dreams involving distressing and unpredictable things happening to their loved ones, and you were just lucky bringing it up early. many people have distressing thoughts about their loved ones dying and nothing happens to them (i, for once had a dream my family were killed)
@@jaredfogle55 Yes, preschool me had a dream that directly related to the effects of a medical procedure I had no idea existed, let alone my grandmother would have it. I didn’t have a dream she died, I was distressed over it for no apparent reason until she was saved last second. Again, I don’t use this as an argument, but I know what it is.
If God is the ultimate moral authority then these things are actually one and the same. Something is good because God makes it so. There are examples of this in the real world too. God doesn’t like sexual immorality, so those who practice it suffer illness. The argument can go either way as a godless person might argue that STIs are an adaptation of bacteria and viruses to piggyback on human behaviors. The conclusion reached is dependent on the individual interpreting it. Although that being said it does beg the question as to why many STIs cause infertility and death as those would seem to be self defeating.
Aristotle actually thought that the world was eternal and had no temporal first cause. Aquinas also said that reason cannot demonstrate that the world has a temporal first cause, but that it at least didn't go against reason. The act/potency argument was closer to what they actually said.
Yeah I think that the astrological argument for God came in over the last century. When the Hubble telescope helped us discover that the universe most likely had a beginning, it created the theory that God therefore must have created the universe, for the universe could not create itself out of nothing
@@buckeyefan3894 It's older than that, I think some Arab philosophers used it, and it was popular among 18th century deists, but I don't know how they came to the conclusion that the world had a temporal beginning. I actually don't think it's a particularly good argument even today. If God exists by necessity, knowledge of him shouldn't rest on something as contigent and fallible as theories induced by empirical observations. Every scientific theory has a half-life so there is no predicting what will become the standard model in a century or two.
So, to prefact this, I would like to stare that I got a degree in Philosophy and specifically studied both of these philosophers in depth. Now, I am not trying to make an appeal to authority but rather demonstrating I am not arguing from ignorance here. With that said, you're conflating two separate different concepts argued by Aristotle. You can also leave Aquinas out of it as he was literally just trying to marry Aristotle's thoughts to Christianity. I don't believe this video was trying to imply at all that the world has a temporal cause not trying to represent Aristotle's cosmological argument as positing a temporal origin. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to make a point of here and give you the benefit of the doubt, but what you are saying seems to be very borderline an ignoratio elenchi. Aristotle did in fact argue that there is unlikely to be a temporal origin for the universe (you're correct there), but he also did argue that God is the unmoved mover. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. There can be an unmoved mover that also creates a universe void of boundary, time included, meaning no beginning or end. Aristotle's concept of God could be interpreted as just being the culmination of everything as the thing that brought about everything without being changed in of itself, encapsulating everything, surrounding it. Now, can I ask again why you decided to try and correct the video when it didn't really imply at all that the prime mover argument posited a beginning or an end to the universe?
@@user-cz8gi2om3nYou're thinking of Ibn Rushd, or Averroes. He was the Muslim equivalent of Thomas Aquinas, where he tried to marry Aristotle's works to religion. He was the one that translated Aristotle's works to Latin and made commentary on Aristotle's works. We most likely wouldn't have had the scholasticism movement without Averroes.
@@BadgerScrub I have 2 degrees in philosophy, a BA and an MA, the latter was with Peter Adamson and was specificallyin ancient philosophy. I'm in the process of applying for PhD programs in philosophy. I'm aware that Aristotle argued for the existence of the unmoved mover, hence why I qualified it as *temporal*. The video, like other contemporary apologists, implies to take the word "cause" (aitia in greek) in the narrow sense of efficient cause, which is only one of four kinds of cause. I was simply pointing out that, in that sense, Aristotle did not believe that the cosmos had a first efficient cause the way a craftsman is the cause of a chair. If you see my other comment correcting the teleological argument, Aristotle primarily thought of the unmoved mover as the formal and final cause of the cosmos. I don't think it was Averroes that made that argument, rather more likely Al-Ghazali, and possibly some Jewish Arabs like Sadia Gaon, but I'm less familiar with them.
I mean, every argument here could be used by any religion. In fact, the argument could be made that considering there are 5000 religions or so, you're safer not believing any of them to avoid making God angry, as an atheist is just somebody who is "lost" instead of a traitor who actively believes the wrong thing. If a deity really exists, surely it wouldn't punish those who weren't convinced enough because they couldn't decide which of the religions is the "right" one. That's just my guess.
Well let me start by saying I'm no expert on this, so there are better sources than me that will give a more clear answer. However, I first think you can eliminate tribal religions and ancient polytheistic Norse/greed types of religions, simply because many of those religons contained elements and beliefs that have not stood the test of time and science.Next, the buddhist and hindu beliefs make a lot less sense, as an intelligent creator who specifically designed a universe that humans could thrive in, would see humans as superior beings to others. Which leaves Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The main three religions who all share the same historical backsktories and broad view of God. I believe the God described in the christian bible best fits the version of God that our existence and universe points to. Through the life of Jesus, the persecution of the christian church and other key events throughout history, the Christian prophets have been the most validated and accurate. There is a lot more to it than this, but this is the best summary Ive got on the spot!@@AverageHistoryEnjoyer1914
Pascals wager debunk: What if you believe and choose the wrong god, that would surely be worse than just not believing. A vengeful deity would surely be more upset at those who chose to believe in another deity than at those who simply weren't convinced.
The question is how does this deity expect us to tell the real from the fake? It hasn’t given us the ability to do that, cause all religions have convincing reasons and justifications of their own. But you can never be 100% sure who’s telling the truth or who’s the most convincing, cause your intuition could be wrong or you could be subconsciously biased. So if there’s no objective way of knowing, it’s impossible for us to consciously choose the right one. And there hasn’t been a crystal clear sign from the real deity as to which one is the right one, since every religion preaches itself as legitimate
@@Vickyanimateslike is it hard to see that religions are designed to keep you in and make you scared of losing faith so you can contribute you money for the pope or some other equivalent
@@piotrek7633 you have a brain. You have reason. Nobody’s forcing you to contribute to the pope. Not saying brainwashing isn’t common in religious faiths for personal gain, but whether the pope or religious figures are greedy, sleazy douchebags that exploit people, that has nothing to do with the morals of the religion. You can still have morals and decency, qualities that many religions promote, without subscribing to any religion. It’s called being human.
Also, Pascals wager arbitrarily assumes that belief or faith in God is the only thing that a God cares about when determining your eternal destiny, when it could possibly be any number of other things too. So better not step on that ant or don't eat that pork. You better be more paranoid, unless you end up in hell by accident.
3:35 Oh, how i love that one. That could be said about ANYTHING that doesn't really affect you. You rather believe in this, because if turns out to be true, then you win. But that's not how reasons to believe should exist.
this is the exact reason "Pascal's Wager" shouldn't be used as a religious argument. Not to mention it's flaws, like how do you know what exact religion is actually true. In addition, religion actually DOES make you lose something during your life, if you follow a religion you need to life a certain way and sometimes not the exact way you would have wanted to.
Yeah, I’m really glad he clarified that it’s not a logical argument and more of a thought experiment. It’s odd to me that people choose this avenue to prove God when it does nothing but say “I’ll be happier if I’m right.”
He did reiterate that it's not really an argument for this exact reason. I like how WLC puts it though - if, hypothetically, the evidence in your mind was exactly 50/50, then you should believe in God just for the sake of prudence.
@@josephmartin9737 I would agree if the evidence wasn't exactly 50/50. There's a quote from someone (I believe it was also from Pascal) that goes "The heart has reasons the mind knows nothing about". Our motivations are complex and sometimes we turn a blind eye to the truth if we find it ugly in some way. So just as in a court we might stick with some kind of axiom like "Beyond reasonable doubt", a sentence which is based more on being morally prudent rather than evidentially accurate, we should go with Pascal's Wager if it seems the evidence is 50/50 or indeterminate.
Concise informative video. I'm surprised that so many find these arguements compelling. There are a lot of fallacies baked into the premises, making these arguments fall apart under scrutiny. I think the purpose of these arguments isn't to prove God, but to reassure those in the faith with surface level conjecture
He literally stated how little he got into each and most of these have stood for centuries. None are 100% proof of God, some are weaker then others. But smarter people then either of us find some of these arguments compelling.
@@halocraft60none of these are compelling. These are absolutely packed with fallacies. From the claim that ”Jesus’s eyewitnesses died for their beliefs, so they wouldn’t lie” (Even though that only implies that their belief was genuine, not that their belief is correct, furthermore there is literally only one first hand eyewitness testimony of the resurrection, by Paul. None of the alleged 500 people are ever mentioned anywhere outside of the story, which heavily suggests that they were made up) all the way to the fine tuning which tries to argue that a certain process is ”unlikely” to happen, even though the sample space is never defined and nothing is known about the probability measure… which means that one CANNOT appeal to probabilities…
@@halocraft60standing for centuries does not equal it meaning anything, pascals wager is enough of an example for that. None of these reach even "1% proof for god", there is none. Smarter people may find some if these compelling but thats simply just because humans arent binary, its all appealing to authority fallacy.
I just want to say something about the Transcendental argument. Yes, we *assume* all of those axioms are true, even that truth exists. We assume all (or most) axioms are true, since that's what it *means* for something to be called an axiom. It is proven that we cannot prove everything using a finite amount of axioms, see Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.
I’m not religious but this helped me understand Religions more, I always usually go back to the scientific Theory of how the world was made but it’s cool to see different lifestyles and opinions.
And this only represents Christian thoughts. You’ll find a lot of fascinating thoughts and perspectives if you look into other world religions’ takes on stuff like this.
@@jacobjensen7704 Why would this only represent Christian thoughts? Seems like these could be used for any religion that uses a creator to justify the existence of the universe.
It seems to me your understanding of the mathematics portion of the video are quite inaccurate in your explanation. Imaginary numbers are indeed "real" in the sense that they have significant mathematical applications and are crucial in various scientific and engineering fields. The term "imaginary" can be misleading because it implies that these numbers are somehow not legitimate or useful. However, imaginary numbers are very much a part of the broader system of complex numbers, which includes real numbers as well. The term imaginary, has also fallen out of context from the original meaning which it was assigned. Simple google search tells me: ( French mathematician René Descartes was the first to emphasize the imaginary nature of numbers, positing that “one can imagine as many (numbers) as already mentioned in each equation, but sometimes, there is no quantity that matches what we imagine.” ) Since imaginary numbers are not necessarily used to count objects, but rather define points on a defined space, 1+2i can be rewritten as (1,2), or it could also be expressed as a vector, (which i would recommend learning from another video and not a youtube comment) Imaginary numbers can also be used in several other ways and are only seen as "not real" because of their misleading name. Fractal arguments are a little hard to explain why they get infinitely complex in just a simple youtube comment, but saying fractals dont appear in nature is quite frankly just untrue. Fractals are everywhere in nature, trees, plants, galaxies, crystal structures etc etc.
Pascal’s wager in my opinion, is the correct way to convince anyone that believing in a god is far more beneficial to them (and for the world at large) than believing there isn’t a god. I was raised an atheist, but my grandma was always a die hard Christian. I can remember speaking with her about death. I realized at that time that selfishly for any human being, you will live a calmer and more enjoyable life and will arrive at your death in peace. If you truly believe that when you die, you will be reunited with all your loved ones and all of the people that you leave behind on earth will be taken care of after you’re gone, by god. At 28 years old I became a follower of Jesus Christ and I have never been more content. Death and disaster becomes something you no longer fear when you truly believe in god.
Imo pascals wager is the worst one out of these. and isn't true faith. Don't take this the wrong way & please hear me out... You can't just decide to believe in God like that if you're treating it like gambling on a heads or tails coin flip. That is not authentic, and it's based on fear and other feelings. True faith is with the whole mind, body and soul. It's an intellectual choice and gift. True faith will bring that peace and calm you mention, but with pascal's wager you could be dishonest with yourself, and being dishonest in your conscience never brings peace. True faith is a gift from God himself. Now I'm not claiming that you personally don't have faith, just my opinion on pascals wager. I came to the faith at the same age, 28... through the most painful one step at a time process lol. Peace.
Let's think of Pascal's wager this way: The real God is a Christian hater. If you believe in the Christian God he will torture you for all eternity whereas if you don't you will be granted eternal happiness. This is where Pascal's wager fails, you can use it to make both believing and not believing in God sound like the wrong choice
Counter arguments (no hate, just doin this cause i’m bored and sleepy on a tuesday night): Evidential argument - First of all, there are many people die for something they believe, like in wars and cults like helter skelter. also, there are logical arguments for “possessions” and “near-death experiences”. possessions are most likely staged and/or heavily exaggerated, but if there are is any verified evidence of a real possession i’d be happy to see it. for these near-death glimpses into heaven and hell, they’re either just dreams or entirely fake. there are so inconsistencies throughout many of the stories i’ve heard, and no reason for it to happen. Moral Argument: our morals for right and wrong are usually on the basis of if the actions hurt something. using cannibalism as a means for food is seen as immoral because cannibalism is usually accompanied with murder, and studies have shown that people should *not* consume human organs for their own personal health. With all due respect, if you need a book to distinguish from right and wrong, i really suggest you take a look at yourself for a moment. Cosmological Argument: For the “first cause” argument, i need you to realize that just because there is no clear answer doesn’t mean your answer is correct. We really don’t know what started the universe. the big bang itself is just a theory, it’s just the most widely accepted explanation. Pascal’s Wager: …really? i feel as if this is an argument as to why believing in God is more beneficial in that sense, as opposed to his existence. while i do believe it is correct in the sense that it’s more beneficial for people to believe in God in the long run, it’s not proof that He exists. Teleological Argument: again, we don’t really have any idea about the universe and how it works. However, the universe is far from perfect, not every single detail is perfect. But yes, good on you for observing that the constants of the universe are constant. Ontological Argument: This felt like a whole lot of blabbering. You’re arguing that something exists because… you have a vague description of what He is? Because the God you believe in is all powerful means he exists? This one confused me but maybe someone has a better way of explaining this argument. Personal Experience: I respect how you added that detail at the end. There’s most likely no way of convincing people that experiences that they hold near and dear to their heart are just coincidences. Transcendental Argument: Correct me if i’m wrong, but does that really say that people just ASSUME truth and logic exists? brother, truth DOES exist. when i point to a cloud and say “that’s a cloud”, that is the truth. not something i believe, just the plain hard truth. Also, ever since the enlightenment, many things have made sense without the need for God. Stars, the sun, colors, wind, all these things make sense for existing because we explained it using science. Consciousness Argument: the “experience” of seeing a color yellow is just your brain translating seeing the color yellow into a thought that corresponds with it. also, we can tell that we all see colors the same because we can describe colors. if you described the color yellow, most of everyone would agree with you. While I can’t really argue that the soul doesn’t exist, i can say that i believe that we believe the soul exists because we humans want to feel like something more than a bunch of atoms. Mathematical Argument: arghhhh this hurts my brain. i’m quite sleepy and i think right at this moment i can only come up with a counter argument for the mandelbrot set. just because an object doesn’t exist in our world doesn’t mean God made it, even if it’s extremely complex. sometimes you just have to accept that some things are just interesting and there’s nothing extra that should be added onto it, like religion. That’s all i have. i’m sure i’m gonna get a shit ton of replies calling me a stupid atheist, so i wanna say now that i only did this for fun, not to prove anyone wrong. also, please be civil when trying to counter my counter arguments, unless you’re petty, which in that case just don’t bother replying at all. alright, cheers.
@anthroimperzia3927 it’s not that i can’t fathom an optimistic outcome, it’s that there’s simply not enough evidence for any outcome. i’m a big “facts don’t care about feelings” guy, so i would prefer if i were to believe in something like religion, then it should be able to actually be proven WITH evidence. also, my life is actually not miserable. i recently started working on myself and have found myself happier than i was before.
Math producing infinite results doesn’t mean that it’s infinite. Math is just the rules describing the universe. It’s like minecraft, where the world generator can generate thousands of terabytes worth of unique worlds yet the procedural generation code doesn’t take nearly as much space
I don't think the ontological argument works. Just because existence is necessary to be maximally great, it doesn't mean that the maximally great thing actually does exist. You have to show that the maximally great thing necessarily exists, but if you can do that, you don't need the ontological argument.
And also does not really imply necessarilly that the best god we could choose to believe is in the christian one at the end of the day. Multiple people that dont deserve it would suffer if Yahweh and the mythology that comes with him were the truth of the universe. Lots of ways in wich Yahweh behaves himself in the bible are unnaceptable by moral standards, and the idea that he runs the universe allows for the existence of a lot of immoral acts.
@@jdotoz Sorry, english is not my first language. Just now i realized what you were trying to say, and let me tell you, i am quite embarassed, lmao. Please, ignore my first comment.
@@arthurcosta4643 I didn't notice any problems with what you wrote that would lead me to question your proficiency in English. The fact is that I have seen many American skeptics make the same error I identified, a sort of moving the goalposts. It's important to not push the argument beyond what it sets out to show (unless, of course, you concede that point and want to move on to the next level).
@@jdotoz The problem is not the proficiency, the problem is the "assuming" that i did. I do that a lot since sometimes i will come into contact with words that i am not familiar with. I assumed the meaning of *ontological*, so i made the wrong assumptions based in that. I thought ontological was related to moral assumptions, because i have heard a lot of christians argue that "God is necessary for morality", so i was replying with the thought that you were refering to that argument.
Me learning about these arguments knowing that I’m going to continue using the “well where did the Big Bang come from” argument for eternity For those of you asking the point of this argument is to say that since the amount of matter in the universe couldn't (To my knowledge) be compressed into an infinitely tiny space, meaning that there must have been a higher force acting. This argument also falls in line with the one that states it is impossible to traverse infinity, because it is infinite. Therefore the universe couldn't have existed for infinite time before us. Therefore it started at the Big Bang, meaning the universe was created then and there, which would not be possible without divine intervention. There you go I learned another one.
That's not really an argument though. The fact that we don't know much about what happened before the Big Bang doesn't mean that a god exists. You can then use anything that we don't know to justify anything
@@wilh3lmmusic We (mankind) won't know the answer for the next 10,000 years, so there is really no point thinking about it now. Live a good virtuous life, and if there is a Dog, you will find out on Judgement Day.
@@luxart1000 Yeah I know him, he’s an atheist but he isn’t too bad as far as I know. Just be weary cause when you don’t have God your often against Him, so He could try planting doubts. God bless you bro.
None of these things are proof or a god or supernatural being. They are you taking things you don't fully understand and attributing them to a god. "The God of the Gaps." You have a gap in knowledge, you fill it in with "god." That doesn't prove a god actually exists.
Thank yo for uploading these type of videos. They really help keep me learn more about my faith and inspire me to keep myself in the word as well. God bless you!
I will say that like a lot of these arguments are not good. The cosmological argument, personal experience, and some bit of evidential is really the only one that can work. But even with evidential it's really hard to use it to convince others. I think in general you can use evidential because you can't just explain every supernatural event as just a hallucination or something like that, but at the same time everyone has a different interpretation of a "spiritual event". The math argument makes no sense, it's similar to the onotlogical argument where "oh infinity exists therefore God". First off just because we can think of a concept does not mean it exists or is true. Even if a concept is logically consistent, doesn't mean it is true. You can do math in infinite dimensional spaces (and these infinite dimensional spaces are important for describing quantum mechanics), but it doesn't mean that such spaces actually exist on their own. Math is used to describe ideas, ideas can be real or not real.
Geneticist Francis Collins made a very compelling argument that moral is often contrary to evolution. For example, saving a stranger from drowning means risking your lineage, but for most is the correct thing to do. How did that came to be then, if those who wouldn't are more likely to survive?
Saving someone from drowning makes them likely to do something for you in the future, but also humans have evolved to have familial/tribal identities, so risking yourself to save other members of your tribe makes the tribe much more likely to survive and grow in the future. If everyone just shrugged and walked off when their fellow tribe members were drowning, that tribe likely would either die off or fall apart to infighting while humans in tribes that don't live on. I think this answer better accomodates for not just the morality of people, but the darker impulses such as tribalism and hatred of those not like you.
@@Colddirector So you are saying that YOU would not save a person if they were drowning while you were traveling on the other side of the world on the simple basis they are not a part of your invented "tribe"? This entire argument is flawed from the beginning, as it assumes that there is a person a would not save, regardless of their ethnicity.
@@Colddirector What about when we do things for those not apart of our "tribe?", those who are not familial or live in our communities? Even if you dismiss helping other people that are not related to us as us trying to foster the existence of our species as a whole, what about when it comes caretaking certain animals that offer nothing to us but instead make us extend our food, water, and energy to them?
@@donut9719 that can be attributed as a biproduct of empathy, but at least with helping people, doing something good for them makes it likely they’ll do something good for you in return. They may join or ally with your tribe. Regardless, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, you could probably regard that as a “glitch” of human empathy, something you should fully expect from an evolutionary standpoint as human brains aren’t purpose-built but evolved.
I'm an apatheist. I spent years tussling with the argument of whether or not there is a higher power and it got me nowhere. In spite of that, I watched this out of sheer curiosity. And now I'm annoyed because these are all awful arguments: • Essentialism is a blatantly incorrect assumption of human nature; people die for things _they believe_ to be true, which doesn't automatically make them true. • Morals come from the fact those of us who don't believe in heaven exist on this planet and would like to make that existence as pleasant as possible. That requires community. We don't need a higher power to tell us that cannibalism is bad because we know that cannibalism is bad for the community. What about sympathy, empathy, and compassion? Even putting survival aside, we are social creatures. We enjoy each other's company. We understand others' problems, so we want them to be happy and healthy as well. Another example: calling something like homosexuality immoral has no practical purpose. It does not do any harm to the community other than "my god doesn't like it," and repressing members of the LGBTQ community who those of us with sympathy, empathy, and compassion want to live good lives. One side saying it's a wrong and another side saying it isn't is inherently contradictory to the concept of objective morality, especially since the side saying it's wrong has no basis outside of religion. And religious people often don't follow the morals they claim to believe in - the history of humanity is chock full of people fighting wars and killing each other for the purpose of spreading their religion, which kind of directly contradicts the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing. • Cosmological argument - god of the gaps. "I can't imagine that the universe wasn't created by a conscious entity and I don't have any other way to explain it, therefore it comes from my god." Also, by that standard, something would have had to cause God to exist. • Pascal's Wager is not an argument for the existence of a higher power. This concept especially becomes problematic when you consider how many different religions there are with different gods that we would also need to apply Pascal's Wager to. Most of all, it incorrectly assumes that belief in or lack thereof a higher power is a conscious choice. From an epistemological perspective, this directly contradicts the fact that people have different thought processes from one another. • The teleological argument ignores that purpose and meaning can be based on subjective human experience. And even if there are concrete purpose for things, once again, this falls into God of the gaps. "I ascribe a purpose because humans create things with purpose. Therefore, everything must have a purpose. Therefore, it must come from my god." • Ontological argument... once again, God of the gaps. "I can't explain why I have these experiences, therefore I'm ascribing it to my god." • Experiences are interpreted through the mind, and not all experiences are things that objectively occur. By sheer mathematics, in a world of billions of people, there are billions of experiences, and there are bound to be some weird things that occur. Once again, God of the gaps and confirmation bias: "I don't know what caused this, therefore it must have been my god." Hallucination. Mental illness. Poor observation. Something that just hasn't been explained by science - yet. Or it has been explained by science, but the person familiar with it is unfamiliar with the science behind it and/or has made the conscious choice to not believe it because it contradicts their current beliefs. • The transcendental argument, like the teleological argument, ignores that people go out of their way to ascribe meanings to things they can't explain. "I think this means something, therefore God." The scientific method was literally conceived by humans. • Consciousness: "I can't explain how our consciousness works, therefore I'm ascribing it to my god." • We only learn about mathematics that do work because mathematical hypotheses that don't work don't work. The mathematics we study today exist because we developed them to measure. At one point, we needed to develop algebra, trigonometry, geometry, calculus, etc. to solve a problem we didn't know the answer to, so we created a working system to measure them. This includes a concept like imaginary numbers. And once again, as far as Euler's identity goes, we have another example of God of the gaps. "I can't explain it, therefore it was my god."
"people die for what they believe to be true" right, and they believed that they saw and interacted with their friend, who had very clearly died. People who were his friends, people who were his enemies, 500 people at once, all vouched for his return.
@@ElijahDawkins-yb1uc And the witness testimony for the resurrection outside the Bible is...? Even the witness accounts within the Bible aren't particularly convincing: The only writer who actually authored parts of the Bible who claims to be an eye witness is Paul, who claimed he saw a "vision" of Christ, not a resurrected Christ in the flesh. The only account of 500 people witnessing Jesus's resurrection is his own first letter to the Corinthians. This was written about 20 years after Jesus's death. The gospels are second-hand accounts written decades after his death. The further they get from Jesus's death, the more fantastic they get. Mark (40 years after Jesus's death): Three women roll back a stone to an empty tomb and see a man in a white robe who tells them he saw Jesus resurrected and to go tell Peter, they were scared to tell anyone. Luke (50 years after Jesus's death): Four women leave an empty tomb and see two men in glowing clothes and told several people who didn't believe them, he suddenly appears in front of the disciples as a ghost and then disappears when they try to travel to Bethany. Matthew (Also approximately 50 years after Jesus's Death): Pilate has placed guards in front of the tomb to prevent Jesus's followers from stealing his body. The guards are not mentioned in any other gospels. Two women visit. An angel comes down in a violent earthquake, which is not mentioned in the other gospels. Guards are scaredy cats and faint, then go tell priests that they saw the resurrection. Jesus appears in Galilee but many of his own followers doubt it's actually him. John (At least 60 years after Jesus's death): Mary Magdalene visits the tomb alone, it's empty, sits in a garden and sees Jesus saying he's gonna ascend into heaven. Jesus visits the disciples, then rises, then comes back because Thomas doubts it. ---- Any other writing about Jesus being resurrected outside the Bible - such as Tacitus and Josephus, who were both born after Jesus died - were basically a game of telephone. "He said that she said that her uncle said that my grandma said that..." For comparison look at how the story of the first Thanksgiving has transformed into this planned festival with games, when all it actually comes from is a single letter written by one person who makes a mundane description of a few indigenous people coming across some colonists and stop by to eat some food.
'Basically, if your pizza gets infinitely great, it'll turn into God' -Redeemed Zoomer, 2024
There's no pizza 🍕
o lietuvis 🇱🇹💪
How does your pizza plan to do that🤔
This is going on a shirt
@@mungelomwaangasikateyo376 I would buy it.
“Imaginary numbers don’t correspond to reality”
electrical engineers: 😐
Quantum physics: 🤨
people catching onto geometric algebra 😭
Schrodingers wave equation is so cool
@@HaedonPL FR THO
infinity is geometrical.
I love the part where RZ said its mathin time, then mathed everything, and the atheists were left completely mathed out.
Hi reci, thanks for being my #1 fan
Mathed out*
Thats literally what they said @@LivingCatholic
RZ totally outmathed those atheists
hey Klukz thanks for being my number 1 fan😊@@klukz
I was a stern atheist until the second you said "trust me bro". After that I went immeadiatly getting baptized and now I go to church every day.
Amen!
@@jamesmiller2521Halleluja!
"trust me bro" is the definition of faith, as always you're saying something really silly.
@@HarryNicNicholasbut why should he be trusted? ur not saying as much as you think lol
it worked when y ou were told to wear a ma sk and get the j ab.
"Trust me, bro." - my beloved brother in Christ
So you are admitting that you just mock us because you want to?
🤡
@@BDB2004He’s referencing the very end of the video, pretty sure it’s just a joke 😉
@@BDB2004 yes
@@BDB2004 -- "Trust me bro", I don't think there's any reason to mock or be mocked! lol (esp. when one doesn't even know why)
"You can be strong, but you're not."
Sad truth. 😔😔
For you maybe.
@@ncedwards1234I clicked on your channel, and you look like you have the muscle mass of a newborn baby.
A thing about Pascal's Wager is that whether it can be an argument for God, it can't be the reason to why you choose to believe in God. If your only reason to believe in God is because of the potential benefit you may gain from it and nothing else then it kind of defeats the purpose of believing in god in the first place, since what ties you to that belief isn't morality or logic but just the benefit you may gain from it. This means that if someone were to offer you something better than what god gives you, you would reject god, which means you didn't truly believe in him in the first place.
It's more fear mongering as well. Basically the same as "if you don't believe in god you'll burn in hell for eternity." More mind games that the biblical literalist use to trap people.
From my perspective the benefit is getting into Heaven. The benefit is being with God. There is nothing wrong with one of your reasons for believing in God is to get into heaven with Him.
You also can't say there's something better than what God gives you, because the reward He gives you is eternal and there is nothing possibly better than it.
@@noahr1126 There's nothing bad with wanting to be with god, the bad thing is ONLY believing in him because of you wanting to get to heaven, not because you believe in the moral good of god, in christian values and ideals or because you came to the logical conclusion that he's real.
What I mean by "something better" is a hypothetical. Of course that by the literal definition of heaven there can't be anything better, but I'm saying that if hypothetically something better was offered to people that believe in god only because of pascal's wager then they would stop believing in god; which means there's no believing there in the first place. One shouldn't believe in god solely becauee of the benefits it provides you, but also because you think it's logically and morally right to believe in him. One reaps the benefits of god because they believe in him; you can't truly believe in him solely because you want to reap the benefits of it.
It's kind of like saying that you want to get married to someone solely because of the tax benefits it has to be married; sure that can be a reason for you to get married, but if that's your only reason for it then you probably don't truly love your wife.
I think Pascal's Wager isn't a terrible place to start. To expect someone unfamiliar with God to choose to believe in Him out of love and respect seems absurd. I think people unfamiliar with God should use the motivation of Pascal's Wager to seek out more information about God and begin to love and respect Him only once they've learned what His motivations and desires are. I became a Christian as a teenager with a very fundamental understanding of who God is and what He wants, but as I've grown older, I've worked on my relationship with Him and I'd like to think I've begun to understand Him better. My biggest problem (as is the case with many) is practicing what I preach and living the way I see God wants me to in the Bible. Also, if anyone's reading this, it's only too late to turn your life around once you're dead. Make sure you know exactly when you're gonna die, and if you can't do that, learn more about God and what He wants to share with you, because the offer's too good to miss
@@ceo_reubenyea but the argument works with anything and any religion
Cosmic Skeptic sent me. Enjoyed the video!
Dang didn’t expect to see you here dude, been watching ur vids since 2016 have a great day man
WHAT?! SCARE THEATER?! I thought there was more chance of pigs flying than you coming here
Oh hi there channel I'm subscribed to
Hi
God bless you Scaretheatre, been watching forever
6. Ontological: A pizza that is indestructible cannot be eaten, so it is not the greatest possible pizza since it cannot fulfill the fundamental purpose of pizza.
I think what you're hitting here is that the concept of a greatest possible being ("being" used in the philosophical sense) is not well defined.
Better example. I am thinking of the greatest possible pickup truck. One of the attributes of this truck is that it should carry a lot of cargo. But it should also be easy to park. The first attribute means it needs to be big, but the second means it needs to be small. "Greatest possible" just doesn't make sense outside of trivial cases.
@fluffysheap This is a really interesting comment thank you for writing it
Aww :(
Holy shit, it's a pizza paradox
so what i have to do is put myself in the greatestpossibleinator and then i get to taste the best pizza?!??!?!
Honestly Pascal’s Wager reminds me of a different side of the same coin (sort of).
Marcus Aurelius essentially stated, “Live a good life. If there is a god and they are just, they will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are unjust gods, then you will not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then your memory will live on in those who you have lived virtue by.”
Damn
That's deeply true
In the context of pascals wagger, if there was an unjust god then causing finite harm to create infinite pleasure would be the right call. If everyone did this, then everyone would be able to live in infinite pleasure with earth just being a bad dream.
And a second issue is people cannot agree on what a Just God would be. Some people’s Just God is other people’s Unjust God after all.
But this is an argument for not believing in any particular religion and just doing what feels right to you, this is the literal opposite of what pascal's wager actually wants to achieve.
@@illama5330 If your only reason to not doing bad things is because god sayed that and you want to achieve heaven then you are not good person.
As a mathematical physicists, I would like to make one comment about the mathematical view: the reason why math is so general is because it is essentialy the study of relations between concepts. The concepts (axioms) are entirely arbitrary to ones choice (such as the existence of i, it can only exist as an axiom), but, once you accept it, you may find how other results derive from it. As another clear example, once you accept Euclides axioms for geometry, it is a fact that Pythagoras theorem is True, no matter where you are in the universe or the time you are in.
The real surprise, though, comes from the fact that, when applied to explaining the World, mathematical models give such a good description within a range that it is possible to measure, and that suxh description is somehow understandable to us (e.g newtonian mechanics). For those more interested, I recommend a paper called "the unreasonable effectiveness of math in rela world" (or something like that) by Wigner
I’m not smart enough to understand a word you just said but as a mathematical physicist (congrats on having an iq 3x as high as mine) would you agree that maths can prove God or be argued to show a God or not?
@@Jack-bi8mgin his comlent he states that math is subjective and requires certain assumptions. Therefore yes, god could be proven when the right axioms are chosen, even tho id have no idea how.
But math's axioms are reasonable. The axioms required to prove a god might not be
@@Jack-bi8mg For such thing, you would have to give a very objective and non ambiguos definition of what God is (which is not only problematic, but I believe it can be a heresy according to some religious beliefs).
Given such definition, you could in principle conceive a set of axioms to prove that the existence of this concept or theorem or whatever that you defined as God. Although I believe you would wish for such axiomatic system to not have contradiction, i.e, to be consistent, which is something that you unfortunately cannot prove if this is the case, this is due to Godel Incompleteness theorem, probably the most important result in mathematics proved in the last century.
Yet, a very big problem still remains: you do not have any kind of clue whether or not such a system applies somehow to the World we live in, because we did not create the axioms of the reality that we live (you could argue that God did it, but that is an unfalsifiable statement, and therefore cannot be taken seriously in the search of really finding out about the truth)
So, to sum it up, my answer is: depends on what you mean by God. If it is just an abstract well defined concept within an axiomatic set, then yes. But I also believe that you would wish to place that concept somehow in our living World, and, in which case, I would unfortunately have to say that this is just impossible inside any religious/transcendental concept of God that religions usually have, particularly the most influent religious in the West.
Also, if I may extend myself more than I already have, there were some historical events when famous mathematicians tried to define God in an axiomatic system. George Cantor, for instance, when dealing with set theory and was defyning the kinds of infinite (yes, there are more than just one infinite) related the greatest type of infinite (absolute infinity) to God.
Bro said absolutely nothing related to God 😂
I love the fact that you use meme language and simple explanations to explain old, complex ideas. I often watch these when I just need a simple reminder when I get too lost in the complex theological train of thought. Thank you for all of your videos!
the fact he uses meme language is one of my favorite things, because it makes it easier for a lot of people to understand. If he would be explaining theology in its default and complex form then most of his audience would probably not exist.
@@faizedfrthere are many, many ytb channels that explain theology better than this guy who just spits random bs and is very, very biaised.
Just wanna point out the absolute banger "You see, it all started in the establishment of the first Russian state in 862" at 1:29 , a funny note to the Tucker/Putin interview
hard to think logically after TikTok, eh?
😂
@@shooey-mcmoss I don't want to assume you actually think that his 30 minutes history lesson starting from the Kievan Rus was a valid reason to invade a non-aggressive independent country, so what did you mean by this comment?
@@failtolawl okay, I allow Biden to read some speech about democracy and freedom to explain aggression against Iraq for example
Is he young enough for that?
@@shooey-mcmoss Who is talking about Biden? We are talking about Putin invading the Ukraine based on zero valid pretense and getting hundreds of thousands of young Russian and Ukrainians killed all for some allegedly unresolved incident back before the Mongol invasion.
I like the Teleological argument with Hebrews 3:4 which says "For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything."
That verse never made sense to me, but that’s actually so simple
That also works for the cosmological argument.
Who then built god? Because if we are allowed to say god doesn't require a creator, why would the universe need one then?
@@maikv750No one built God, as He is eternal
@@maikv750Because something happened that caused the universe. The universe is known to not be eternal, ask any scientist and they will tell you the universe had a beginning. Thus its not eternal, but God is eternal, nothing caused him, he is unmovable etc. So nothing created God.
Edit: “Time came the same moment the universe was created according to the theory of relativity.” Ok… eternal means to not have a beginning, since the universe had a beginning roughly 15 billion years ago, this means the universe has a beginning, whether that beginning also was the beginning of time doesn’t truly matter.
"Darwinian evolution can't explain the 4 constants of the universe"
That's because Darwinian evolution is part of biology, not physics. It's also a bit of a misnomer to say darwinian evolution, as there is alot more to modern evolutionary biology than, just what Darwin contributed with
word 🗣️
I mean that's correct, but you're missing the point. Evolution was brought up because the default example was biology, the comment that it didn't explain the constants wasn't a critisism of darwinian evolution, it was a segway into the stronger example.
I don't agree with the Teleological argument by the way, or any of the arguments in this video, but this video really does a good job at just presenting them in an intelectually honest way without arguing they're correct, and I find nitpicking on a segway to be a little unfair, or at least you're missing the point.
Darwinian evolution can be applied to reality itself to counter the argument that the universe is intelligently designed bacouse of the fact that a signle value change in one of the 4 constents would make realty fall apart. Our reality survived and there for exists becouse others didnt.
This doesn’t really make sense because biology is just applied chemistry, which is applied physics. They’re not distinctly separate “branches” of science as you imply. Everything in science has to be consistent within the same paradigm, otherwise the entire paradigm needs to shift. That being said, physics has to be consistent with the laws of evolution (which it is). He was just saying that evolution can explain part of how the natural world operates, but not all of it. So you’re agreeing with him while phrasing it as a disagreement while also showing you know less about science.
Atheist came to comments to DESTROY the author lol
For a bit of context on the Euler argument, e^i*x is a rotation of x radians (a more mathematical unit for angle [instead of degrees]) in the complex plane around 0. I don’t fully understand the proofs of this, but you can research them if you would like to know more.
Pi radians is the equivalent of 180 degrees, and a 180 degree turn around the complex plane is -1. (This is obvious if you just visualise a 180 degree turn). Therefore e^(i*pi) = -1 and if you add 1 to both sides you get e^(i*pi) +1 = 0
The argument that this is proof for god is because this is a very beautiful equation due to its simplicity and bringing together all the nice numbers. However, you can break every part of this equation down to the fundamentals of maths and understand why it works this way, so it’s not really an inexplicable mystery as to why this equation is so beautiful and neat.
You can use the Taylor series definitions for e^x, cos(x), and sin(x) and set x = i*n. It follows that e^(i*n) = cos(n) + i*sin(n).
I'm not smart enough to understand this equation 😂
@@ZoraFN, nah I’m sure you are! It’s more about having background knowledge.
It's not a mystery as to HOW it's so beautiful, but it's still extraordinary that a system capable of making something so beautiful could exist in the first place
0:12 Evidental Argument
0:40 Moral Argument
1:18 Cosmological Argument
3:04 Pascal's Wager
3:41 Telelogical Argument
4:26 Ontological Argument
5:28 Personal Experience
5:50 Transcendental Argument
6:25 Conciousness Argument
7:30 Mathematical Argument
8:10 Eulers Identity
8:49 Mandelbrot Argument
checks out, every math professor i know is deeply religious
you forgot "Trusting the bro" argument
"I have experienced divine intervention"
SOOOOOORCE?
"I am standing before you now, basking in the audacity of your ignorance, instead of resting 6 ft below a tombstone in a child-shaped casket"
yeah if my argumentation and speaking skills were even 1/32 as strong as my faith, I feel like there would be more Catholics running around, instead, The Lord keeps blessing me with the inherent martial prowess and poison resistance that comes from being Polish
@@kooolainebulger8117 I feel ya
1 Corinthians 10:31
@@kooolainebulger8117not dying horribly as a child… how great is our benevolent god!
Redeemed Zoomer was actually first discovered by zooming in on a Mandelbrot set infinitely to the point where it becomes impossible to deny the existence of God, and one is forced to accept Him as Savior and is thereby redeemed through zooming.
LOLOLOL This comment just made my day
This is the best comment I've seen in a long time. Well done.
Nice job.
This comment man 😂
Numbers change = God :/ W H A T I S N T G O D T H E N
That kind of reminds me of this TH-cam short where a mom points at the make up and middle inside cross-section of an eggplant to her daughter and says that you “can’t deny the existence of God” and that’s kind of what this is like, fractals appear E V E R Y where, even in eggplants, in vegetables like that weird broccoli, in flowers, trees, in non plant organisms and ect.
Edit: I tried to make and write this so that it’s like I don’t have a side or option in this argument in this religion related stuff that definitely goes on in the comment sections..
”You have the potency to be strong, but you’re not.” That line hit hard fr 😢
edit: 2:15
I feel you're pain lol
@@Young_Christian7 😭
But you have the potency!
@@H4N5_GRU83R but we're still not strong 😔
You still have potency *wink emoji* @@Young_Christian7
I’m studying pure mathematics and it feels like you are missing the point that mathematics is just an abstract perspective on what we can learn given a set of rules. All math we come up with must be built upon axioms (rules) we have made from the start. The goal is to see how far we can go with them.
You are right, but the fact we have made it this far with the math we have discovered (or invented, take your pick) is really not something to take for granted. I don't believe in god but I can see why for some people, god acts as an explanation that ties everything together.
You believe math was created not discovered? Thats a pretty odd take.
@@Quincy_Morriswhy not? I mean, axioms are just assumptions that we make that all of math can be derived from. They have been revised in the past. Also, there alternate rule sets that we can follow that generate totally different structures that also can be studied.
To say that math was discovered implies that the axioms foundational to math are universal which is flat out wrong!
and dagnabbit i wanna go back i dont want to learn ordinal numbers in math
@@fctucycy8v8yvy67 I think a key word you used is "generate." Yes we choose and list our axioms, but the abstract structures that those axioms "generate" or apply to seem to have an independent existence whether or not we would have ever figured out their respective axioms. By listing our axioms, we are not creating the structures, they exist whether or not we do, we are simply "pointing" at a particular structure that we are interested in.
It's important to explain that Pascal's wager is not at all an argument. It can be a good thought experiment or a reason to dig deeper, but it's not at all an argument, especially since it's a false idcotomy.
Pascal doesn't so much neglect the other options as he has already considered them unreasonable by the time a person gets to the point of considering the wager.
It’s a really bad reason for faith too. Believing god because you’re afraid of the other outcome won’t get you into heaven.
@@acog_quarks8753 It's not meant as a final reason but as a bridge to true faith.
"Endeavor then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured."
@@acog_quarks8753 Pascal also doesn't make that wager in a box. The wager is made only after one comes to believe that its at least a 50/50 chance that God is real.
@@blusheep2which god
"I don't get it."
"Okay, let's make it even HARDER."
I like this guy.
Yea it was quite unexpected
Somehow, he doesn't understand such a simple concept himself. If God could exist because he does, why can't the universe? I can simply say that the universe doesn't have a cause and has always existed; what's the difference?
@@hopelesslyoptimistic8231 I think you can't make that claim because the universe obviously has a cause, has physics, and laws, that can't be explained reasonably. If there was an eternal, perfect, unmoved intelligent universe then you could make that claim i guess.
@@hopelesslyoptimistic8231 you are completely ignoring the statement he said at the end of the video. He isn't defending them or supporting those arguments, just giving you a summarized version of their argument.
@@ThomasDemonte-fb6jj My point is there could be an explanation for one thing that could exist without a cause. Perhaps the existence of such a thing is the cause of itself. There are plenty of other subjects that are beyond human thought processes, so the idea of something without a cause confuses us. There does not need to be a God for everything to exist, and all the “perfection” of your universe could be used and explained by trial and error. There could have been eons of failed universes, but we happen to live in a stable one
The problem with pascal's wager is their is a possibility the actual "god" disagrees with everything you believe in and knows your god is false cause it's the real god.
Yeah in which case, the religious person might actually be risking a much worse punishment than the atheist.
Huh, I’ve never thought of it this way
That wouldn't make sense though. If God is real you would expect all the other "false gods" to die out or at least have a minority of worshippers in the world, and that's exactly how it is regarding God (the Abrahamic God). Even Hinduism, which is polytheistic, has the concept of "the supreme reality, Brahman", which is the closest thing to God in that religion.
@@greg77389 The idea this comment proposes is that the “real god” doesn’t have an input in peoples beliefs, he exists but humanity has come to different conclusions on how he exists. He just watches and let’s us decide, and if he doesn’t like our decisions then you’ll got to hell
@@greg77389Maybe it's like a hierarchy system, like Greek mythology
This really helps to break down the nuances of failure in every one of these arguments. This was a quality video 👍🏻
(Ultimately we can’t explain god)
As an Atheist, the Consciousness argument definitely gets me thinking about the possibility of a world beyond the material. I doesn’t convince of any religion, but I gets me thinking.
consciousness remains some time in body after death... for some reason.
so yea before either going to afterlife or disappearing you are alive in a dead body.
this detachment of body and consciousness is pretty interesting and must be researched.
Funny because consciousness is the argument I dislike the most. There is no difference between us and animals. We just are more advanced. We function with our instincts and our desires. I am talking to you about an “abstract’ subject because I have a “data base” of knowledge in my brain, which connect to make ideas, and my desire is to share it with you. I don’t see how that’s so mystical or spiritual.
@@elali64 humans are animals, i rather saying non-human animals.. or simply aloteras.
and the desire to share information is because knowledge sharing causes evolution.. so its instinctive aswell
@@jktech2117 Your brain is still active for a short while after death, there is still definitely a connection, just a near severed one on the brink of destruction
@@basic6735 just look for news, many people who have already passed the threshold of death and resuscitated on the hospital had some signs of consciousness during dead short period.
whats the most interesting are the famous out of body experience where people could explain stuff that happened during this short period.
could be just the remains of consciousness trying to interpret whats going on, but is hard to define since during death u cant see as much activity on the brain.
i really do think people with high chance of death on surgeries should volunteer to a study about this, because if there is something more or at least understanding the foundations of the self and consciousness is important.
until rn we dont know if the consciousness is destroyed or it just leak out of the body, or remain in the body and slowly breaks into pieces while the body rots and all the energy that make up the consciousness is dissipated to dirt turning us into billion pieces.
As an atheist, I've always been "turned off" by religious conversations because all of my friends who are Christian go towards "Because he just does exist", but they never mention anything scientific, nor if they believe Adam and Eve were the first human, if Mary is a Virgin and if that's possible, etc. However, with the Telelogical argument, I feel I could have an amazing convo with someone irl.
Thanks redeemed zoomer!
The thing with the teleological argument is that meanings can come from a human's subjective interpretation of a experience.
also as an atheist i agree, this video brings up a lot of great points, some are unsubstantial but the concept behind them is explained very well!
I just chum it up too he exists and be on my merry way. Because when any atheist wants an argument, they just get bent out of shape. The best interaction I have found is having none at all. Better than having pure vitriol spewed at you. Nope, had enough of that in my younger years.
I think the main problem with it is, in general out of all the analogies, the thing (watch, painting, building, etc.) that is too complex to have come out of nothing or by chance should therefore be made by a designer namely humans and since humans are complex they must have also been made by a designer namely God. But then, wouldn't that make God complex too? Who is God's creator?
From there, you can think of many ways to reason out.
- It just stops with God cause why not he's God?
- God is not complex, hmmm he is simple?
I'm too dumb for this everything is just a dead end not to mention if there was an actual good reason, why would it specifically be the Christian god out of all the many many gods?
@@cagedgandalf3472 exactly, a lot of the arguments in the video rely on some assumptions that contradict the normally theological perspective. If god is the creator of the first thing to be created he did not create himself and cannot create himself therefore is he not all powerful? If god is the embodiment of power itself that is barely a god to worship and more a philosophical concept without any real presence.
7:02 lmaooooo
“Maybe yellow looks like this to you”
*shows green*
don’t do this to me
Hold up… 😳
how do you know it's green if you've called it yellow this whole life?
@@wangdomAvg2900peanut butter ham sandwich with cheese and a side of curtains
p u r p l e
The little reference to Tucker’s Putin interview was hilarious
Totally missed this
Can't believe you went through the whole mathematics section without mentioning the Fibonacci Sequence
Whats so special about it? It just the adding of numbers
There’s probably an infinite number of beautiful mathematical concepts he could of brought up. None of them would be an adequate proof of the existence of a god.
@Batzero8515 How so?
@@gregstunts347 that copium isn't gonna last you for eternity bro
@@ryanc970 It’s true, maths being beautiful doesn’t prove gods existence. Maths is beautiful because it consists of a web of interconnected logic. You can attribute it to being the creation of your god, but it is not proof that they exist. We lack knowledge outside of the universe to say definitively that a godless universe cannot have beautiful math.
The constant “i” does have uses in real world mathematics, mostly in physics. Modern mathematicians dislike the fact that they are referred to as imaginary because of this. However, that isn’t to say there aren’t fields of mathematics that don’t apply to the real world. There certainly are, and they are typically referred to as “pure mathematics.” In my opinion, this probably stems more from math’s infinite nature rather than an intelligent designer. Rant over
The mathematical argument is literally using a deity to fill up gaps in understanding. "This seems too perfect to be caused by anything we currently know, therefore it's Gods work". Same with the cosmological one: "We don't know how time or causality works beyond our universe, therefore God just made everything".
I was trying to take more of a neutral stance, theology wise, just tried to point out a misconstruing of facts. @@Ruzzky_Bly4t
Also the word deity is related to polytheism and means a created god
God by definition is uncreated also it isn‘t filling a gap in our knowledge we know that everything has a begining and the begining must be god because then we devolve into to the pointless question of yes but what happened before that
In electrical engineering, using irrational numbers is essential, and also applied to the real world in terms of circuits and their behaviour (inductors, capacitors and phasors).
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t The same can be aplied to atheism "We don't know what created this, therefore the science will explain it and it won't be God"
cannibalism is bad not because someone said so, but because it hurts, most people prefer survival over death
Also, prions which can spread and cause mad cow disease.
@@NeatCrownthat’s only if you eat the brain
And why is you hurting bad?
@@Kioley123 because we don't want to die, we are coded to try to stay alive so we can reproduce
@@Kioley123 hurting your own species when theres no apparent reason is bad for the survival of the species. So due to evolution its mostly discouraged since well reproduction is the instincutal endgame for any organism and taking away that potential endgame for no reason is bad for the survival of your own species
pascal's wager is one of my favorites because i can say "moral of the story is? keep gambling"
As an Atheist, I appreciate this video because it shows me what christians have been trying to tell me but couldn’t. I am grateful for seeing this because it made me understand the world better and the people who don’t share the same ideals or logic as me.
how do you disagree with every single thing he said?
@@matheuscabral9618I can't speak for the poster, but most of these arguments can be reduced to arguments from incredulity.
"How can evolution create something as complicated as modern cells?"
"How can math make an infinite pattern and go so far without being tied to reality?"
"How can consciousness be created from non-conscious atoms?"
All of the ones I quoted are essentially saying "I don't know the answer to this question, so God explains it."
While it's not definitively incorrect, it's fallacious and I ultimately don't currently buy into reasoning of this nature. Also, if you ask an atheist any of these questions they'll likely just admit they don't know, which is a more honest and powerful answer than it's given credit for.
@@matheuscabral9618
Because religion is also a feeling, and if it isn’t genuine then I can’t say I believe in God. I never fully did believe in him no matter how hard others tried, I never felt connected.
Then after realising that the bible goes against basic science that was the point I became an atheist. Even with the arguments about how you need something infinite to make our universe, that can be also said about the Big Bang which is the scientific answer. So it is hard to argue for God with me when he can be replaced with a scientifically accurate phenomenon.
The math one doesn’t hold for me either because math also says that there are 25% chances we live in a simulation and so much less than 1% that God exists. (25% is less than 50.(1)% so I don’t believe in that either)
For morals I don’t believe morals can be fully objective. There is always an element of subjectivity in it, even in the morals of “as long as nobody is or will be hurt then it is ok”. Because that is based on the fact that we don’t like to be hurt which can be a subjective thing because hurt isn’t universally hated, just mostly hate, some people like hurt, there are even kinks about that. Or people who are ok with some hurt because they don’t think that some hurt is a big fuzz (when applied to themselves as well, not just others). So this means even the most common and sensible moral basis is still subjective.
And being religious outside of needing faith in something non-observable from a source that as far as I am concerned is also unreliable, it needs spirituality, and I am not spiritual at all. So I can’t believe in God because I don’t feel spiritually connected to anything, and whenever I see spiritual stuff (which religiousness ≠ spirituality), I always feel like it is a waste of time because it’s better to just be honest and reflect than make stuff up to help reflect.
So this is why I don’t believe in God despite seeing this video. I can’t connect to it, I disagree with some of the premises used for the arguments in the video and when that isn’t the case there is always a more on point scientific explanation that goes against that. And because of the lack of spirituality within me I am not open to the idea of god no matter what. If I can’t connect with it, then I can’t say that I believe in it.
@@andreimircea2254 ok fair enough, I still think continuousness and theological are way beyond anything science could ever explain, and the chance of everything just happening by chance would be crazy, but I appreciate you took the time to write that
@@quadrewplex6782
Well said. Sometimes we just don’t know, and it’s okay and it doesn’t mean anything unless there is proof that it does. For instance, IDK why cells can form something so complex, but I know that trough evolution they do. The rest is above me.
The math argument sounds like it came from someone watching 3Blue1Brown while high.
In all fairness, it feels like a shotgun argument, where the volume of the argument is supposed to indicate how true it is.
yeah, and they didnt understand what he was talking about lol
@@dankrigby5621
Yeah, basically. It's the idea that if you vomit words so much that people cant keep track of what you're saying, and ideally just accept your argument because you push so many words and give 0 room for thinking. Its a favorite Apologist live debate strat, but it usually gets shut down by moderators because it's overtly fallacious.
IF YOU CAN NOT COVINCE THEM THEN CONFUSE THEM
HERE ARE SOME ARGUMENT AGAINST HIS MATHS PROOF
I COULD SAY THAT TOA IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PI
WHAT HE SPOKE IN NAME OF EULER IDENTITY WAS UTTER BULLSHIT
HE DOES EVEN KNOW HOW EULER IDENTITY WAS FORMED
HUMANS (WHO MADE MATHS IN WRITTEN FORM) GENERALLY TRY TO MAKE THINGS SIMPLE
EULER IDENTITY ORK BECAUSE THE COODINATE SYSMTEM WAS DEFINED IN SUCH A WAY
ETC
"I don't get it."
"Ok, let's make it even harder then." 😂
Literally the mood when you debate fans of that argument. Like wtf bro.
Since you wanted to give everyone a brief overview of these arguments so they can look into them on their own, allow me to provide brief rebuttals so everyone can look into those too.
1. Teleological - "Seems to have" is not an argument, and in order to claim that the constants have been fine-tuned, you need to know two things: how many values the constant could have had, and the odds of those values occurring. For example, we know that the odds of rolling a six-sided die and getting a four are 1:6. We know this because we know how many sides there are (6), and we know the values of those sides (1,2,3,4,5,6). To say that the gravitational constant was fine tuned, you need to know how many sides that dice had, and the values on each side. Did it have a 1 in 1000000000 chance of being what it is? Or 1 in 1000? What about 1 in 50? Could it be that the gravitational constant could only ever have one value, which means it was 100% certain that it would we what it is?
I don't know. No one knows. And BECAUSE no one knows, there is no justification for claiming that anything has been fine-tuned.
Also, evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth. Given that the gravitational constant is not a form of life, OF COURSE evolution doesn't explain it. Evolution has nothing to do with it. That's not a problem any more than my printer not making me waffles is a problem. The purpose of a printer is to print. The purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain the diversity of life.
2. Pascal's Wager - Maybe a god exists that rewards atheists with cupcakes and sends a Christian boys named Thomas to hell, which is a completely dry waterpark. Maybe a god exists that sends EVERYONE to heaven because he's not a maniac. Maybe the ancient Norse gods are real, and modern day theists are in for a rude awakening when they die.
There are an infinite number of possible Gods, possible Heavens, possible Hells, and possible reasons for going to any of them. Believers are not mathematically safer than anyone else.
Pascal's Wager also assumes that God doesn't dinstinguish between true believers and "Just covering my ass" believers.
3. Cosmological - Everything has a cause except this thing that doesn't have a cause. It's self-contradictory on its face. The moment you allow for ONE thing that can exist without a beginning, you've opened the door for any number of things existing without a beginning. And I can provide two options that require fewer assumptions than God: the universe, and existence.
It also assumes that causality predates time as it exists today. Since causality is a function of time as it exists today, and time as it exists today is the result of the Big Bang, it's absurd to assume that causality applies *before* the Big Bang, or if there even *was* a "before" at all.
The Cosmological argument is an attempt to dumb down an enormously complex question. The tools we have for explaining why the universe is the way it is work wonderfully until you hit the Big Bang, at which point they become useless, like a compass at the North Pole. That doesn't mean the answer is "God did it." It means "We don't know yet, but we're working on it."
4. Morality - "If we want to say that something is objectively bad, we need a God to justify that, therefor God exists"? This isn't even an argument. It doesn't demonstrate that objective morality (and therefor God) actually exists - it only says that IF objective morality exists, it must come from a God. Until that "IF" can be proven true, this is a big pile of nothing.
5. Ontological - Do me a favor. Go look up the logical syllogism form of this argument, replace every instance of "God" with "He-man," then tell me how the argument *doesn't* prove the existence of He-man. The Ontological argument is an attempt to define God into existence, and unfortunately for God, that's not how existence works.
6. Transcendental Argument - "Science needs axioms" says the theist while wearing their fancy "God Exists" axiom hat. We both rely on baseline assumptions. The difference is we can test our assumptions. Theists can't.
7. Consciousness - Has only ever been observed in living things with functioning brains. We know that altering a brain can alter consciousness; we know that damaging a brain can damage consciousness; and we know that destroying a brain destroys consciousness. If one wants to posit the existence of some hidden explanatory mechanic, they need to pony up the evidence.
8. Mathematics - The reason math still works is because **math is manmade**. It is a tool that we created to help explain the world around us. There's nothing surprising here.
I really can’t take this comment seriously, it just OOZES “take that!” Energy. The amount of spite in these ‘brief’ rebuttals is palpable.
Take a quick note, you’re not fighting a war on theism. You’re discussing philosophical arguments on the internet, and most of these debates can’t reach an answer.
If you really cared to discuss these topics earnestly, I’m sure you wouldn’t format these topics to be as mean-spirited as possible towards a specific group of people. If I believed in any sort of god, you sure as hell wouldn’t convince me of anything
@@kitchen_sponge First off, I'm a big fan of the scare quotes around "brief." It's a good way to let the viewers of this 10+ minute video that an extra 90 seconds of reading is just plain unreasonable.
The only thing I'm waging a war on is bad arguments. People believing in God doesn't bother me, but people trying to dress that belief up in big boy clothes and insist that they should get to sit at the adult table this Thanksgiving do. The only group of people I'm attacking here are those putting high heels on their arguments and insisting that they're tall.
I agree, and i have a bit more to see about the responses saying "We don't know". "We don't know" is a perfectly valid response. But an even better one (imo) is "We don't know YET". 2500 years ago, we had no way to explain how waves existed and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later, so they had to explain it with god. Now, physics has an answer with fluid equations and physics.
500 years ago, we had no idea how life appeared, and how there were so many different forms of life and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later, so they had to explain it with god. Now, with evolution, science has an answer too.
100 years ago, we had no way to explain how life appeared from earth and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later, so they had to explain it with god. Now, we still don't have a perfect answer, but we start to understand how. (Do you start to see the pattern ?)
100 years ago, we also had no way to explain how the universe formed and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later. So they had to explain it with god. Now, the big-bang kinda explains it (but not fully).
Right now, we have no way of explaining how conciousness exists and we can't imagine that we will have an answer later, so "we have to explain it with god". But how can we be so sure that for this, we won't have an answer in 50, 100 or even 500 years ? Why would we do the same mistakes thinking that now, for conciousness, we will never have an answer and continue to explain it with god ?
I think one of the best arguments for God's existence is the fine-tuning of the universe
Edit: Wow, this is the most likes I have ever gotten, thanks guys
Wouldnt it be survivorship bias?
@@swit5711 How so? Like the fundamental makeup of the universe is just going to spontaneously collapse some day?
@@denkillen suppose 50 universes with different random laws of physics and one of them happens to be able to support life this would seem like fine-tuning to the creatures but be a product of random outcome
@@roode2123 1) the multiverse hypothesis is literal science fiction with no evidence whatsoever
2) if you still want to argue the multiverse hypothesis, this does not actually refute the fine tuning argument since it just pushing the question back as the "universe generator" that is producing these infinite universes must be even more fine tuned to do what it does
@@Rocky-ur9mn uncaused causer
I like how you presented them and didn’t argue for them. Some of these look pretty weak and uses a lot of assumptions. Others feel way more concrete.
Just because the purpose for this specific video isn't to go into detail, doesn't mean its not possible
@@astralite8769 Yeah, the point is that the video *didn’t* go into detail. Not that it couldnt be done.
Excactly@@Julian0101
@@astralite8769 they've all been debunked and most debunked five minutes after they were dreamed up. why do people who claim to have god by their side 24/7 feel the need to be reassured constantly that their talking snake cult isn't silly? i've been atheist all my life, never needed an apologist to reassure me people die and stay dead and that all gods are mythology.
@@HarryNicNicholas Why cant you be cival
._. Ffs let people belive what they want and stfu
The last one was the best! "Trust me bro." LOL 😂
Not hating, just stating my opinion. Correct me if i'm wrong:
Argument 1: Not understanding things that happen already was evidence for god in the middle age. Assuming something cant happen naturally and blaming it on god is mostly the lack of knowledge about what ist happening. Its also an individual emotional experience which cannot be used as an rational argument. Storys from people who died because saying they saw what christ did might seem convincing, because people wouldnt die for made up things. But these storys are 2000 years old and could easyly have been altered over time.
Argument 2: Objective Moral is actually not real. We as a society have the illusion of an objective moral. It is actually a collective subjective moral, because we as human beeings and a society have the same interests, which lead to a enjoyable human life. That is the reason why we all say killing ist bad as example. Objectively right and wrong dont exist, because for moral to exist wee need individual conciousnesses, which all perceive right and wrong in another way. Seeing 8 Billion Individuals perceive the same things as good and bad, leads to an illusion of objective moral.
Argument 3: This argument is known in philosophy as the "prima causa" (the first cause). It is undenyable that everything has to have a cause so there needs to be a first cause of everything. The only thing we know about it is that it exists or existed. It has to either be its own cause or have existed forever. Thats the philosophical god. But two things we need to think about here: firstly, the prima causa does not have to exist today. It just needed to cause everything. After the Existence of something had started, the prima causa could have stopped existing, because other things existed which could be causes for other things. And secondly, the prima causa does not have to be a god like we think about, it doesnt even have to be concious. It could just be a physical force or a cosmic event. So yeah, there is a cause, but as I just explained, it does not have to be a god. And also the common question: If it is god, which one? Which religion is true?
Argument 4: Pascals Wager has no meaning because anything could be put in there. If we replace god with the flying spagetthi monster, everyone would have to believe in it after his logic. Or what if we put in a god that punishes people for believing and rewards them for not believing? My point is that this argument loses credibility, because Pascals wager can be used on everything
and therefore have contradictional outcomes.
Argument 5: Darwinism is not the entirety of biological knowledge. With the synthetical theory the existence of complex biological systems can be explained and proved. With experiments we can even recreate the emergence of life from non alive matter. And the physical constantes: In order to be a human being that is able to measure that these constantes are fine tuned, they firstly need to be. In all the billions of possible existences where they are not fine tuned, no one would be there to notice. The chances are still horrendously low, but the finde tuned physical constantes can only be noticed if they are perfect.
Argument 6: It is a thought experiment that cannot be proven. Also it is very theoretical and hypothetical but very interesting.
Argument 7: It is assumed that everything has to make sense. But that is not true. Existence and Things can be a product of senseless randomness. Might sound weird but The Sense of things isnt a thing that is objectively there, but gets made up in our minds.
Argument 8: Conciousness is still a scientifical problem but can be explained. There are different parts in our brains, which are responsible for different tasks. Some controll the non concious vegetative nervous system which controlls heart,bloodflow, digestion, etc. . Other parts make up our personality and Conciousness. When these parts are destroyed the person is no longer an individual and could be called dead, but the vegetative brain parts are still working so the heart is beating, the lungs are breathing etc. . Conciousness in the product of complex neuronal networks which isnt completely understood. But it is dependent on the physical structure of the brain. Digital neuronal networks in AI's might get very interestic for science once we can create strong AI's, not like ChatGPT, which are concious.
Argument 9: The seeming perfection of math can be described with the fine tuned physics explained earlier. If math would not be that perfect, we would not exist. That is because math is based on observations of the universe. Imaginary numbers and non-world-related math are also just theoretical and therefore cannot be projected on a practical world.
Argument 10: "Trust me bro." Sorry i cannot debunk that, too strong
I dont mean this comment in any anti theological way, im just writing what I think about these arguments. I cannot prove that god exists, neither can I prove that he does not. Overall I think that religion is a beautiful thing, which helps people deal with fear and live better lives, wether it is real or not. Maybe god is just a societal concept that lives from the believe in it. No matter what, believing is a great help for people, and gives us moral instances. As I said, I like religion (except if its destructive) and dont want to hate on it. Thank you all for reading this book i wrote here and have a great day!
Amazing comment! I thought a lot of the same things as you while watching and you even surprised me with some stuff I hadn’t realised. The only thing I might say is that imaginary numbers despite their poor choice of name, do describe physical phenomena in our universe. This means they’re not as abstract as they might sound
This was actually pretty thought provoking thanks for making this i didnt know about these arguments
1. Cosmos only explains Big Bang, not the existence of god.
2. Morals are made by humans and have been changing by the pass of the history, we used to sacrifice childrens to god but that's now considered bad and heretical, so it is not a value to consider if god exists or not.
3. Theology was made by humans, the bible is a human construction, why bible should be more important than any other relgious text?
Who say your god is real? What if we're all wong? Because at the end god is a human creation to explain the history and how the world works.
(Just read sumerian tales written about the kings and you will find great simmilities with the bible, like the origin of Mosses and more)
4. How do you know there is a god and not a godess? How do you know is not different deities having different works?
You can't, because there is nothing that proves the existence of god but there is millions of tests that prove the evolution, big bang, and multiple other things.
5. The personal experience argument as the previous point it breaks by themselves, i can say Goku is the real god and Toriyama just made it to gave him a representation we all can see, and he died after see the degeneration of humanity. And no, this won't work, if i say i saw goku and he took me flying over the sky and you have to believe me because is my personal experience... Bad.
6. The pascal wager only contemplates one kind of god, what if there is a god who doesn't need of praying? And just want us to improve our world and society?
What if you go to hell because that god doesn't like how instead of do his work (end with poverty, fight inequalities) there are their "servitors" who istead of help the world they just try to convert people into their fake religion? While the real god is against that... What about this?
7. No, all of this makes sense with or without god, there is no need of a god to make science work, this is why science exists and humans abandoned Theology to explain the world.
Otherwise we would still thinking it rains because god says so, or because is sad, or because we sacrified our childrens, and we know why it rains, because the condensation of the air, bla bla bla...
8. Sir, our minds are creation of the nature, all what we think is because or origins.
Why do you think fats and sugar are so good for our brain? Why you think people likes it so much? Because fats were incredible good for us when we started to explore and expand, because it helped us to move for longer, why do you think we are two-foot creatures? Because energetically talking is more efficient, and why we love sugar? Because is HARD to find in Nature...
ALL we are, ALL we think, ALL we believe, is explained looking at our past, why humans don't marry with their family? Because genetically talking that would lead to worse childrens, by consequence daughters were exchanged between the primitival people to increase the numbers of humans with more diverse genes, making they better at running, carrying, etc.
All animals cooperate to survive, monkeys make chains to transport fruit, birds warn each other about predators, etc.
And humans feed each other to survive for longer, but animals do it too, all our brain is what it is because of dozens of thousands of years of evolution since the firsts humans to today.
Why people wants to fly? Because humans never have been able to look whats behind the clouds. Why people fear darkness? Because at night predators can hunt us, etc...
9. Sir, maths works because maths explains how the existence works, at difference of your god you can ask for rain and will not produce rain, because there is an alternative explaination with REALLY explains why it rains, the same happens with math, this is just sad how you try use math at your favor when is more at the contrary, it all works not because god, but because maths is an excellent system to explain our world, but is not new, it always existed, the thing is we're expanding those knowledge thanks to discard the believe to god.
10. There is not a single evidence of the existence of god, is not about arguments, is about PROVE it is exists, for now it has been proved through math and science it doesn't exist, and if it does, is not so powerfull or is not so good.
Or is a weak god who only supervises what the people do or is a maniac who love to see pain and suffering, also, we don't know if there is a god or multiple ones, if they're good and bad or just bad or just good, or if they're male, female, or both...
At the end of the day the believers can't prove god exists, that's why they're BELIEVERS, because they see the world, they see god doesn't exist on it, but they still choose to BELIEVE "Just in case".
This video is excellent to show up why religious people can't prove the existence of god and instead of that they just choose to create weak "arguments" that can't take a logical observation.
I studied theology for more than a decade, i was about to be a priest, all i seen in the clergy was all the opposite is on the bible.
I never found god or anything like that, a part of me stills being a bit religious, but we must accept god doesn't exist until is proven, because who says our Christian god is the real god?
Who? What if they're other gods? What if we're been wrong and the real gods are the roman ones? There is no way to know, and if you dedicate your life to a wrong god maybe you go to hell anyways, so this is more like:
Exists a one or multiple gods? Yes - No
You believe on it? Yes - No
If a god exists: You believe in the wrong one and you go to hell because of it - Nothing happens because once the deities have been revealed you're not late to pray to they
If a god doesn't exist: You just wasted your life and did nothing to improve this world, only skinking it more into the abyss, condemning the whole civilization to pain, death and suffering in exchange of things - You improved the society by seeking alternatives to "god will provide" and probably you fighted poverty and inequality, improving this world.
We all can make these manipulative charts, this chart i made is not even realistic, is just to show we all can do the same.
The only realistic thing of my chart that yours doesn't have is the consideration of multiple deities and the consideration of make they angry if you believe in the wrong one.
So is all especulation, the only thing proved is we can explain everything in our minds, world and universe without the need of a god, and by consequence it doesn't exists until somebody can prove it.
The biggest issue about the moral argument is that morals *are* subjective. While it would be difficult to find someone who thinks something like cannibalism is good in more modern cultures, you don't have to go that far back into history to find an account, like mummia. The Iliad contains Odysseus beating an ugly person up because he spoke out because Odysseus was the hero and it was morally good at the time.
You missed the point of the argument...
@@dawnfire82 i think his point is just moral argument will always be weak in reality
i think the moral argument can just be debunked by evolution. Why don't most animals reproduce with family. Because inbreeding produces inferior offspring. Why don't most animals cannibalise. because the survival of the species is beneficial to reproduction. Everything mainly focuses on reproduction. You could call reproduction a god heh. Of course theres always going to be outliers.
@@dawnfire82i don’t think he did. Morals are relative, it is just set and revised by our modern culture. Culture + instincts form morality.
Incorrect. Humans are born with a sense of right and wrong therefore morals are objective.@@ahhhsothisishowyouchangean162
Refreshing to see arguments for god portrayed in a calm, humorous and yet still logical way
Im atheist, and have my rebutals, but i can tell youre a good hearted person who is doing a good job at relaying very important arguments and discussions, keep it up!
Rebuttals please! My theological curiosity will not be sated if I don't get them.
Really tho. I am curious about how to argue against these, which can inturn improve the arguments by finding a way that works
@@troydunnage6749 one rebuttal i would have is, for example, the teleological argument.
It is fundementally based on human bias, not a universal truth. The claim that most things in the universe display a purpose is generally incorrect. Only about 0.0001% of observable things appear to show "purpose." And is it much coincidence that most things that show purpose are those around and similar to us?
As humans, we generally like classifying and deciding how things should work, so when we see things like ecosystems and organisms functioning, it is only natual to assume they must have been intended to be this way, but they only "work" in the way we humans have decided is working. (That is, the assumption that things maintaining their status quo is generally good.) Most of these things that do allegedly "function" simply do so because they're stable, able to perpetuate themselves further, which is what the law/theory of evolution would dictate would happen with or without a god.
@troydunnage6749 Ill try my best, but im not sure if OP agrees with that I'd say.
Evidential: This is a case by case one, you can just look at different sources and whatnot to refute this argument as required.
Moral: Morality is a complicated subject, why it exists is explained by our modern understanding of evolution and how "moral" humans would be selected for since our species is a social one.
Morality has to be assumed as an objective truth for this argument to work, when it isnt, in most religions you can easily point out how their own morals are ever changing, if this isnt enough then we could easily explain morals away through rational thought. Morality is also case by case too, "is it ok to kill babies? No? What if that baby caused WWII? Still no?", etc.
Cosmological: This one is also based off of an assertion with no proof of its validity. Why cant all things be caused by other things? Why does there have to be a first cause? What does a first cause mean if time didnt exist? If a first cause does have to exist, and it can and did exist, why would it be a god? It could just be a particle with 0 consciousness, it can be a single noodle with no will, it could be anything. Why god specifically? Why pick god over say a turtle?
Pascal's wager: Its absolutely wrong, this is rhe easiest to disprove so instead of recounting everything from memory and doing a botched job of disproving it I'd HIGHLY recommend a channel called TheraminTrees and their famous video on Pascals Wager.
Theological: Also very easy to debunk. Lets start with fine tuning, if things were different we wouldnt exist, so things must be the way they are for us to make the observation that they are the way they are, and this also assumes that the constants CAN change, it also assumes that these constants are the only way to "construct" a universe, it also assumes that theres a chance factor if god didnt exist. All baseless claims, without any tangible proof. As for cells acting like machines, evolution can explain it, this requires basic understanding of biology.
Ontological: These are human definitions of "greater than", why is existing greater than not existing? Why is bigger better than smaller? Etc etc.
Also, theres so many different paradoxes that follow the assumption of a All knowing all powerful and all good god. Simple one being: God is all knowing, he knows what you will do, you have no free will, and then you go to hell in some religions, but you had no choice, god could change that due to his infinite power, but he doesnt, so god cant be all good? Or he cant be all knowing? Or he doesnt have the power thus cant be all Powerful? Badly explained but hopefully you get the gist.
Experience: I dont think i have to explain this, countless times has it been proven that personal experience is not reliable, society would collapse if we went off of persinal unsubstantiated experience.
Transcendental: This one is so nonsensical, you assume a worldview where god exists, but where's the basis in that view? Everything still crumbles from the ground up? This is the god of the gaps but fancier.
Consciousness: An emergent property is a property of a group/thing that cannot be found in any individual part of the said group/thing. This argument is founded on ignorance. A single ant is worthless, yet get enough together and you have a colony. A Motherboard itself is worthless, combine it with different parts of a computer and suddenly you can play fortnite. This one needs basic thought and reasoning to disprove.
Mathematics: This one is built upon misunderstandings and presumptions. Imaginary numbers are real, they're jsut badly named. Finding complexity in maths to prove god is stupid, why does the mandelbrot set require god to exist? It assumes that god created so it can say that it cant exist without a god. This is a circular argument? Euler's discovery is incredible indeed, he was brilliant, but it does not mean god exists, just because he discovered an equation does not mean a god exists. Why does math require god to exist? No idea why this presumption was made. Maybe someone can shed more light on this, its my first time seeing this argument.
And thats all.
Trust me this guy is not. He says the most outlandish things on this and his Whatifathist channel
@@troydunnage6749 I actually posted my rebuttals in the main comments, but I'll post them here so you can examen them as you please.
Firstly, this argument is weak as a "supernatural event" isn't at all well documented, nor is at all a good idea to rely on random miracles happening in profession of a faith. Yes strange things may happen, but in relation of a faith is cherry picking a coincidence at best. Now, I just want to be logical with this to be unbiased. However, I do want to note that there has been no evidence by the Romans of Jesus' resurrection, and with an event of that magnitude, it seems suspicious at best again. Again, people dying for their faith isn't a crazy weird thing only with Christianity. Just look at cults.
Second, very weak argument; not sure why he put it in.
It's a baseless claim. Objective morality is not real. However, human nature is. We see murder as bad in most of us because we were evolved to need each other to prosper as a society. If we were hard wired with pure subjective morality then we wouldn't be where we are today. I recommend looking into Game Theory if you're interested.
Third, this is an interesting one. Everything has a cause as per the axiom of causality. However, we're tracing it back to the big bang times. Where all our current understanding of time and causality breaks down. To say that the only solution of a universe is due to God because everything has a cause is disingenuous as most our instruments break down around this time, so we cannot accurately pertain an answer as to what may happen. Further note, a "first cause" does indeed break an axiom of causality, so a God being a "first cause" would break science as we know it. Where as with science, we may see an extension of this axiom instead. The comments about actualizing a potential is just an extension of causality; not sure why he brought it up to be honest.
Fourth, I really hope I don't have to explain why this is wrong. I am anyway, but never use this an argument. A major issue is that this relies on fear and punishment rather than an actual faith. Is faith real if you're being held at gun point? ie, would you truly love your parents if you know that result of not loving them would be getting slapped eternally. An extension of pascal's wager is also to believe in the worst god because the worst god will have the most damning punishment, hence it reduces suffrage. Another issue is that it can be applied to literally anything. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Nazi's. Just a terrible argument indeed.
Fifth, there are many routes with this one. Firstly, this is built on a baseless claim of "purpose". To believe this argument would to be believe the universe has purpose, and from a completely logical standpoint, it has none. Now with items such as our cell, it does have a purpose. The purpose is to keep us alive to breed, hence why we have evolved complex systems for thousands of years. I'm not sure on his argument that the ecosystem works as a machine. It can be explained. Again, not by Darwin but by Game Theory. Research it if you're interested. It explains the most curious facet of nature to date, collaboration. The point with the forces seems logical, however, it is not. If you were to look at the universe as it has been made for 14 billions years with such forces then applied different ones, of course it will collapse. However, if you were to alter those constants then let the universe run its course, it'd look plenty different. My point is, you can't suddenly change a varible and say it's evidence. Another point to this that we don't know why these constants are. So to try and explain this is bad practice.
Six, this isn't an argument? It's just making a definition and saying it must be true because this is a definition. The pizza analogy doesn't work because the perfect pizza wouldn't be an infinitely large slice, unless your subjective opinion is to have one be that way, but most probably it's the one that tastes the best.
Seven, never base logic on just "experience that you think you saw". I cannot technically disprove this with argument because Seven isn't even an argument. It's a claim that people think they see God.
Eight, this one actually is my personal favorite as it did make me think for a moment. These logical pillars are true to the universe. Logic, continuity, truth, and with which we can build other bricks out of. However, we can prove pillars from other pillars. We can observe logic and continuity and build truth. We can observe truth and logic and form continuity that are consistent. (This does delve into the realm of meta physics a tad). However, God doesn't fit with these pillars. There is nothing about logic that has to observe God existing. Even if these pillars could not be observed true, they can still be held as axiomatic. Logic should be consistent, and then we build bricks from there. If you're wondering, well what would be the case if we found that logic wasn't consistent, then we'd most likely have to rebuild foundations for further science, however keep current ones as "good enough" answers to old. An example of this is Classical Newtonian Mechanics getting replaced with Einstein's theories, but we still use Newtonian mechanics for simple, old problems.
Nine, perhaps the worse argument here. His point was, well an atom isn't consciousness. Nor is two atoms. Nor is three. Thus consciousness has to be God's work. Large issue with this. It's what's know as fallacy of composition. How the parts must equal the whole. The atom itself wouldn't be consciousness, but the interact thereof. Think of a car. Well an atom isn't a car. Nor is two. Nor is three. Hence a car must be God's work. Well no, we know it's interaction of complex systems that form into this beautiful work of man.
Lastly, the math one is also weak. Humans created math to explain nature. A beautiful formula such as Euler's Identity doesn't prove the work of God. However, it does prove that logical axioms in math hold up because it is a natural sequence and the Euler's Identity can be proven. Math is much like a work of art. It fits together, and when stepped back from, it completes itself. However, we know that work of art is made by man explaining facets of life. This does not mean the art is God. The point with infinity also can be disproven with the same logical as before, and even more so as if I were to make an infinite series that doesn't mean I'm God.
The technical last point is a joke so I won't comment on it.
It took me a while to write
I personally find half of these outright unconvincing or disingenuous, however I think the mind, ontological, and cosmological arguments are compelling and look forward to reading more about them. Good video btw
For the ontological argument, there is no reason to assume that being “greater” is something universal.
E.g. there is no reason to say why existing is objectively better than not existing, or that being eternal is better than having a start and an end. Therefore there is no reason to say that a greatest being must necessarily exist.
@@immoloiser6134 So that was my first thought, but I have seen some rephrase it that it's better than *just existing in the mind alone.* Though it still kinda comes back to presuming existing in multiple states is inherently "greater." It's interesting to think about
I don’t find the cosmological argument to be very compelling. The argument seems to imply that something must have always existed without cause. This could be God, but it could also be energy itself. We can trace our universe back to a time when only energy existed in a dense, singular point. We also know from observation that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so it is sensible to think that energy could be uncaused.
The question of “what came first” is a hard one to answer, but why answer it with God, something we don’t know exists, instead of answering it with energy, something we do know exists.
The creator of this video just asserts that the first uncaused thing must be all powerful and outside of the natural world, but this need not be true. God existing within the supernatural world doesn’t mean something outside of the supernatural world needs to have caused him, so why would something that exists in nature need a cause beyond nature. These are unfounded assertions meant to lead you away from naturalistic explanations.
Look at the Cosmological Argument as presented by William Lane Craig, if you're interested.
@@Apperax the problem appears when you realize greatness is subjective
Thank you for your videos and strengthening my Lutheran faith by helping me discover Dr. Cooper. You are an inspiration Zoomer.
And you're Lutheran just because that's the religion you were taught to believe as a child? (I don't know you, but that's certainly the overwhelming pattern of religious belief, worldwide. If you'd been born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a devout Muslim now, don't you think?)
So, if you care about the truth, maybe you should watch videos from people who disagree with you. I'd recommend Paulogia, a former Christian. But I hope you at least _talk_ to us atheists, occasionally.
I regularly watch videos from Christians, Muslims, religious Jews, etc. I have yet to hear any good evidence that a god is real, but I still like to talk to intelligent people who disagree with me about religion.
@@Bill_Garthright Find an apologist, they know best, excepting clergymen
Martin luther was the man! Everyone should read his book - " The ****** and their lies. "... have you read that steven?
@@paldennorbu8808
_"Find an apologist, they know best, excepting clergymen"_
The only people who run away _faster_ from a conversation with an atheist than apologists are clergymen. That's been _my_ experience, at least. If you know of a religious apologist _or_ a clergyman who is willing to have a conversation, a back-and-forth discussion, with an atheist, please send them my way.
But in my experience, as soon as I ask them for one piece of good evidence - just *one* - religious apologists (Christian and Muslim alike) run for the hills. And it doesn't usually take a pastor even _that_ long to run away.
(I've had a good conversation with a Christian philosophy professor, but even that was extraordinarily rare. And he didn't even _attempt_ to defend Christianity. But he had some wild arguments for a generic god I'd never heard before - not at all persuasive, but interesting. So I enjoyed our discussion, and he said that he did, too. I still hear from him, occasionally.)
@@Bill_Garthright bro didnt watch the video
"You have the potency to be strong, but your not." Thanks, Zoomer. That REALLY helped with my self confidence.
There is an argument that was really compelling during my conversion and that I would like to add to this. French Mathematician and Philosopher Blaise Pascal said "There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of each man which cannot be satisfied by any created thing but only by God the Creator..."
The structure for religion is within all of us. If we don't fill that with God, we'll fill it with something else, but the structure is the same. It involves some kind of salvation, hell, and saints, as figures that illustrate different aspects of greatness. Many make their careers, hobbies, relationships, or worse, vices, into their quasi-religion, with precisely those characteristics. But those can never lead to proper fulfillment.
As for me, I spent a long time trying to find a replacement for religion before I decided to look into the real thing. And then, as Chesterton said, after going around the world, I found that home was right there beside me, all along (having been baptized early and schooled in Catholic schools).
Edit: For some reason, TH-cam isn't registering my replies to the people below, so here's how I'd expand on the topic
There is overwhelming evidence for a "God-shaped hole" throughout history. Every great civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece, from Rome to modern day America, has had God(s) and religion at the core of its social structure.
And when religion started to decline in mainstream thought, Nietzsche - an atheist - claimed that God was dead, and that we had killed him. And then he tells us to beware of what we would replace Him with. Now, we don't replace something (or someone) unless there's an inherent need for it in the first place.
But look, you don't have to agree with me, naturally. I'm more than fine with having great philosophers in Pascal and Nieztsche and every great civilization in history by my side in this argument. I hope you eventually find God!
this is not an argument it's just a statement that only a religious person could agree with in the first place
1) how do you know other avenues can't lead to fulfillment, you got evidence?
2) how do you figure out which religion is true. They could all fill the void, but they can't all be correct.
The argument for a god-shaped hole in us has overwhelming evidence in its favor out there. Every civilization, from mesopotamia to ancient Greeks, from Romans to modern states have had religion as part of its social structure. And once religion was in decline, Nietzsche claimed that we had killed God... But more importantly, he then asked: and what shall we put in Its place? You only need to replace something if there's an inherent need for it in the first place. Thence a god-shaped hole. But hey, if you're not convinced, that's fine. Many great philosophers and every great civilization before you have been, and that's more than enough for me.
@@PvlmVIsHere There is overwhelming evidence for a "God-shaped hole" throughout history. Every great civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece, from Rome to modern day America, has had God(s) and religion at the core of its social structure.
And when religion started to decline in mainstream thought, Nietzsche - an atheist - claimed that God was dead, and that we had killed him. And then he tells us to beware of what we would replace Him with. Now, we don't replace something (or someone) unless there's an inherent need for it in the first place.
But look, you don't have to agree with me, naturally. I'm more than fine with having great philosophers in Pascal and Nieztsche and every great civilization in history by my side in this argument. I hope you find God eventually!
@PvlmVIsHere There is overwhelming evidence for a "God-shaped hole" throughout history. Every great civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece, from Rome to modern day America, has had God(s) and religion at the core of its social structure.
And when religion started to decline in mainstream thought, Nietzsche - an atheist - claimed that God was dead, and that we had killed him. And then he tells us to beware of what we would replace Him with. Now, we don't replace something (or someone) unless there's an inherent need for it in the first place.
But look, you don't have to agree with me, naturally. I'm more than fine with having great philosophers in Pascal and Nieztsche and every great civilization in history by my side in this argument. I hope you find God eventually!
Fun story- i is used in our models for electricity. It’s not as imaginary as we once thought.
There’s an i in the schroedinger equation, the equation that explains how every atom works.
In a sense, nothing other than counting numbers truly is "real". (You can't have -3 apples any more than you can have 3i apples.) But in another sense, ALL numbers, even complex numbers, are useful in explaining real-world phenomena.
You can't really do any physics, outside of Newton's laws, without imaginary numbers.
But it does seem to be the case that all natural constants and properties have real values. (Not just positive values - electric charge for example comes in both positive and negative varieties). Imaginary numbers are necessary "under the hood," but whenever you make an observation, you can only ever measure a real number.
The imaginary number i is used in conceptual practices and for defining and visualizing various models. It never once appears in any physical measurements or values.
It is, in fact, an imaginary number, because its value does not exist anywhere other than solely as a concept.
All numbers are concepts, but all real numbers have an actual physical value they are associated with that can be observed and measured according to said concepts.
Like another person mentioned, you can have 2 apples, and know for a fact that there is more than 1 apple and less than 3. You can't have 2i apples, because imaginary apples don't exist anywhere outside the mind.
@@camerapasteurize7215 Yes, but you also can't have -2 apples, so are negative numbers imaginary? You can't have pi apples, so is pi imaginary? (Though you CAN have apple pie, which is absolutely not imaginary and is delicious.) So negative numbers don't exist outside the mind either. Nor do lots of other types of number. In fact, the only numbers that have true concrete meaning in the real world are, as mentioned, counting numbers (that is to say, integers greater than zero). Everything else is a construct of logic.
Just wanted to mention that imaginary numbers are very real in the physics of electricity and magnetism. Look up the explanation of apparent power which has a “real” component called true power and an “imaginary” component called reactive power. Reactive power is very real and measurable, and so-called imaginary numbers are the way we describe its existence.
Nah, they simply make equations a lot easier, but they don't exist.
The rules of logic apply but not in actuality
@@freshbakedclips4659 I mean real numbers, digits and equations also don't "exist". They're something that people made up to make it easier to describe and analyze things from the real world. It's just that we're so used to them, that they seem like something that the world can't exist without.
@@petkogeorgiev2103the point is I can show you 3 apples.
I can’t show you i apples
@@Quincy_MorrisBut you also can't show me π apples, or √2 apples, because the number of cells in an apple is not divisible by √2 or π (as they're irrational). By that logic, irrational numbers also don't exist, not just imaginary ones.
You can't show me -1 apples either.
You can't divide an apple among one and a half people, because "one and a half people" isn't a thing.
You can't define the existence of these concepts, they're just a made up abstraction in our minds that let us better describe the world around us. Examples where imaginary numbers (or any abstract concept) doesn't make sense aren't useful and don't prove anything.
8:38 equation exists, therefore god, I have no response to that, ya beat me, the equation clearly exists
It’s not even the correct equation. The correct one is e^(i*theta)=cos(theta)+i*sin(theta)
At theta=pi (halfway around a circle) you get e^(i*pi)=-1
I went into more detail (along with arguing for tau as the correct choice of circle constant) in my own comment.
@Shettykettyofbettys So if humans didn't exist 1 apple + 1 apple wouldn't equal 2 apples?
@@isakoolsson If humans didn't exist e^(πi) apples + 1 apple wouldn't equal to 0 apples.
@Shettykettyofbettys That response is postmodernist relativism, in a nutshell. "If it exists beyond human experience, well then it just doesnt actually exist, because I dictate reality."
@Shettykettyofbettys, phenomenons follow rules regardless humans are not there to unravel them
The consciousness argument which you didn't explain fully isnt an agruement for god its an agreement agaisnt materialism
1) Impossbility of natural origin of life
2) Fine tuning of natural constants
3) Natural laws cannot have a natural origin
4) People having religious experiences
5) Genetic research revealing marvelous molecular engineering
1. just a baseless claims
2. No evidence of fine tuning, but if you want to claim that, why was your god so stupid to make the sun give us cancer?
3. baseless claims
4. that means any religion's god is as real as yours. You good with that?
5. DNA fails often and horribly.
Don’t forget grounding of morality. Personally it’s the most powerful argument.
@@jermoosekek1101 Fun Fact: Empathy exists.
1) Allah is not needed to explain our existence
2) survivorship bias
3*) how so?
4) I assume your talking about near death experiences which can be explained by the brain acting as if you were in a dream state
5*) what do you mean by this ?
@@jermoosekek1101 Could you name something that is morally objective
I seriously don't understand the point you made at 4:05 when you said "there are things Darwinian evolution can't explain, like the 4 constants of the universe". Why on Earth would anyone expect evolutionary theory to explain this? Evolution is COMPLETELY irrelevant in that discussion; it's not even in the same scientific discipline. The physical constants are in the realm of cosmology/physics, not biology.
Exactly.
...Huh?
Did bro really just go
"This BIOLOGICAL theory can't explain physics!"
Like, no shit. It's about how animals changed into different species through milennia. Not about how gravity works.
He's yapping that's why
I think he is trying to explain that some things couldn't of happened by chance. some things are just too finetuned to be made up by just luck and time. and Darwinism is grounded in that there is no God.
@@thepotatotaxi2430 hes just giving an overview of what it is, not necessaarily saying its true
1:25 I'm a skeptic (I find your videos thought-provoking) and I gotta hand it to you for the humor here. That is all. Good day sir.
well he is just creating a piece in the chain and defining it as the end piece. its really similar to the ontological argument in a sense that a definition of something cannot force it into existence. If i define a unicorn as a horse with a horn that exists doesn't mean it exists
@@PvlmVIsHere right. And same with the mathematical argument. It completely shatters once you realize that math is nothing more than humans' way of interpreting quantity. It doesn't inherently exist
@@iamShinyGeodude Maybe 3000 years ago you could've said that math was simply the way we interpret quantity, but it has been way more than that ever since the medieval period. Sequences, patterns, graphs, statistics, theories, formulas and proofs get incredibly abstract, and simplifying the field into being "our way of interpreting quality" is doing the field a disservice and neglecting its beautiful complexity.
@@Matdrox yes, it has beautiful complexity. Yes, we've nailed it down to a point where it gets abstract. That doesn't prove anything. Ultimately, it's all the derivative of Ook telling Grook "me have rock. Me have other rock. One rock.. TWO ROCK???"
@@PvlmVIsHere He is saying that since there can't be an infinite regression of causes, there must be an uncaused cause. The argument isn't meant to prove that a particular God exists, nor that God is all good, omnipotent, or omniscient, just that an uncaused cause exists. It is in conjunction with the other arguments that we conclude that the uncaused cause has those attributes.
The best explanation I've seen about the types of arguments, thank you so much.
The Cosmological argument does not necessitate that god is the 1st cause. It could have been anything else that had the ability to create a universe. Not just that, you cannot exclude the possibility that the universe is eternal.
the cosmological argument has always fallen flat for me because, at least in my opinion, claiming that god is eternal and has always existed is just as ridiculous as claiming that the universe just showed up out of nowhere (or, like you said, claiming that the universe is eternal, since we don't really have any way of knowing what existed, if anything, before the big bang). there isn't really anything about the argument that makes god's existence seem more logical or rational than god not existing at all and the universe just existing on its own
@muresic2948 Claiming the universe is eternal is actually less absurd than saying god created the universe, because we can actually test and see the universe, so assuming the universe has always existed is not out of the realm of possibility when we are talking about something we can test and observe. We have no proof of a consciousness or subject that exists extigent of the universe that has the power to create the universe, so it is much more absurd to claim such a being exists than positing that the universe is eternal.
@@TheLeftistOwlyeah, that’s true. For my money, the contingency argument is the best form of the cosmological argument. It still doesn’t actually imply that the necessary existence is a personal being though, so the possibility of the universe being necessary and eternal still excludes it from being a definitive argument.
@@TheLeftistOwlBut the universe it's expanding,so the universe can't be eternal.
@kermitthethinker1465 how does the universe's expansion negate it's eternal quality (assuming it has that equality)
I think the transcendental argument is the strongest argument, and the consciousness argument just delves deeper into one side of the TAG
Would it be assuming a god exists and that that fact is true
@@roode2123 Nice DoG pfp btw
As an atheist TAG and a fine tuning are the ones I find most interesting.
@@dogsandyoga1743as a christian
Tag is sophist bull$$$$$
To me I think cosmological arguments are the most interesting
@@kiroshakir7935 Cosmo is also interesting 😋 And clearly, I don't find tag (or any) arguments convincing, but some are definitely more interesting than others. I made a separate post where I (subjectively) rank how compelling these arguments are...
The best argument is found in the absolute truth, Christ reveals to us in John 14: 6 and 15: 5.
Blessings,
Pastor John
no
@@Melancholian No argument? Just "no"?
@@YoshiCh1ef-je6me I mean, the man did say no lol
@@YoshiCh1ef-je6me I am Christian but you cannot prove God to an Atheist with the bible lol
@@Melancholian True lol.
In college my math tutor discussed euler's identity and pascal's wager as possible reasons God might exist. He was agnostic but had the intellectual humility to admit and teach us that.
well, if only pascals wager wasnt a disjunction fallacy... your math tutor should have probably known this
Pascal's wager, even if it wasn't misused, isn't a reason god might exist. The whole point of Pascal's wager is to demonstrate that even if god doesn't exist you should believe he does.
1:24 I watch anime, but I had never realized until now it's basically an after effect of WWII.
5:16 This line of thought makes Italians upset
Anime existed decades prior to WW2
@@User-lo6sxshhh, it's way funnier this way
@@User-lo6sx No anime is biased on old american rubber hose cartoons that were brought over after the war, but was adapted into Japanese culture and arts to get the final form you see today.
@Napoleon_Bonaparte1804
m.th-cam.com/video/CW5pIEzyeh0/w-d-xo.html
Still not as bad as breaking spaghetti.
Pascal's Wager only works if you accept that the christian god is the only possible god that could exist, which is an absurd claim. It also tacitly implies that god existing cannot be known currently.
I works by think there has to be the God of god's. there might be other god's sure but there's only one with ultimate control. For God to be real he would have to be eternal, all knowing, all powerful. if a god has flaws, then there is no God. As far as i know, all gods are flawed except for one. The Christian God. It also not suposed to be an argument but a statement "Believing in something is better than believing nothing". if an atheist is right then nothing happens if there is wrong hell. if a Christian is right heaven, if they're wrong nothing happens.
@Mrjlff But how do you know any gods exist and if they are imperfect compared to the christian god? How do you come to these conclusions in the first place. Pascal's wager tacitly implies that knowledge of god is impossible or at the very least uncertain.
on top of that it seems to completely ignore any cons that come along with the "I followed this religion, but it turned out not to be true" result. it's painted as neutral but if you're dedicating your life to something and following a strict set of rules then the religion turns out to be false then it was all for nothing, you wasted part of what little time you had while existing.
one specific example that comes to my mind is following a religion that explicitly condemns homosexuality when you yourself are a homosexual, and in that case by taking the "safe" bet you might wind up living a miserable life where you can't be yourself or engage with love (which is a really important aspect of life for most people) if you want to satisfy god. in the event that the religion you were following ends up not being true, then you just wasted your time on earth and were miserable in the only life you had.
that example is heavily simplified to get my point across but pascal's wager completely ignores the fact that religion has the potential to make people unhappy and miserable, not everyone can just follow a religion without it having a huge negative impact on how they live their life. if there turns out to be no afterlife then living an unhappy life on earth is most definitely *not* just a neutral outcome.
@@muresic2948 2 things
1. compared to hell heaven or nothing i would say nothing is the neutral one of those two. it is a bad end if you devout your life to something for it to be untrue.
2. this is more of a thought exparement than and argument. If your choises were believe in athiesm or christantity i would pick christianity. same would be if it was islam or athiesm.
the worst i can get with the christian life stile in the end is the neurtal ending then i would pick that. Athiesm in the sense of afterlife is a more risky bet for less payout.
@@TheLeftistOwl With pascals wager it gives you two options for belief. you could still swap religions and still have the same results. like he says this isnt a argument but just a thought experiment. and practicly id choos the less risky and better payout option.
Imaginary numbers do actually correspond to stuff in the real world, basically there's this thing called the laplace transform which is used to model the response of systems in a time-independent manner, and imaginary numbers represent oscillatory responses, and if you didn't have them you couldn't describe a simple pendulum with laplace.
Also there's an imaginary number in the Shrödinger equation which is literally fundamental to the universe.
Well, yes and no.
You will never find a property of a real particle with an imaginary number.
Laplace transforms are applied math. Certainly the technique is useful, but that's not the same as physically real. No physical thing exists in the Laplace domain.
Usually the example people use is the Navier-Stokes equation, which at least describes real fluids, but which is also a mathematically convenient approximation rather than a description of the underlying reality.
@@fluffysheap Well it's only not a "property of a real particle" if you consider every instance of time as separate to every other one. Sure it also requires infinite time but that's just a formality, and a realisable continuously decaying oscillation of a particle is still modelled with a complex number in the s-space. No physical thing exists in the Laplace domain, but only in the sense that no physical thing has velocity either. You can measure the position of something at two points in time, but you then need to mathematically derive velocity. Derivatives don't really exist but you can still see that things are moving faster than other things, just like how you can see that a thing is oscillating.
@@fluffysheap I would use the normal example of electrical circuits (also kinda linked to laplace) since inductors and capacitors do have a complex modellation to them, to compensate some "blndpower" (really cant do this stuff in english lmao). The same you apply to complex numbers could also be applied to other mathematical models tho. Nothing we ever calculate, be it real or complex numbers, is completely grounded in real life. Its all just observatiuosn, and then building formulas that give you a clear approximation how the model works. Even the maxwell equations were changed a few years ago, bc a missing factor was just found to be calculated. (current dissipation). We use math to calculate what we observe. That isnt a proof, nor a disproof for a divinie deity. If our modesl wouldnt work, we would have come up with other working models until now.
@@dankrigby5621 I think the English term is reactive power.
@@josephbevan1036 Ahh true, could have guessed that since it is similar in my language too^^ So it prolly really is reactive power, or reactance.
The cosmological argument has always been the most convincing to me. Even the big bang theory, as detailed as it is, only postulates the existence of an impossibly dense ball of matter which exploded with the amount of energy necessary to encompass our entire universe. But even if it were to one day answer where that ball of matter came from, you're right back at square 1 by asking where that precursor came from. It's an eternal cycle that can only end in God.
Not really. I don't really know how to explain but here goes:
Matter either exists or it doesn't.
This videos says if matter exists then you would need god to explain it.
So if matter didn't exist, you wouldn't need god to explain it.
If matter didn't exist, there wouldn't be anyone there to witness it and explain anything, since conciousness doesn't exist without matter.
By that logic when conciousness exists, matter always exists.
In a universe where we exist, conciousness always exists.
We always exist because we'd have to exist to make that statement.
We always exist, therefore conciousness always exists, therefore matter always exists.
Matter either exists or it doesn't. (No, matter always exist)
This videos says if matter exists then you would need god to explain it. (This is the only possible situation)
So if matter didn't exist, you wouldn't need god to explain it. (Now this situation is impossible because matter always exist)
Now this isn't an arguement at all since in the arguement, the situation that requires god is the only situation.
(This is definitely very easy to understand)
@@RyanChen-m9l If you're trying to make a coherent argument, you're doing a really horrible job of it. Go pick up your grammar text book and start over from the beginning.
@@shadowstorm1989 just trying to have a discussion. If you feel that I am attacking your beliefs just say it. No need to criticize my English
@user-xh4xg1jf8c If your inability to write properly actively hinders your ability to communicate, then there is a need to criticize your grasp of the English language. Particularly when you're attempting to discuss topics like the intersection of physics and religion.
As for what you were trying to explain, your train of thought is incomplete. You make the two claims that if consciousness exists, so does matter, and if I'm to fill in the blanks, you're postulating that if matter does not exist, neither does consciousness, and thus neither does God.
This is flawed logic, as the very definition of God is an infinite, supernatural entity from which all reality proceeds.
If we are to examine it from the perspective of cause and effect, the existence of matter without God would ultimately imply the existence of an effect without a cause. This fundamentally violates the most basic of logic.
@@shadowstorm1989 ☕
Pascal's Wager can be applied to literally any imaginary thing and it doesn't even make it anymore likely to be true.
What swayed me towards believing in God was actually evidence found in history. I discovered that the existence of the modern world (i.e. the reason we're not living to the ripe old age of "died in childbirth") could be traced back to Britain's inability to conquer France due to God speaking in Joan of Arc's ear. That seemed WAY too crucial of a hinge and too seemingly random, to be mere coincidence. From there, I looked throughout history and found a BUNCH of crucial moments like that scattered throughout the historic record, and now I'm pretty convinced God intervenes, not quite in history as a whole, but certainly in small and very crucial parts of it periodically.
I think you'd enjoy Historian Tom Holland's book Dominion
It's almost like heroic characters in history of a christian nation would be seen as favored by god in eyes of the people
“It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.”
― Richard P. Feynman
what? joan of arc? why would england winning the 100 years' war mean the modern world doesn't develop? feels like major ad hoc reasoning here
I think you are not properly analyzing the history you're reading. You must consider who is writing that history, and why they might write that "God" intervened. There is rarely an unbiased history writer.
Did zoomer start this style of video? Because I see it everywhere now… including an entire channel which makes these sorts of videos
He did, yes, the video style has also been highly popularised by ‘The Paint Explainer’, who is in fact a fan of Zoomer
@@Hope-77- How do you Know that he is a Fan of Zoomer?
He did
i think some of his other vids were inspired by bill wurz
@@JesusOrDestruction Yes, his channel really gained a lot of popularity with the "History of the entire church, i guess...", which is ased off of Bill Wurtz' video.
The naval gaze is strong with this one....
As a Baptist I really enjoy your content brother. I am the type of person that is constantly thinking about anything and everything. And I think about God quite a bit. Your content really helps shore up my beliefs and help witness to others
The last argument really outdid all others.
i think the math one is the easiest to debunk. in my opinion the best one is the personal experience one as no one can really tell you you didnt experience something, and religion is all about finding your own purpose in life.
@@energeticgorilla Agreed, but at the same time, someone who's personal experience contradicts the Christian view of God (maybe someone who feels a loving god can't exist because of their own unanswered prayers or requests for a sign) could use their experience as just as strong of an argument against religion. So, like Zoomer said, personal experience is really useless to everyone except your own self. Maybe even to your own self because one of those people's experiences has to be wrong.
@@energeticgorillahe meant the “trust me bro.”
"Trust me bro" is pretty much the only argument atheists have
@@jacobjensen7704 indeed
Ive had personal experience with God but I never use it in arguments against athiests, as they imply that it must be a lie or whatever. But when I was in preschool or around that time, I had a dream my grandmother had to take medicine that made her hair fall out. The dream GREATLY upset me, and I would constantly bring it up to my family until they said she should probably go to the doctor. When she went, she had stage 3 almost stage 4 breast cancer. If she would have gone any later she would have died. I would have obviously had no idea about cancer, the results of chemo-therapy, let alone if my grandmother had it or not. No one suspected her to have been sick or had any prior issues, either. Really crazy situation that strengthens my faith in God.
I also had a personal experience with god. But I'm an atheist because I realized that it actually wasn't a personal experience just my dumb human brain being weird.
@@Dock284 Ok, so you've had an experience with God, and you still don't believe? If that hasn't convinced you, then nothing will, most likely.
If God came to you right now at this very moment, and told you that He is real, you probably still wouldn't believe it, because you simply don't want to believe. I'm sure you would probably just say "oh it was just a dream" or "my brain was just lying to me" or something like that.
If 1000 different people came up to you and told you their stories of how God has changed their lives, I'm sure you would probably still refuse to believe.
Do you realize that Jesus performed miracles, healing the sick and driving out demons, and many of the people of His day still refused to believe? You're no different from them. If you were honest then you would simply admit that you don't believe in God because you don't want to.
If you want to believe in God's existence and change your mind, eventually something will happen that will convince you that He is real. I can tell you that because I've seen it happen to other people. If you use your free will to reject God, He won't force you to believe.
@@JDthegamer209I personally haven’t had any experiences with a so called “ God” respectfully. Nothing. Only people in my life dying of cancer. So…
how is that related to god? this could have been a coincidence since many people have dreams involving distressing and unpredictable things happening to their loved ones, and you were just lucky bringing it up early. many people have distressing thoughts about their loved ones dying and nothing happens to them (i, for once had a dream my family were killed)
@@jaredfogle55 Yes, preschool me had a dream that directly related to the effects of a medical procedure I had no idea existed, let alone my grandmother would have it. I didn’t have a dream she died, I was distressed over it for no apparent reason until she was saved last second. Again, I don’t use this as an argument, but I know what it is.
The cosmological argument and the consciousness argument are the ones that had me most convinced
0:59 is something good because it's good, or is it good because God said it's good? These aren't the same things.
If God is the ultimate moral authority then these things are actually one and the same. Something is good because God makes it so. There are examples of this in the real world too. God doesn’t like sexual immorality, so those who practice it suffer illness. The argument can go either way as a godless person might argue that STIs are an adaptation of bacteria and viruses to piggyback on human behaviors. The conclusion reached is dependent on the individual interpreting it. Although that being said it does beg the question as to why many STIs cause infertility and death as those would seem to be self defeating.
See "Nominalism" and "Moral Nominalism". This has been argued about for a long time.
Aristotle actually thought that the world was eternal and had no temporal first cause. Aquinas also said that reason cannot demonstrate that the world has a temporal first cause, but that it at least didn't go against reason. The act/potency argument was closer to what they actually said.
Yeah I think that the astrological argument for God came in over the last century. When the Hubble telescope helped us discover that the universe most likely had a beginning, it created the theory that God therefore must have created the universe, for the universe could not create itself out of nothing
@@buckeyefan3894 It's older than that, I think some Arab philosophers used it, and it was popular among 18th century deists, but I don't know how they came to the conclusion that the world had a temporal beginning. I actually don't think it's a particularly good argument even today. If God exists by necessity, knowledge of him shouldn't rest on something as contigent and fallible as theories induced by empirical observations. Every scientific theory has a half-life so there is no predicting what will become the standard model in a century or two.
So, to prefact this, I would like to stare that I got a degree in Philosophy and specifically studied both of these philosophers in depth. Now, I am not trying to make an appeal to authority but rather demonstrating I am not arguing from ignorance here. With that said, you're conflating two separate different concepts argued by Aristotle. You can also leave Aquinas out of it as he was literally just trying to marry Aristotle's thoughts to Christianity.
I don't believe this video was trying to imply at all that the world has a temporal cause not trying to represent Aristotle's cosmological argument as positing a temporal origin. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to make a point of here and give you the benefit of the doubt, but what you are saying seems to be very borderline an ignoratio elenchi.
Aristotle did in fact argue that there is unlikely to be a temporal origin for the universe (you're correct there), but he also did argue that God is the unmoved mover. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. There can be an unmoved mover that also creates a universe void of boundary, time included, meaning no beginning or end. Aristotle's concept of God could be interpreted as just being the culmination of everything as the thing that brought about everything without being changed in of itself, encapsulating everything, surrounding it.
Now, can I ask again why you decided to try and correct the video when it didn't really imply at all that the prime mover argument posited a beginning or an end to the universe?
@@user-cz8gi2om3nYou're thinking of Ibn Rushd, or Averroes. He was the Muslim equivalent of Thomas Aquinas, where he tried to marry Aristotle's works to religion. He was the one that translated Aristotle's works to Latin and made commentary on Aristotle's works. We most likely wouldn't have had the scholasticism movement without Averroes.
@@BadgerScrub I have 2 degrees in philosophy, a BA and an MA, the latter was with Peter Adamson and was specificallyin ancient philosophy. I'm in the process of applying for PhD programs in philosophy.
I'm aware that Aristotle argued for the existence of the unmoved mover, hence why I qualified it as *temporal*. The video, like other contemporary apologists, implies to take the word "cause" (aitia in greek) in the narrow sense of efficient cause, which is only one of four kinds of cause. I was simply pointing out that, in that sense, Aristotle did not believe that the cosmos had a first efficient cause the way a craftsman is the cause of a chair. If you see my other comment correcting the teleological argument, Aristotle primarily thought of the unmoved mover as the formal and final cause of the cosmos.
I don't think it was Averroes that made that argument, rather more likely Al-Ghazali, and possibly some Jewish Arabs like Sadia Gaon, but I'm less familiar with them.
my favorite part was when he said "it's misinformin time" and misinformed all over the place.
God bless you brother ❤ I just found your channel and love the content.
3:35 every other religion can use the argument for all of their gods.
I mean, every argument here could be used by any religion. In fact, the argument could be made that considering there are 5000 religions or so, you're safer not believing any of them to avoid making God angry, as an atheist is just somebody who is "lost" instead of a traitor who actively believes the wrong thing. If a deity really exists, surely it wouldn't punish those who weren't convinced enough because they couldn't decide which of the religions is the "right" one. That's just my guess.
Once you realize God must be real though, the next step is understand the evidence for Christianity is substantially greater than all other religions
@@buckeyefan3894 Why do you think that?
@@buckeyefan3894Same thing could be said about any other God though, what makes *yours* special?
Well let me start by saying I'm no expert on this, so there are better sources than me that will give a more clear answer. However, I first think you can eliminate tribal religions and ancient polytheistic Norse/greed types of religions, simply because many of those religons contained elements and beliefs that have not stood the test of time and science.Next, the buddhist and hindu beliefs make a lot less sense, as an intelligent creator who specifically designed a universe that humans could thrive in, would see humans as superior beings to others. Which leaves Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The main three religions who all share the same historical backsktories and broad view of God. I believe the God described in the christian bible best fits the version of God that our existence and universe points to. Through the life of Jesus, the persecution of the christian church and other key events throughout history, the Christian prophets have been the most validated and accurate. There is a lot more to it than this, but this is the best summary Ive got on the spot!@@AverageHistoryEnjoyer1914
Pascals wager debunk: What if you believe and choose the wrong god, that would surely be worse than just not believing.
A vengeful deity would surely be more upset at those who chose to believe in another deity than at those who simply weren't convinced.
The question is how does this deity expect us to tell the real from the fake? It hasn’t given us the ability to do that, cause all religions have convincing reasons and justifications of their own. But you can never be 100% sure who’s telling the truth or who’s the most convincing, cause your intuition could be wrong or you could be subconsciously biased. So if there’s no objective way of knowing, it’s impossible for us to consciously choose the right one. And there hasn’t been a crystal clear sign from the real deity as to which one is the right one, since every religion preaches itself as legitimate
@Vickyanimates Want the answer based on most religions? Too bad, you chose wrong, *sentenced to eternal pain* NEXT!
@@Vickyanimateslike is it hard to see that religions are designed to keep you in and make you scared of losing faith so you can contribute you money for the pope or some other equivalent
@@piotrek7633 you have a brain. You have reason. Nobody’s forcing you to contribute to the pope. Not saying brainwashing isn’t common in religious faiths for personal gain, but whether the pope or religious figures are greedy, sleazy douchebags that exploit people, that has nothing to do with the morals of the religion. You can still have morals and decency, qualities that many religions promote, without subscribing to any religion. It’s called being human.
Also, Pascals wager arbitrarily assumes that belief or faith in God is the only thing that a God cares about when determining your eternal destiny, when it could possibly be any number of other things too. So better not step on that ant or don't eat that pork. You better be more paranoid, unless you end up in hell by accident.
3:35 Oh, how i love that one. That could be said about ANYTHING that doesn't really affect you. You rather believe in this, because if turns out to be true, then you win. But that's not how reasons to believe should exist.
this is the exact reason "Pascal's Wager" shouldn't be used as a religious argument. Not to mention it's flaws, like how do you know what exact religion is actually true. In addition, religion actually DOES make you lose something during your life, if you follow a religion you need to life a certain way and sometimes not the exact way you would have wanted to.
Yeah, I’m really glad he clarified that it’s not a logical argument and more of a thought experiment. It’s odd to me that people choose this avenue to prove God when it does nothing but say “I’ll be happier if I’m right.”
He did reiterate that it's not really an argument for this exact reason. I like how WLC puts it though - if, hypothetically, the evidence in your mind was exactly 50/50, then you should believe in God just for the sake of prudence.
@@stupidrainbo yeah, but what you want to believe shouldn’t impact what you believe
@@josephmartin9737 I would agree if the evidence wasn't exactly 50/50. There's a quote from someone (I believe it was also from Pascal) that goes "The heart has reasons the mind knows nothing about". Our motivations are complex and sometimes we turn a blind eye to the truth if we find it ugly in some way. So just as in a court we might stick with some kind of axiom like "Beyond reasonable doubt", a sentence which is based more on being morally prudent rather than evidentially accurate, we should go with Pascal's Wager if it seems the evidence is 50/50 or indeterminate.
Something about the narrators voice just, sooths my soul. Like music to my ears 😆
I have been watching since the story of the Bible video, keep up the great content!
The video we’ve been waiting for 🙏🚀✝️
Concise informative video. I'm surprised that so many find these arguements compelling. There are a lot of fallacies baked into the premises, making these arguments fall apart under scrutiny. I think the purpose of these arguments isn't to prove God, but to reassure those in the faith with surface level conjecture
He literally stated how little he got into each and most of these have stood for centuries. None are 100% proof of God, some are weaker then others. But smarter people then either of us find some of these arguments compelling.
@@halocraft60none of these are compelling. These are absolutely packed with fallacies. From the claim that ”Jesus’s eyewitnesses died for their beliefs, so they wouldn’t lie”
(Even though that only implies that their belief was genuine, not that their belief is correct, furthermore there is literally only one first hand eyewitness testimony of the resurrection, by Paul. None of the alleged 500 people are ever mentioned anywhere outside of the story, which heavily suggests that they were made up)
all the way to the fine tuning which tries to argue that a certain process is ”unlikely” to happen, even though the sample space is never defined and nothing is known about the probability measure… which means that one CANNOT appeal to probabilities…
If you're going on about how fictional God is then I would change the Rastafarian profile picture if I were you
@@halocraft60standing for centuries does not equal it meaning anything, pascals wager is enough of an example for that. None of these reach even "1% proof for god", there is none. Smarter people may find some if these compelling but thats simply just because humans arent binary, its all appealing to authority fallacy.
@@sirpsychosussyand why would he do that? 😂
I just want to say something about the Transcendental argument. Yes, we *assume* all of those axioms are true, even that truth exists. We assume all (or most) axioms are true, since that's what it *means* for something to be called an axiom.
It is proven that we cannot prove everything using a finite amount of axioms, see Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.
I’m not religious but this helped me understand Religions more, I always usually go back to the scientific Theory of how the world was made but it’s cool to see different lifestyles and opinions.
And this only represents Christian thoughts. You’ll find a lot of fascinating thoughts and perspectives if you look into other world religions’ takes on stuff like this.
@@jacobjensen7704 Why would this only represent Christian thoughts? Seems like these could be used for any religion that uses a creator to justify the existence of the universe.
@@Ruzzky_Bly4ti guess saying “Christian” would be way eaiser than saying “Monotheistic” or something like that
It seems to me your understanding of the mathematics portion of the video are quite inaccurate in your explanation.
Imaginary numbers are indeed "real" in the sense that they have significant mathematical applications and are crucial in various scientific and engineering fields. The term "imaginary" can be misleading because it implies that these numbers are somehow not legitimate or useful. However, imaginary numbers are very much a part of the broader system of complex numbers, which includes real numbers as well. The term imaginary, has also fallen out of context from the original meaning which it was assigned. Simple google search tells me: ( French mathematician René Descartes was the first to emphasize the imaginary nature of numbers, positing that “one can imagine as many (numbers) as already mentioned in each equation, but sometimes, there is no quantity that matches what we imagine.” )
Since imaginary numbers are not necessarily used to count objects, but rather define points on a defined space, 1+2i can be rewritten as (1,2), or it could also be expressed as a vector, (which i would recommend learning from another video and not a youtube comment)
Imaginary numbers can also be used in several other ways and are only seen as "not real" because of their misleading name.
Fractal arguments are a little hard to explain why they get infinitely complex in just a simple youtube comment, but saying fractals dont appear in nature is quite frankly just untrue. Fractals are everywhere in nature, trees, plants, galaxies, crystal structures etc etc.
Romanesco broccoli!
Edit: it has come to my attention that Romanesco “broccoli” is in fact a type of cauliflower.
We making it finally out of Atheism with this one 🗣🗣
not even close
nah
hopefully not
no you aint
Hell nah
Pascal’s wager in my opinion, is the correct way to convince anyone that believing in a god is far more beneficial to them (and for the world at large) than believing there isn’t a god.
I was raised an atheist, but my grandma was always a die hard Christian. I can remember speaking with her about death. I realized at that time that selfishly for any human being, you will live a calmer and more enjoyable life and will arrive at your death in peace. If you truly believe that when you die, you will be reunited with all your loved ones and all of the people that you leave behind on earth will be taken care of after you’re gone, by god.
At 28 years old I became a follower of Jesus Christ and I have never been more content. Death and disaster becomes something you no longer fear when you truly believe in god.
Imo pascals wager is the worst one out of these. and isn't true faith. Don't take this the wrong way & please hear me out... You can't just decide to believe in God like that if you're treating it like gambling on a heads or tails coin flip. That is not authentic, and it's based on fear and other feelings. True faith is with the whole mind, body and soul. It's an intellectual choice and gift. True faith will bring that peace and calm you mention, but with pascal's wager you could be dishonest with yourself, and being dishonest in your conscience never brings peace. True faith is a gift from God himself. Now I'm not claiming that you personally don't have faith, just my opinion on pascals wager. I came to the faith at the same age, 28... through the most painful one step at a time process lol. Peace.
Let's think of Pascal's wager this way:
The real God is a Christian hater. If you believe in the Christian God he will torture you for all eternity whereas if you don't you will be granted eternal happiness. This is where Pascal's wager fails, you can use it to make both believing and not believing in God sound like the wrong choice
@@ckfaraday this is a very interesting perspective. Thank you for this!
Counter arguments (no hate, just doin this cause i’m bored and sleepy on a tuesday night):
Evidential argument - First of all, there are many people die for something they believe, like in wars and cults like helter skelter. also, there are logical arguments for “possessions” and “near-death experiences”. possessions are most likely staged and/or heavily exaggerated, but if there are is any verified evidence of a real possession i’d be happy to see it. for these near-death glimpses into heaven and hell, they’re either just dreams or entirely fake. there are so inconsistencies throughout many of the stories i’ve heard, and no reason for it to happen.
Moral Argument: our morals for right and wrong are usually on the basis of if the actions hurt something. using cannibalism as a means for food is seen as immoral because cannibalism is usually accompanied with murder, and studies have shown that people should *not* consume human organs for their own personal health. With all due respect, if you need a book to distinguish from right and wrong, i really suggest you take a look at yourself for a moment.
Cosmological Argument: For the “first cause” argument, i need you to realize that just because there is no clear answer doesn’t mean your answer is correct. We really don’t know what started the universe. the big bang itself is just a theory, it’s just the most widely accepted explanation.
Pascal’s Wager: …really? i feel as if this is an argument as to why believing in God is more beneficial in that sense, as opposed to his existence. while i do believe it is correct in the sense that it’s more beneficial for people to believe in God in the long run, it’s not proof that He exists.
Teleological Argument: again, we don’t really have any idea about the universe and how it works. However, the universe is far from perfect, not every single detail is perfect. But yes, good on you for observing that the constants of the universe are constant.
Ontological Argument: This felt like a whole lot of blabbering. You’re arguing that something exists because… you have a vague description of what He is? Because the God you believe in is all powerful means he exists? This one confused me but maybe someone has a better way of explaining this argument.
Personal Experience: I respect how you added that detail at the end. There’s most likely no way of convincing people that experiences that they hold near and dear to their heart are just coincidences.
Transcendental Argument: Correct me if i’m wrong, but does that really say that people just ASSUME truth and logic exists? brother, truth DOES exist. when i point to a cloud and say “that’s a cloud”, that is the truth. not something i believe, just the plain hard truth. Also, ever since the enlightenment, many things have made sense without the need for God. Stars, the sun, colors, wind, all these things make sense for existing because we explained it using science.
Consciousness Argument: the “experience” of seeing a color yellow is just your brain translating seeing the color yellow into a thought that corresponds with it. also, we can tell that we all see colors the same because we can describe colors. if you described the color yellow, most of everyone would agree with you. While I can’t really argue that the soul doesn’t exist, i can say that i believe that we believe the soul exists because we humans want to feel like something more than a bunch of atoms.
Mathematical Argument: arghhhh this hurts my brain. i’m quite sleepy and i think right at this moment i can only come up with a counter argument for the mandelbrot set. just because an object doesn’t exist in our world doesn’t mean God made it, even if it’s extremely complex. sometimes you just have to accept that some things are just interesting and there’s nothing extra that should be added onto it, like religion.
That’s all i have. i’m sure i’m gonna get a shit ton of replies calling me a stupid atheist, so i wanna say now that i only did this for fun, not to prove anyone wrong. also, please be civil when trying to counter my counter arguments, unless you’re petty, which in that case just don’t bother replying at all. alright, cheers.
Every leftist argument is a Wall of text.
@@gabenorman747 Not sure this is leftist
@@gabenorman747 way to make it political 👏👏
@anthroimperzia3927 it’s not that i can’t fathom an optimistic outcome, it’s that there’s simply not enough evidence for any outcome. i’m a big “facts don’t care about feelings” guy, so i would prefer if i were to believe in something like religion, then it should be able to actually be proven WITH evidence. also, my life is actually not miserable. i recently started working on myself and have found myself happier than i was before.
@anthroimperzia3927
Ignorance is bliss.
Math producing infinite results doesn’t mean that it’s infinite. Math is just the rules describing the universe. It’s like minecraft, where the world generator can generate thousands of terabytes worth of unique worlds yet the procedural generation code doesn’t take nearly as much space
There is no Notch seen in Minecraft, therefore Notch must not exist, since Notch is nowhere to be seen in Minecraft worlds.
I don't think the ontological argument works. Just because existence is necessary to be maximally great, it doesn't mean that the maximally great thing actually does exist. You have to show that the maximally great thing necessarily exists, but if you can do that, you don't need the ontological argument.
And also does not really imply necessarilly that the best god we could choose to believe is in the christian one at the end of the day.
Multiple people that dont deserve it would suffer if Yahweh and the mythology that comes with him were the truth of the universe.
Lots of ways in wich Yahweh behaves himself in the bible are unnaceptable by moral standards, and the idea that he runs the universe allows for the existence of a lot of immoral acts.
@@arthurcosta4643 You're confusing arguments for God with arguments for Christianity.
@@jdotoz Sorry, english is not my first language.
Just now i realized what you were trying to say, and let me tell you, i am quite embarassed, lmao.
Please, ignore my first comment.
@@arthurcosta4643 I didn't notice any problems with what you wrote that would lead me to question your proficiency in English. The fact is that I have seen many American skeptics make the same error I identified, a sort of moving the goalposts. It's important to not push the argument beyond what it sets out to show (unless, of course, you concede that point and want to move on to the next level).
@@jdotoz The problem is not the proficiency, the problem is the "assuming" that i did. I do that a lot since sometimes i will come into contact with words that i am not familiar with.
I assumed the meaning of *ontological*, so i made the wrong assumptions based in that.
I thought ontological was related to moral assumptions, because i have heard a lot of christians argue that "God is necessary for morality", so i was replying with the thought that you were refering to that argument.
I love the part when Alex O’Connor picked apart each and every one of these weak “arguments”
Me learning about these arguments knowing that I’m going to continue using the “well where did the Big Bang come from” argument for eternity
For those of you asking the point of this argument is to say that since the amount of matter in the universe couldn't (To my knowledge) be compressed into an infinitely tiny space, meaning that there must have been a higher force acting. This argument also falls in line with the one that states it is impossible to traverse infinity, because it is infinite. Therefore the universe couldn't have existed for infinite time before us. Therefore it started at the Big Bang, meaning the universe was created then and there, which would not be possible without divine intervention. There you go I learned another one.
Where did the Big Bang come from? We don’t know! Will we ever know? Maybe, maybe not.
Lol fr
That's not really an argument though. The fact that we don't know much about what happened before the Big Bang doesn't mean that a god exists. You can then use anything that we don't know to justify anything
Why? What does asking that question do lol?
@@wilh3lmmusic We (mankind) won't know the answer for the next 10,000 years, so there is really no point thinking about it now.
Live a good virtuous life, and if there is a Dog, you will find out on Judgement Day.
i'm glad to see you've picked up the slack from the 40 debunks video
Arguments for God tier list when?
Trust me bro: S tier
Go watch GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic.
@@HungryWarden Thanks!
@@luxart1000 No problem.
@@luxart1000 Yeah I know him, he’s an atheist but he isn’t too bad as far as I know. Just be weary cause when you don’t have God your often against Him, so He could try planting doubts. God bless you bro.
None of these things are proof or a god or supernatural being. They are you taking things you don't fully understand and attributing them to a god. "The God of the Gaps." You have a gap in knowledge, you fill it in with "god." That doesn't prove a god actually exists.
Why you say God doesn't exist?
@@chairshemahe didn't?
Thank yo for uploading these type of videos. They really help keep me learn more about my faith and inspire me to keep myself in the word as well. God bless you!
I don't recommend learning more about these arguments then
I will say that like a lot of these arguments are not good. The cosmological argument, personal experience, and some bit of evidential is really the only one that can work. But even with evidential it's really hard to use it to convince others. I think in general you can use evidential because you can't just explain every supernatural event as just a hallucination or something like that, but at the same time everyone has a different interpretation of a "spiritual event". The math argument makes no sense, it's similar to the onotlogical argument where "oh infinity exists therefore God". First off just because we can think of a concept does not mean it exists or is true. Even if a concept is logically consistent, doesn't mean it is true. You can do math in infinite dimensional spaces (and these infinite dimensional spaces are important for describing quantum mechanics), but it doesn't mean that such spaces actually exist on their own. Math is used to describe ideas, ideas can be real or not real.
Geneticist Francis Collins made a very compelling argument that moral is often contrary to evolution.
For example, saving a stranger from drowning means risking your lineage, but for most is the correct thing to do. How did that came to be then, if those who wouldn't are more likely to survive?
Saving someone from drowning makes them likely to do something for you in the future, but also humans have evolved to have familial/tribal identities, so risking yourself to save other members of your tribe makes the tribe much more likely to survive and grow in the future. If everyone just shrugged and walked off when their fellow tribe members were drowning, that tribe likely would either die off or fall apart to infighting while humans in tribes that don't live on.
I think this answer better accomodates for not just the morality of people, but the darker impulses such as tribalism and hatred of those not like you.
@@Colddirector So you are saying that YOU would not save a person if they were drowning while you were traveling on the other side of the world on the simple basis they are not a part of your invented "tribe"? This entire argument is flawed from the beginning, as it assumes that there is a person a would not save, regardless of their ethnicity.
@@Colddirector
What about when we do things for those not apart of our "tribe?", those who are not familial or live in our communities?
Even if you dismiss helping other people that are not related to us as us trying to foster the existence of our species as a whole, what about when it comes caretaking certain animals that offer nothing to us but instead make us extend our food, water, and energy to them?
We don’t know
@@donut9719 that can be attributed as a biproduct of empathy, but at least with helping people, doing something good for them makes it likely they’ll do something good for you in return. They may join or ally with your tribe. Regardless, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, you could probably regard that as a “glitch” of human empathy, something you should fully expect from an evolutionary standpoint as human brains aren’t purpose-built but evolved.
"the ideal of a perfect existing means it must exist because why wouldn't we think about it" is the purest form of philosophical argumentation fr
I'm an apatheist. I spent years tussling with the argument of whether or not there is a higher power and it got me nowhere. In spite of that, I watched this out of sheer curiosity. And now I'm annoyed because these are all awful arguments:
• Essentialism is a blatantly incorrect assumption of human nature; people die for things _they believe_ to be true, which doesn't automatically make them true.
• Morals come from the fact those of us who don't believe in heaven exist on this planet and would like to make that existence as pleasant as possible. That requires community. We don't need a higher power to tell us that cannibalism is bad because we know that cannibalism is bad for the community. What about sympathy, empathy, and compassion? Even putting survival aside, we are social creatures. We enjoy each other's company. We understand others' problems, so we want them to be happy and healthy as well. Another example: calling something like homosexuality immoral has no practical purpose. It does not do any harm to the community other than "my god doesn't like it," and repressing members of the LGBTQ community who those of us with sympathy, empathy, and compassion want to live good lives. One side saying it's a wrong and another side saying it isn't is inherently contradictory to the concept of objective morality, especially since the side saying it's wrong has no basis outside of religion. And religious people often don't follow the morals they claim to believe in - the history of humanity is chock full of people fighting wars and killing each other for the purpose of spreading their religion, which kind of directly contradicts the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing.
• Cosmological argument - god of the gaps. "I can't imagine that the universe wasn't created by a conscious entity and I don't have any other way to explain it, therefore it comes from my god." Also, by that standard, something would have had to cause God to exist.
• Pascal's Wager is not an argument for the existence of a higher power. This concept especially becomes problematic when you consider how many different religions there are with different gods that we would also need to apply Pascal's Wager to. Most of all, it incorrectly assumes that belief in or lack thereof a higher power is a conscious choice. From an epistemological perspective, this directly contradicts the fact that people have different thought processes from one another.
• The teleological argument ignores that purpose and meaning can be based on subjective human experience. And even if there are concrete purpose for things, once again, this falls into God of the gaps. "I ascribe a purpose because humans create things with purpose. Therefore, everything must have a purpose. Therefore, it must come from my god."
• Ontological argument... once again, God of the gaps. "I can't explain why I have these experiences, therefore I'm ascribing it to my god."
• Experiences are interpreted through the mind, and not all experiences are things that objectively occur. By sheer mathematics, in a world of billions of people, there are billions of experiences, and there are bound to be some weird things that occur. Once again, God of the gaps and confirmation bias: "I don't know what caused this, therefore it must have been my god." Hallucination. Mental illness. Poor observation. Something that just hasn't been explained by science - yet. Or it has been explained by science, but the person familiar with it is unfamiliar with the science behind it and/or has made the conscious choice to not believe it because it contradicts their current beliefs.
• The transcendental argument, like the teleological argument, ignores that people go out of their way to ascribe meanings to things they can't explain. "I think this means something, therefore God." The scientific method was literally conceived by humans.
• Consciousness: "I can't explain how our consciousness works, therefore I'm ascribing it to my god."
• We only learn about mathematics that do work because mathematical hypotheses that don't work don't work. The mathematics we study today exist because we developed them to measure. At one point, we needed to develop algebra, trigonometry, geometry, calculus, etc. to solve a problem we didn't know the answer to, so we created a working system to measure them. This includes a concept like imaginary numbers. And once again, as far as Euler's identity goes, we have another example of God of the gaps. "I can't explain it, therefore it was my god."
Fax
perfectly said 😍
"people die for what they believe to be true" right, and they believed that they saw and interacted with their friend, who had very clearly died. People who were his friends, people who were his enemies, 500 people at once, all vouched for his return.
@@ElijahDawkins-yb1uc And the witness testimony for the resurrection outside the Bible is...? Even the witness accounts within the Bible aren't particularly convincing:
The only writer who actually authored parts of the Bible who claims to be an eye witness is Paul, who claimed he saw a "vision" of Christ, not a resurrected Christ in the flesh. The only account of 500 people witnessing Jesus's resurrection is his own first letter to the Corinthians. This was written about 20 years after Jesus's death.
The gospels are second-hand accounts written decades after his death. The further they get from Jesus's death, the more fantastic they get.
Mark (40 years after Jesus's death): Three women roll back a stone to an empty tomb and see a man in a white robe who tells them he saw Jesus resurrected and to go tell Peter, they were scared to tell anyone.
Luke (50 years after Jesus's death): Four women leave an empty tomb and see two men in glowing clothes and told several people who didn't believe them, he suddenly appears in front of the disciples as a ghost and then disappears when they try to travel to Bethany.
Matthew (Also approximately 50 years after Jesus's Death): Pilate has placed guards in front of the tomb to prevent Jesus's followers from stealing his body. The guards are not mentioned in any other gospels. Two women visit. An angel comes down in a violent earthquake, which is not mentioned in the other gospels. Guards are scaredy cats and faint, then go tell priests that they saw the resurrection. Jesus appears in Galilee but many of his own followers doubt it's actually him.
John (At least 60 years after Jesus's death): Mary Magdalene visits the tomb alone, it's empty, sits in a garden and sees Jesus saying he's gonna ascend into heaven. Jesus visits the disciples, then rises, then comes back because Thomas doubts it.
----
Any other writing about Jesus being resurrected outside the Bible - such as Tacitus and Josephus, who were both born after Jesus died - were basically a game of telephone. "He said that she said that her uncle said that my grandma said that..."
For comparison look at how the story of the first Thanksgiving has transformed into this planned festival with games, when all it actually comes from is a single letter written by one person who makes a mundane description of a few indigenous people coming across some colonists and stop by to eat some food.