Well there are things like numerical constants like pi.... but if something is eternal and doesn't CHANGE with time, then it is also frozen in time and not conscious. This would require god to be eternal but constantly changing, and if he was perfect and unmatchable, then how could he do anything but become less perfect if he changed?
The evidence for God is the Function Category .... and ... Thermodynamic Systems. Only an intelligence makes abstract & physical Functions. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions and originate from the surrounding system which must provide the time, space, laws, matter, energy & INTELLIGENCE to exist & function. These are the facts we know about anything that is a FUNCTION ...... or ...... thermodynamic System. God is an intelligence like Man or vice-versa. And the Universe & Man ... are thermodynamic Systems. Proved. Take a hike, Atheism. You have no evidence nature & natural processes can make the simplest physical function 13.7 or 4 billion years ago. All just religious nonsense.
Exactly, there is no proof. Faith is required. I have faith, my whole vantage point in life is so different from someone without faith, you can't imagine.
@@JerseyLynne Don't confuse Faith with belief. A religion is simply an organized firm belief in someone or something responsible for existence. Theists believe in someone (deities). Atheists believe in something ( nature). Science is simply a method to explain natural phenomena using fixed laws of nature ... or ... prove a hypothesis/belief. The evidence for God is the Function Category .... and ... Thermodynamic Systems. Only an intelligence makes abstract & physical Functions. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions and originate from the surrounding system which must provide the time, space, laws, matter, energy & INTELLIGENCE to exist & function. These are the facts we know about anything that is a FUNCTION ...... or ...... thermodynamic System. God is an intelligence like Man .... or vice-versa. The Universe & Man ... are thermodynamic Systems. Science proves the firm beliefs of Jews & Christians that God created the Universe & Man over 6 days less than 6000 years ago. Belief & Faith ... are clearly not the same word. And faith is not blind belief in God, but involves both the body & soul(Mind of Man).
Yup no problem we learn more and know now just about everything. That’s why everything is so wonderful. Once we threw out religion it was like switching on a light, right. Only problem is if you think about it you haven,t a clue what it’s all about and everyone’s at each other’s throats. See here,s the plan, just before it all collapses we all jump in our rocket ships and to different planets. If a planet has religion we skip that. And then we just land and unpack and jump in the pool. Remember the day when the scientists found out the big secrets and decided to all agree? Whoops, Watch out for that black hole on the left!
The best argument for atheism is the complete and total lack of even the tiniest demonstration, by theists, of god. Any god. For at least 4000 years now.
What are you talking about, I saw him appear in the sky in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Are you going to try to tell me those were just phenomenal special effects?
Top 3 arguments will depend on the definition of god(s) in question. Which already hints at whose contradictory definition of god(s) to use? And how come there are contradictory definitions?
@@SelectCircle No he was not ignorant, just not interested in pseudo-science, religious ramblings, and eastern light gymnastic. You think you are very smart because you know yoga or qigong? Those Indian and Chinese exercises make you smart? Sorry, those are equal to morning gymnastics, and there is nothing special in those things. Try the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics. I am sure your yoga and qigong prepared you so much for real science...
I think there are 3 strong arguments against the existence of a God and 3 strong arguments supporting it Against 1) the problem of evil 2) its absence from our perceptions 3) the scientific evolution regarding man evolution and earth position/insignificance in the universe. For 1) The fine tuning 2) The longing for God in every human being-culture, various paranormal-mystic experiences 3) The first cause, intelligence vs randomness.
Very good reasons against but I can refute: 1) The very purpose of belief is the moral attainment of "the good". 2) Many things in history were previously out of our perception i.e. gravity, quantum level of reality.. 3) The scientific revolution was preceded by religious thinking and learning. Monks who spent their time in prayer also pursued study and learning. I e. Copernicus was a priest. In other words the argument without historical premises is circular.
fine tuning is the worst argument ever for a god... if there is a god and he is omnipotent and all the other words that start with omni.. he can do whatever he wants .. you cant use science to prove gods existence but then say god himself is above science.. cant have it both ways
To have an argument against god, you first need to define the properties of that proposed god. Regarding your second "for" argument, how is a longing for something evidence that that something exists? Your 3rd "for" argument is completely unsatisfying. If a first cause is required for things to exist, what was the first cause that led to god? It adds a level of complexity that adds nothing to our understanding of the phenomenon.
@@nyworker i agree with something you said ... but regarding "evil" is not about moral choices. Is about the "evil" that exist in nature. The kitten that die starving in a wood, the little monkey eaten by a feline, the rains that drown a kid ... a background of "cruelty" that nature have (along many beautiful things).
The fundamental problem here is semantic: and that is the definition of the word “God”. Western culture implicitly assumes that everyone understands what it means when they use English word “God” (or equivalents in other languages). Yet it is not. If I were to ask you “Do you believe in Fnd$@ ?“ Presumably your first question would be “what is Fnd$@?” In other words clearly define what “Fnd$@“ is and we can intelligently discuss it. Furthermore, what does the word “believe” in this context mean? If I ask you “Do you believe in Harry Potter?” one could reply “Yes, I believe there exists a Harry Potter in an alternate universe created by a human being in our shared universe labeled JK Rowling” So the onus is on the one who asks the question to be precise on the semantics before one can intelligently consider the question.
@@20july1944 "god" isn't an explanation sparky, it's just made up bullshit. I don't need an "explanation of our universe" to know that. Can your god tell you how many fingers I am holding up? Tell me right now or it doesn't exist.
@@ksdogg That's not any definition of argument I've ever heard. A more common use is that an argument is reasoning used to support an idea or a conclusion.
@@mikel5582 Well a conclusion is a claim, and an "idea" that is supported by an argument is a claim. But an argument can also be made AGAINST a claim without incurring any burden of proof.
@@ksdogg An argument is not a claim. A claim requires an argument, but an argument can also be made against a claim without incurring any burden of proof. So eg, agnostics argue against the claim "one or more gods exist" by simply disputing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the claim. OTOH strong atheists affirmatively assert that there is no god, which is a claim requiring a burden of proof. So whether atheists incur a B of P depends on the type of argument being made by the atheist.
Ah, but does anyone have any good athoothfairyism arguments? If not for the tooth fairy leaving coins underneath children's pillows in exchange for their lost teeth, then where do all the coins come from? There is no other explanation possible, none other at all, I can't imagine another explanation, therefore there isn't one. Checkmate atoothfairyists, checkmate.
Why does Robert never explore the argument of legitimacy of knowledge about God? Wherever any theologian gives any info about his god or religion we never can have a reliable source to check ourselves and all arguments are always constructed in a way Russel's teapot or invisible pink unicorn are? Most theologians themselves describe god as beyond understanding and beyond our concepts, but if so how did they gain that kind of knowledge?
Theologians have a job, to persuade us there IS a being for which to construct a theology. It's a self-fulfilling system, you CANNOT prove OR disprove the existence of the supernatural, but you CAN play on people's fears and uncertainties for power and profit.
BS. The evidence for God is the Function Category .... and ... Thermodynamic Systems. Only an intelligence makes abstract & physical Functions. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions and originate from the surrounding system which must provide the time, space, laws, matter, energy & INTELLIGENCE to exist & function. These are the facts we know about anything that is a FUNCTION ...... or ...... thermodynamic System. God is an intelligence like Man .... or vice-versa. The Universe & Man ... are thermodynamic Systems. Science proves God of the Jews & Christians created the Universe & Man. Anything you want to know about God ... is in the Torah (Bible).
You first need to know the definition of the thing you're arguing against. That's tricky here as people have so many different ideas about what ''God'' is, and it's often vague. As Walter says, an argument against the existence of Zeus might not work so well against a differently defined God. But I think his arguments are pretty good re the Perfect Omni Present, Omniscient and Omni Good God, who isn't bounded by space and time (whatever that could mean).
eh. there's only two kinds of gods, supernatural and semantic. Supernatural gods (Jesus, Zeus etc) are contrary to established natural laws and cannot exist. Semantic gods ("god is love" "god is nature" "god is the first cause" etc) Can exist (or not), but they are trivial: they just exchange the word "god" for another word. Theists often combine the two. Eg, WJC's Kalam starts with a semantic god ("god is the first cause" - so what) and then bootstraps his favorite childhood deity.
@@20july1944 "god" isn't an explanation it's just made up bullshit. Projecting a giant magical human onto the universe isn't an explanation it's kiddie stuff. Actual science is working on the origins of the universe. Whether or not we ever figure it out, your "god" is a joke.
What would we uncover elsewhere that we can't here? Is physics different somewhere else? Are you suggesting that somewhere we'll find a white hole where matter is continually coming into existence?
@@scambammer6102 I've read many books on the subject, and I agree we've discovered a ton of stuff but we don't know where the matter/energy of our universe came from. It can't be infinitely old or it would be in heat death
@@20july1944 For some of us, the logical response to our species' ignorance regarding the origins of the universe isn't to just make stuff up and declare it as truth. I don't know why there is something rather than nothing. It would be cool to find out but I'm not threatened by this knowledge gap in the slightest.
@@20july1944 I listen to scientifically proven facts. God was so good to grace us a son, 2000 years ago. One who died with only 12 followers. At any rate, it would be really cool if he'd be kind enough to impregnate another virgin... No? .
pretty vague bucko. Which of the innumerable gods is coming in for your opprobrium at this moment? Singling out Christianity for no clear reason? Parrotting Christopher Hitchens? Got anything original to advance?
Min 5:11 RLK tries to counter argue Theodicy saying "[The Down Syndrome] with have to do with God's purpose for the whole world, systematized...eh.. random probabilities are developing and some ultimate goal..., that these are some of the byproducts and God in his own way is going to solve it." RLK has difficulty articulating the counterargument. I suspect the apparent incoherence of his language is his subtle way of telling us that the advocates of religion will give you an absolute nonsensical answer dressed in incomprehensibility: God mysterious ways Well, given the most prominent feature of the universe we know, the evolution of things, God should have given us something along the evolutionary path towards understanding his mysterious ways. The math known to one of the greatest, Fermat, was very tiny compared to the math known to Andrew Wiles. God could have given us some hints, like a little Fermat to begin unraveling the mysterious ways he uses. Galaxies evolve, life evolves, our understanding of mathematics evolve, but our understanding of concepts essential for the survival of our eternity does not evolve. There is something seriously flawed with that argument. All the intrigue that may pique the curiosity of philosophers trying to unravel God's mysteries disappears if we conclude that the whole story of god is a lied repeated thousands of times.
The number 5 does not exist outside time and space. The number 5 exists in the minds and culture of human beings. And human beings exist in time and space.
*"The number 5 does not exist outside time and space. The number 5 exists in the minds and culture of human beings. And human beings exist in time and space."* ... I have five mathematical "points" with each one being represented by their coordinates. Now, these five 0-dimensional "points" have no size, shape, volume, mass, or any wave properties nor are they subject to gravity nor require any substrate to exist. *Q:* Do these five "points" exist outside of time and space, and how many of these "points" are there?
@@ManiBalajiC God by definition must exist outside and beyond our perception/comprehension/imagination. The root BRHM carry multiple meanings, one of them being "one beyond comprehension" - which is also reflected in the semitic name for God (الله) which carries the meaning of source of bewilderment/awe.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC They exist, like I said, in your mind. And now mine. And in whoever else bothers to read this... Until we all forget about them and then they cease to exist.
The number "5" only exists in one's mind. To compare God, if he exists, to a number does not work. I would like to ask this fella where he believes everything came from. If it was not created then it has to be eternal.
*"That fact that in 2022 people still believe in invisible, magical wizards still blows my mind."* ... Let's take it one step further with, _"That fact that in 2022 people still believe in an invisible, magical multiverse still blows my mind."_ The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree, ya know?
These two demonstrate that even today belief systems can very complex. Regardless of their veracity, varieties of belief systems should be allowed to flourish so that everyone can come closer to truth.
What? Regardless of the veracity, we should allow varieties of "belief" systems? Sorry, science is not a democracy, and if we follow your logic we should open schools for religions, all types of charlatans, flat-Earthers, anti-vaxers... No. And the truth is not some object, one can't reach "truth" in such a way. Truth is connected with statements and claims, and not everyone can say statements that are true.
No, it's the ones that are demonstrated to be true that should be believed. Something seemingly being closer to the truth isn't a good reason to be convinced.
The question isn't whether or not "God" exists; the question is what does one mean by "GOD"? Clearly nobody is presently generating there own existence or sustaining it. And it should also be clear that nobody can account for existence--neither the existence of anything or everything. So we exist in a condition of unrelievable Mystery. To FEEL this Mystery is to speak of "God." But this is not a God of BELIEF, but rather a God of direct EXPERIENCE. You: *scratches head, ignores comment*
I want to add one point to the argument that God has a plan that is impossible for us to understand: why doesn't God even try to explain the plan to his people? Why is it that the moral system he gives us doesn't apply to his own problem of evil? God doesn't sound like a wonderful, all-loving leader at all. He sounds like an unaccountable dictator.
Well that would disprove the notion of a good god if you insist on equal moral standards, but honestly I think this doesn't have much value of consideration. For instance, if I made a computer simulation of virtual life forms, would I be evil for not taking a personal interest in the well being of each individual virtual life form if I'm not micromanaging the simulation?
You can't say on the one hand that god is mysterious when asked the hard questions, and then make claims about who God is. I thought he was mysterious? So mysterious that he's indistinguishable from not existing at all.
Do you know basic astrophysics? If you can explain our universe without God, that would be good enough for me to say theists should not use this argument.
@@20july1944 intellectual curiosity is important, but so is epistemic rigor. Assuming an answer when the information is insufficient is just fallacious. Perhaps you've heard of Occam's Razer.
Since God does not show "himself" unambiguously in this world even though "he" is assumed to be capable of doing so, "he" must not exist as a sentient object of worship. God disappears into something equivalent to gravity. Would JC have been more loving if instead of being crucified he had continued to preach, performing miracles, and forgiving sins in person over the thousands years up to day?
The quickest path to discussing that question objectively is in astrophysics. If you know some basic astrophysics, I can explain the evidence for God that I see there.
There is no more reason to believe in a God than there is to believe in Santa Claus. It's just been around long enough that its difficult to let go of. Evil isn't a good argument. Evil is just an occurrence that we decided was unwanted.
@@MRnormi98 We'll need to agree on assumptions and premises. Do you know basic astrophysics, specifically why a star is hot and bright and doesn't last forever?
@@20july1944 I know physics well, don't worry. State your premises and following conclusions. Simply your evidence. Then, if I disagree with something I can give you my objections. We don't need to go through steps together. It's a youtube comment sections, not suitable for chatting.
@@MRnormi98 No, that's not how I roll, I need to agree on premises first. If you know physics well, let's "cut to Hecuba" and tell me if you adhere to some big bang cosmogony? I do, as a Christian theist.
I am an atheist but grew up Christian and I don’t think any of the arguments this guy presented are compelling. Thinking back to my Christian days, I could’ve come up with “good enough” arguments to counter everything he said. He greatly underestimates the mental gymnastics believers are willing to go through to align their internal belief in god with science and logic.
There is no need to explain Gods into existence to satisfy any criterion of the physical world we can detect. What do you mean? You'd more likely argue FOR the existence of something that has any corresponding phenomenon in the physical world, but which is just beyond our ability to currently explain.
i think the best argument is that god isnt even the biggest of all illusions since not all humans fall victim to as contradistinction to time/freedom/free-will and love...
Is love an illusion? You can say it's just chemicals and electrical signals, but so is thought itself. I don't think you'd argue that thought itself doesn't exist, on the grounds just because it happens to be chemical and electrical in nature, so why wouldn't love count? The question first is exactly what is love? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more. Sorry, had to say it.
Interesting perspective. Maybe there should be a ranked list of the biggest cons of all time. God is up there but falls far short of free will in terms of the number of people duped. Time is one I hadn't considered much. Are you arguing that my perception of time is an illusion? Love and freedom may require more precise definitions to be considered. As another poster mentioned, what we call love is manifested in biochemical and biophysical processes that evolved for reasons such as mate selection, successful copulation, pair-bonding throughout child development, etc. To me, that emotion is more likely to be "real" than free will.
@@mikel5582 nope god is by far the biggest scam of all time. A small fraction of people have even heard of "free will". Various political entities would be #2
without hearing the video, we can say- arguing against god(s), in itself, belies the arguments(s) after all, we don't hear much argument against the tooth fairy, neh?
@@friendoengus It’s slow going but we’re making progress. The number of delusional believers has consistently been trending down. Europe is way ahead of the US on this project.
@@karagi101 being well-traveled in the states, especially in the mountainous west, i can report obvious, increasing delusion over more than a half-century concurrent with masking/jab/lockdown application, a radical uptick in the last few years these folks roll with whatever the telly leads them to (nearly definitional so far as monitoring delusion) if your campaign to break down their misguided beliefs outweighs this, go for it i've not been in europe enough to weigh in much, but from my limited travels there (uk and netherlands), they are not much different, perhaps less naive and more jaded/cynical
If anyone could ask, "If God is good why is there suffering," it is God Himself, who in Christ suffered more than all of us combined on the cross. He understands, and will soon redeem all suffering.
@@realitycheck1231 the wrath of the omnipotent God for the sins of the world is a massive, massive amount of suffering. Read Jesus’s comments on the pain and suffering of hell, then multiply by millions of times.
@@longcastle4863 *"That's just due to them being smarter than your average religious thinker"* ... Sitting back and doing nothing while everyone else is trying to discover the truth about existence, and then shouting _"Prove it!"_ after they propose something isn't very smart. It's just plain lazy. When atheists start putting some skin in the game, only THEN you can say they are _"smarter than your average religious thinker."_
The only fundamental argument atheism makes is that the arguments for the existence of some invisible magical god-friends are not convincing whatsoever. If theism fails, atheism is born.
@@andreasplosky8516 1. You've already admitted you know zero about Idealism. 2. You've already admitted you know zero about non-duality. 3. Physics works exactly the same under Idealism, Materialism, Non-duality, or any other substrate. 4. Only the religious have "invisible magical god friends" 5. Science cannot demonstrate brain activity causes consciousness. Not now, not ever. The best it can do is show correlation. You have the knowledge and intellect of a housefly
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 "5. Science cannot demonstrate brain activity causes consciousness. Not now, not ever. The best it can do is show correlation." It will be fully understood by the end of this century. There were sceptics like you in the past claiming that something is unknowable. Time shows they were all wrong. History likes to repeat... Room for unknown is diminishing rapidly.
No, any 6-dimensional being, were one to exist, would perceive our entire universe like a very long sitcom, they could poke at any place in our space/time to catch the action, Universal Tivo. (That or, like us with 2-dimensional fields, just pass through without noticing.).
The mental gymnastics to rationalise the notion that life and the universe came into being for no reason and all just fell into place of its own accord and claim it is more logical and scientific to say creation has no Creator.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 "Reasons" are a anthropogenic concept. Complexity is an emergent property of simplicity, do some reading. No sky daddy required.
@@TurinTuramber your notion of 'rationalism' is as construed as 'reason'. Rationalism in contrast to what, irrationality? Sounds like you cannot escape anthropocentric notions and undermine your own 'rationality' from what I can only gather you believe comes from irrationality.
@@seamusomurchadha2620 Sorry, you missed out the part where your proved the existence of any one of the thousands of supernatural gods. Since we can all make up unfalsifiable supernatural nonsense in our heads, so forgive my skepticism.
@championchap You would need to define "nothing" before we went there. I don't think I used that term. 100% of sentient beings contemplating their existence, happen to live within the "something". This is not a spooky coincidence instead it is an absolute prerequisite. Simple things making complex things this is an objective fact. Invoking the most complex thing imaginable at the beginning makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I say imaginable because at this moment, that is what god is. The only reason I cannot falsify a god claim is because it's entirely unfalsifiable at its core. Are you invoking a god creator to me?
The establishing question is: "What are strong arguments for atheism?" Once again, atheism is presented as a belief, rather than the rejection of a claim. The rejection of any claim does not require an argument. It is the claim which requires an argument. I do not need to offer an explanation of why I do not believe a claim that magical elves cause airplanes to fly with pixie dust; my decision whether or not to accept the claim will be based upon my evaluation of the evidence. This type of fallacious arguing begins with the erroneous assumption that theism and atheism are two separate claims, each requiring supporting arguments. That being said, claims that "there are no gods" do require supporting arguments, as any claim would. But asserting there are no gods is very different from a purely a-theist rejection of a god claim. Without a god claim in the first place, "atheism" doesn't even exist.
It's quite absurd to ascribe a sex to god if there's only one of them, the entire purpose of biological reproduction disappears if there's only one. Clearly any "god" worth its snuff would be genderless.
Not watching this a 4th time. That man can only give you ignorance, and it is absolutely clear he never once sought out to understand anything. A complete and utter fraud. I wouldn't give my energy to that vampire.
Interesting, that a man who thinks, and does not buy into all the fantastical magical theistic nonsense is called a vampire. You could profit from reading his books, they are full of insights, without resorting to magical fantasy. The truth is difficult to handle, is it not? It is not easy to be confronted by the debilitating deficiencies of theism.
@@andreasplosky8516 He is not funny, he is pathetic. One of those who can't understand, and cling to their delusions because they are culturally conditioned and are not capable to break through because of lack of insight, intelligence and good education.
Just think of the alternatives. If there was no suffering then that would prove something is looking out for us and most would conclude it was some higher being and so there would be no free will by that alone. Ok so what if there was suffering but to a lesser extent, that would means God was involved directly and would have to pick and choose who to make it easier on which creates favouritism which in turn means unfairness. So judging by this the best way to create ultimate free will and fairness is to bring forth a creation which randomly creates life based on eventual events that are likely to occur over long periods of time aka evolution but then people would say it would be impossible to believe in God by these standards and this is where religion enters especially Islam which is often reffered to as the guidance to mankind from the creator and mostly by signs as opposed to science because describing quantum physics in religious scriptures would be a bad idea. At the end of the day it's a very fragile balance and only God knows in his ultimate knowledge why it is the way it is. (pun unintended)
First time seeing Lawrence openly debating instead of maintaining the objectivity that every interviewer should have. He even loses his composure at times. Very sad.
In times gone by their parents or/and their religious beliefs would have been to blame, and we have seen what happens with this line of thought......a lot
Then now thinking about it out of all the "isum's" at a guess that would only leave voyeurisum.......and now i don't really want to think about panspermia (did that clap of thunder sound strangely a little like a laugh🤔)
How could a not religious person possibly know what a person who claims to be without belief in something (ambiguous) that he calls "God" or "god" means? Both the person who claims to believe in God and the person who claims to nor believe in "God"are engaged in the exact same folly since both are defining their own beliefs by the ambiguous not defined term. Without the person using the term defining it, nobody could know what is being claimed either way.
His evil argument to support atheism is a limited response to particular notions of gods embedded within distinct social and historical contexts, as he admits. However, it quickly falls apart from internal inconsistencies if you take into consideration the ramifications of other notions of god which believe that god set the universe in motion and it evolves according to internal principles, but with unexpected emergent properties which occur without outside interference. In this type of view, god, and the consequences of their initial actions, are neither good nor evil and are not constrained by contemporary notions of good or evil. Thereby, god is only a prime mover that sets things into motion with novel and unpredictable consequences and need not interfere with anything that happens afterwards. It requires limited, subjective moral construction of good or evil to call anything good or evil to such an extent that any attributions of good or evil are merely contingent human appellations that do not define or constrain god or prime movements. Good can still exist; evil can still exist; but only in certain times and places which cannot be fully predicted and do not entirely delimit future, different views of good and evil. In taking this view, I would argue that down syndrome is not an evil, but an eventual statistical likelihood given combinations of human genetic code, which evolve according to natural laws, as do physics and chemistry. It is neither good nor evil, but could be called either good or evil within various moral frameworks. Therefore, he cannot call down syndrome evil without presupposing that a god who defines good and evil, and also maintains direct ongoing causal influence, actually exists. Otherwise he has nothing but subjective opinion as a basis for his moral premise on which his central argument balances.
I'm a Christian and the one question atheists always ignore is the "block universe" where Einstein says the past and future both exist in the same way as the present moment. So science says the future exists, not religion!!! So I want to hear an atheist argue this point, as it seems utterly contradictory to our tiny minds. How can the future already exist????? If this apparent paradox is true, why cant God exist??? The Bible says that God knows the future and Science seems to suggest this is true. Also the moment of creation ....how did the universe burst into existence from nothing???? Why are laws of physics set the way they are????
We simply do not understand what time is. We can't define it, cannot segment it beside Planck time, or otherwise characterize it as something other than another dimension of space. God is simply the deepest rippling of vibration in our collective neurological evolution expressing its intelligence and wisdom in a massively complex system of information processing (nervous system).
An eternal, unchanging God can act in time and space through consciousness, similar to human consciousness act in time and space? God might limit his conscious actions on physical reality based on consciousness of life and things in physical reality?
there are 2 kinds of gods, supernatural and semantic. Supernatural gods are contrary to established natural laws and cannot exist. Semantic gods (god is nature, god is love, god is the first cause) can exist, but they are trivial, substituting the word "god" for something else. There's your atheist argument condensed to 3 short sentences. Enjoy.
If God were Eternal, Omniscient and Omnipotent, really existing and having all of the qualities of perfection that are attributed to him / it; then I observe a fairly simple problem for us :- in such an eternally perfect state there could arise no disturbance. There could arise no need; because ALL needs would have been met, all disturbances eliminated. There would be no incentive to create or to change anything and there would be nothing to do. He can not have been bored or lonely since those qualities are imperfect. Christian teaching in Genesis tells the creation story; which describes the "will of God to create" - and so He embarks on a festival of creation. This implies there was a disturbance. A need arose. Something was missing - there was a void to fill. But If this is so, then God can not have been eternally perfect. God, if you believe to exist "within time and space" MUST be eternal : If NOT you have the problem of How and why and by whom was God created. (Presumably by a force more powerful) If you believe God to exist Outside of time and space then you have to redefine what "to exist" means; and you have the problem of how does something non-existent within time and space affect anything within it. IF you argue that "He Can because he is God" - then you are left with my original point : Why did he have a void to fill if he and everything was already perfect. it's a puzzle. I do not Know. So I guess I am Agnostic about it :-)
My additional argument against God is that it is perfectly understood WHY people can believe in things that are not there (e.g. it has an evolutional advantage and that's how our brain works).
I don't really see the Bible as contradicting atheism. The Word, which has created everything [John 1], can simply be seen as a platonic form, and God the Father is the unmanifested Word, and Christ is the Word manifested. The argument about evil I think is weak, because we can look at it from a bigger cosmic perspective and see the "fall" of humanity simply as a temporary, and necessary, evolutionary stage.
People have wild imaginations formed by their cultures and personal beliefs. They experience 'something' and attribute it to God. Same is true for people who claim to see UFOs and Aliens from space. They see something (or just lie) and decide that was an alien/ufo.
I'm very grateful for these incisive and illuminating arguments and the unbiased way the interviews are conducted by Mr. Kuhn. The unwarranted conclusion from the speaker that God doesn't exist because of the three main reasons he gave are in my opinion unpersuasive. First the age old argument that if God exists he would prevent the suffering of innocent children from certain horrific diseases is not convincing. Here's why; we grant that no child deserves to experience the pain and agony of suffering with a disease they had no responsibility for contracting. The example given above is Down"s Syndrome and the bowel blockage once associated with this condition. No innocent child would suffer this if God was real and all-powerful is how the argument goes. Lets take the argument apart. One might say that if God were just than no child should suffer needlessly, not only from Down's Syndrome but from any serious medical condition that was life threatening, and not only innocent children but all people who contract a terrible illness that they had no causative association with in their habits or behavior. By Mr. Sinnott-Armstrong's logic no innocent person should suffer this unjust possibility. If an innocent child should be afforded protection from God then every innocent child should receive the same, and by this logic every innocent adult should also because it's completely reasonable to expect equal treatment from God to all. If God intervened when any disease threatened children and/or adults, humanity would have no impetus to develop medical science, immunology, vaccines, or any of the life saving technologies that have made our world a better place. Luis Pasteur had to watch his children die one after the other from contagious disease and yet he used this tragedy to discover how the microbial world can threaten humanity and used his research to develop strategies to combat microbial disease and in the process helped save millions who might have suffered the same fate as his children. He didn't blame God, he instead used his personal loss to make the world better. The seeming absence of God has worked to insure humanity's eventual self-empowerment. The argument that God cannot exist outside of time and then intervene into time bound reality is unconvincing because we don't even have an adequate grasp of what time is. The stock answer that time is a measure of matter in motion explains nothing more than that, and steers clear of the much deeper question as to the origin of time. If God exists than we must accept that there is no definition of God that's valid if we exclude him from existing outside of time. Why and how is it not possible for God to exist both in time and outside the linear flow of time? If something existed prior to the Big Bang which brought time into being and something had to exist to "act upon" and exert a controlling power over the original singularity that brought the universe into existence then that "something" existed prior to the emergence of time, and must be described as "timeless." It's not at all self-contradictory to assert that a transcendent power could exist both in time and separate from it. The final argument that God doesn't exist because if he did he would show himself to non-believers who need him the most is pedantically absurd. The notion that God should somehow appear dramatically to scare people into doing the right thing is a notion that lacks credibility. A universe where God appears regularly to herd people into piety and good behavior is a universe that's not consistent with human freedom.
So your first argument goes, if God didn't allow suffering then human beings wouldn't have invented all the stuff to ease suffering... Honestly, that's hardly worth a poke at ; /
@@longcastle4863 There is no logic or reasoning behind your "hit and run" comment. Yes that's what I'm saying because the impetus to embrace any change or improvement is and always has to be "motivation." This is a self-evident statement. It's not for me to defend any self-evident statement. If you think this is not true than it's incumbent on you to say why it's not self-evident.
@@michaelmckinney7240 It wasn't a hit and run comment, it was a devastating rebuke of your first extremely dumb argument. The fact HUMANS do things to alleviate suffering does not explain why god allows it in the first place, and humans can only alleviate a tiny portion of the suffering that "god" allegedly created.
You could poke holes in a hundred arguments that no god exists but still be absolutely no where closer to proving that a god does exist. I make no claims of either sort, and I am not convinced by either argument. I don't know if any gods exist, and I am not convinced that others know. I am convinced that others believe that they know, but that does not persuade me given how prone to confirmation bias we are, to say nothing of our tendency to lie our asses off. If no gods wish to reveal themselves to me, it is not my fault if I don't accept them as real.
I would like to add that there can be a "Personal God" or as our forefathers believed "Nature's God." Nature's God could have created the universe and left it to develop on its own like a farmer planting seeds in his field then walk away from the field. Nature's God would have provided all the tools his life forms would require to not only survive but thrive over time. So eventually Nature's God creations were able to stop the suffering caused by Down's Syndrom! I think this point neutralizes one of Walter's key criticisms - his definition of God is not broad enough!
Good point. A watchmaker God may not even be all-knowing or all-good. But I have found arguments regarding universal fine-tuning to be a bit contrived, as if philosophers or scientists know the true possible distribution of all physics parameters, or the probability of having, say, complex life with parameter sets way different than we can imagine.
Yes there's the difference between a personal god or one that would perhaps not even be conscious by our standards in two extremes, and one that micromanages the universe versus one that just set it all going at the start on two other extremes. There are other parameters by which "god" could be different. There are individuals that think "god" is just "the universe itself". Which is not productive in my opinion, there's already another word for the universe itself, and that word is universe, we don't need to be calling it god as well. The takeaway I think is that we need to come to an agreement on what qualifies as a god so that the goal posts can't be shifted. What kind of a god are you trying to claim, and what evidence physical or reasoning for or against can be produced.
You are defining .... a god according to you. Al Lah .... is the arab moon god. Akbar ... is the arab sun god. The god .... called God ... is from Judaism & Christianity which state there is only one true God, and all others are false. There are over 2.6 billion who believe in God. There are 1.6 billion who believe in Allah .... & ... Akbar. And there are over 1 billion who believe in multiple incarnations of gods. The Function, Intelligence Categories .... proves everything is a Function made by an Intelligence. Man is a natural Intelligence .... made by ... an unnatural intelligence. Man has a natural mind (brain). But the Mind of an intelligence is UNNATURAL (soul/spirit). So the complete Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul). God really did create Man in His likeness ... with a body & soul. There is only God.
As an agnostic, I would love to hear a debate between an ACTUAL A-thiest vs a Diest. I’m tired of listening to atheists debating/arguing the existence of the Christian god. How about the debate ‘Does god not exist?’ This interview was a complete waste of time.
Brian, if you know basic astrophysics, I can give you extremely strong reason to infer there is a Creator God. No Bible or philosophy, just some pretty basic physics and probably a few odds and ends from logic.
This presupposes that what religious books say about God is correct and complete. (A mighty big assumption!) God can be outside time, but his children can operate inside time. "God is not omnificent-he does not personally do all that is done." According to a Mighty Messenger temporarily sojourning on Urantia [the universe's name for Earth].
For the problem of evil there's thousands of examples, I think Epicurus summed it up well. Although it doesn't disprove god, it just suggests if there is a god it's either weak or doesn't care (or both). I'm not even sure where the Christian god acquired those attributes anyway, maybe in the bible. It's all too farfetched for a rational human being to begin to take seriously.
Suffering in this world is just a test along with evil. When some one is suffering from birth defect or some illness this suffering will be exchanged with more rewards by The One God than suffering he got in this short period of time. Eventually Every one will die except The One God. So sufferings or not every one will die and will face the result like we do in exams for rewards. Examination here is so simple to believe in The One God and obey. Do what ever God likes. If some one has mental issues that cannot understand or think they all will directly go to paradise.
@@TheStopworld And how do you know there will be more rewards? No one on earth has proven god(s) even exist, yet you seem to know the finest details about said god. And also, rewards doesn't equate with misery. Would you let me cut off all your fingers and toes for £1,000,000. Even if you said yes, you would change your mind once the pain started. So your "rewards scheme" sucks, why not just not give children horrific medical conditions in the first place? Your excuses are pathetic, don't you see?
Min 4:35 "Maybe God has desires, goals and purposes that are so far beyond your conception..." That's not a decent argument. Entanglement, time dilation, superposition, are pretty much beyond the conception of everyone, even seasoned quantum physicists, and we are still able to carve out meaning out of their boundaries. But the notion that when it comes to God letting millions of babies die horrible deaths we must remain silent and do not question his very existence because there is an impenetrable barrier of meaning in the very scenario where we are condemned if we do not follow the commands of the creator. What a ridiculous trap. It sounds like the water gun with which my nephew threatens me. Well, sorry, but I am not afraid of getting wet by a silly water gun.
@@scambammer6102 The proposition that is being negated is "god is ALL powerful, and ALL good." Your reasoning is circular because you use as a premise "what if god is not all powerful" exactly what you try to negate, i.e., god is not ALL powerful. Theodicy is a devastating argument against the idea of god.
May I refer to Hinduism which is not touched upon in this session. God exists outside of time and watches movie and it takes avatar that is it takes birth when needed be. Good and evil all exists within god and they are all encompassing. Now is God themself evil or greedy?No. Coz he is the seer where all actions accumulate in the frame of space-time.the reaction We got is birth..or shall we say our ancestors passed there actions or karmas in the form of genes to be part of the material that is movie. Desire is the cause of suffering (Buddhism) whether desires are good or bad. When u detach yourself from karma that is action or their accumulation, u have rested your engagement with time and space and u become aware and one with the seer i.e disappearing of self and now all encompassing unperturbed. When no desire i.e no.action is taken, no change has been brought in space and time. There is no change that needs dissipation to restore to the eternal. We are accumulation of actions and historical data of accumulation of actions can predict ur future states. God is a timeless state (samadhi) it has always been there regardless of the receiver (ego) which is a subject of space and time just like dreamless timeless deep sleep where your energy system is in coherence with that of universe (creation). God acts upon itself to take avatar( physical form) in order to restore the equilibrium i.e. to restore the creation (universe) by engaging with spacetime and binding itself with requisite action to be taken during the course of time be it actively or passively. Hinduism refers to rebirth (change of energy from one form to another) and existence beyond death (till that energy is materialised if any residual exists at time of death. If someone is one with God then his ego (form) has disappeared and karmas accumulated by the ego and beyond will dissolve and u have attained samadhi i.e the ripple wave in the lake has eventually settled with time and become one with the stable state of Lake itself which can be referred analogous to timeless state. Time is a constraint to the ripple and not to the lake. God is all encompassing and only being acted upon. It is like a repository where u act as per ur desires and get reacted in spacetime accordingly.
The best argument against God are the things attributed to him in the Bible. There are many troublesome examples, but here are the main ones: The first two humans screw up, so every human thereafter must suffer. Humans (God's most cherished creation) become so evil that He drowns every living thing on the planet, including babies, bunny rabbits, and koalas who were just minding their own business. After this mass genocide, the one family that he spared because they were so "good" immediately screws up and the process starts all over again. I won't even go into the Jesus and Mohammed sequels, because by now you should realize this is the worst case of "fine tuning" ever.
Don;'t worry about what the Bible says, that's a completely separate issue than God's existence and I say that as a Christian. I can give you a very solid argument for both God and Jesus specifically as His Son without claiming Bible inerrancy. Let me know if you want to discuss.
@@20july1944 oh please. Now you want to just cast aside the Bible after all these years and say "never mind that, i have something better." That's hilarious. BTW, it's not the big bang anymore. Scientists for years have been trying to wean the public off that misnomer that was originally meant to mock scientific discovery on the origins of the universe. And if it's so simple, perhaps you can enlighten me on such topics as the universal relationship of all matter, Planck time, the nature of the primordial state, proton decay, etc. Just go away, please.
His second argument is built on the premise that the math / the number five exists outside of time and space, which implies a sort of metaphysics in and of itself (which is problematic to his argument, to say the least). I also think this argument is based on a potentially false assumption though, since one could argue (and some mathematicians and philosophers do) that all math IS ONLY relational to the properties or assumptions of a physical universe. There are equations that posit an entirely geometric universe that is axiomatic from within that geometric structure, and I don’t think we’re anywhere close to disapproving this hypothesis.
God shares many attributes with mathematics: it is present everywhere (omnipresence), it is immaterial hence it is immune to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it transcends time (e.g., the square root of two is irrational before there was a universe and will be irrational afterwards), it is always true, it does not negate itself, is infinite. Walter is wrong when he says that 5 does not interact with the material world. In fact 5 interacts with the material world through consciousness. Physical laws say that a mass of 1 ton cannot levitate, but with mathematics humans make airplanes. There will be no airplanes without the number 5, or without any number for that matter. As the blending of electricity with magnetism produces light, the blending of consciousness with mathematics produces pyramids, bridges and even the JWST which is a bundle of mathematics in a scaffold of metal, plastic and lenses, the river bed through which the flow of calculations will reveal features of the universe. What about the blending of consciousness with God, what comes out of that? Instead of pyramids, bridges or telescopes, the blend produces inquisitions, crusades, burning at the stake and excommunications. Carl Boyer wrote a book covering 3,000 years of mathematics where one finds disputes and confrontations, but mostly collaboration and celebration of new discoveries. Diarmaid MacCulloch wrote a book covering 3,000 years of Christianity and one reads about wars after wars, ugly stuff. RLK's argument against Theodicy saying that God is so mysterious we cannot understand him is vacuously true, it says nothing. If it held any water how come we can interact with mathematics and build bridges but cannot interact with god because we will never understand him. He should at leat, give us a cognitive apparatus to understand him.
We have to posit God in some image, otherwise we're just saying everything and anything is God, and then we're seeing God in all things which makes the concept meaningless.
@@medexamtoolscom no it isn't. "god" is just a word invented by humans. Cosmology is an entirely different subject. I can disprove god without any reference to cosmology whatsoever.
Did the universe always exist, Dan? We don't know if there's a God or not, but we know from science the universe began to exist. Atheism is a truth claim, that there is no Creator God required to have caused our universe.
@@danohanlon8316 Did I make an assertion you want to question? Did the universe always exist, Dan? We don't know if there's a God or not, but we know from science the universe began to exist. If you really know the substance, I'm eager to learn from you.
I was expecting some intellectual arguments from the atheist but none were offered. Firstly, sickness/illness from birth does relate to genes and defects in genes does relate to previous sick/ill conduct. Also a period of suffering is nothing compared to an eternity of suffering and so if you had the choice to trade a period of suffering for heaven eternal any sound person would choose heaven. Also, we are inclined to project our disposition on to others such as people with down syndrome or other illnesses but they do not experience their affliction like we imagine it with our different brain and so it is not as traumatic for them, it is traumatic for the parents and I would say they are the ones whose lives are made more difficult and so they are the ones God is holding to account possibly or who are being tested in their faith because the short suffering for eternal heaven is the better deal. Time argument is dumb, eternal exists based on time so God can be eternal and exist within time which is something that just requires 2 parts to measure space in between, God is just not effected by space and so also not by time. No reason to believe in God is also a weak argument because he says he can’t see the elephant so he thinks it is not there but how about if there was something not there before and there after as a result of the elephant having been there which could be a broken desk or whatever, point is you don’t need to be seeing an elephant to know one was there - so with God you can see the creation and intelligence and life and even test the teachings of God for their soundness about life to know God is and must be real. As ignorant as it would be, it would be more intelligent to say God may well be real but I do not care or I do not want to follow God’s teachings
Defects in genes related to previous sick/ill conduct? Ever hear of random mutations? Like cancer? How are those related to previous ill conduct? A cosmic ray can hit a gene and cause a mutation that leads to a birth defect or cancer.
I am not talking about something in a science lab I am talking about humans so what is the random mutation in humans you speak of - ah the missing link maybe. Mother drinks alcohol or smokes or is on drugs the child is born with a defect. It extends to behaviour which effects the mind and then effects physiologically also - social decline is evidence itself of that. As for cancer, I would say it stems from many I’ll things, toxins in food, depression, anxiety, etc… so these are all things unnatural and that mess with a person’s equilibrium and so it passes in their genes
@@Terencemadinah You are a science illiterate. Cosmic rays hit the earth. You have no idea how mutations happen. No idea about causes of cancer. Stick to reading your fairy tale book.
Any thing u say you have free will to say it and accept it. But reality is that everything has creator. And for everything to be created in such balanced way that if any little bit of constants changed everything will be destroyed there must be The One Creator. No two or more creators can agree on so much fine tuning. Because creation itself created by The One Creator. It is impossible that there is no creator or there is more than one creator. Because there would have been no meaning of the creator because creator himself would have been created. And therefore The Creator Must Be Uncreated and is always there. And it must be One Creator. This is the most logical thinking. So this whole universe is telling us that I am the creation of The One Creator. If u still not agree than you must also accept that one day robots will evolve and then start saying that they have been not created and they only evolved from Nothing. Any body rejecting The One Creator Must also accept this idea of robots. And they must think how much logical this robots idea is
1: Evil exists because this is a fallen world. Plus evil wouldn't exist without good, and good wouldn't exist without God. So the problem of evil in a way is an argument for God. 2: Since God is all powerful he can act in time and outside of time. I've never heard this argument before. 3: God has left more than enough evidence that he exists, and he has revealed himslef in the person of Jesus Christ.
These are cherry picked arguments for which you have canned answers you feel address them sufficiently for your audience. Your three cherry picked arguments: A - The problem of evil is but one of the problems, and it only affects a god that defined a certain way. And, as is typical, the escape clause of 'mysterious ways/beyond our understanding' is invoked to brush that one aside and instead. B - The eternal/time/changing/etc thing, is too heady for people not well versed (most people) in temporal discussions, and it's not really something most people go to in their thinking unless they go down a lot of philosophical rabbit holes and generally serves to abstract the argument out to the extent most people lose interest and wander off (on either side). C - If he existed there would be better clear reasons to believe in his existence... This is where many often go in their thinking, it's simplistic, which is not a bad thing, but it gets waived away by 'look at the trees' level nonsense arguments. For me it's the source material of the God claim, the early old testament. The rest of the old testament and the new testament is either expansions / derivative work based on those first 5 books, or an expansion added on by the christian movement to differentiate themselves from the jewish faith. The Jews had their saviour figure, Moses, who saved them and led them out of slavery. So, Christians had theirs, Jesus, who led them away from the Jews. And Jesus' character story was a strong parallel to Moses'. Impossible origin story, a king figure slaughtering male babies for some bizarre reason, then vanish for a few decades only to return a leader. And at the end of their story leave no corpse behind. Every critical story in the writings is very clearly written by a human ignorant of how things work in this world, and their sole concept of 'powerful' is the ability to wage war and violence against their enemies. At no point does God display tolerance, love, wisdom, or even kindness as a show of power. This fails from the very first story with his custom made humans. Adam/Eve break 1 rule and all of humanity is cursed. That's loving? No, not even close. That's a narcissist with an anger management issue. And the notion of angels, these have no function in the God universe, he is all knowing, so he has no need for helpers to watch and report on things, he is all powerful so he has no need of helpers to carry out orders. Their only purpose in the story is to fit the model humans understood for a leader and that was a king/emperor with servants and generals. And the idea of these angels rebelling against God is silly as well, it's a plot device to give an origin story to satan, a character needed for their carrot and stick model that is basically equal to God in power, something that is irreconcilable in the 'one true god' model of the monotheistic religions. So no matter what story you look at in the writings it will fall apart rapidly with even a modicum of critical thought. If the base material, the bible as a whole, is fictional, as this would all suggest, then the God character himself is fictional. Prior to 'God' being a thing humans attributed things they did not understand to 'gods'. As cultures and leaders vied for power over the people the god being followed took on some importance, and finally the gods with limited powers, areas of specialty, were replaced by this one top dog of a god, and rules were written to keep it unassailable, like no graven images. If the god character your culture follows has no physical manifestations in art form then people cannot deface it. Simple rule that keeps things rooted firmly in the imagination. It's an ancient game of who has the better written god, but this was taken far too seriously and this old tribal war god now lives in 3 primary forms, the christian god, the jewish god, and the muslim god allah, which is fully derived from the other 2 forms with a few added stories from muhammed which do nothing to make things more valid.
1) The "problem" of evil. This is a non-argument. This assumes that "evil" is a created thing or that God somehow causes it or maliciously ignores it. It is not; He does not. Satan was not created evil. He was simply created and taught God's ways, but chose, in his free will, independence from God, accusing God of seeking to deceive His creation. Thus evil (of the "wicked" variety) is simply a path away from God and away from His ability to guide us for our benefit. This abandoning the source of right action causes one to choose what is right for themselves, but to stumble around in the dark doing so. And we all know that when you stumble around in the dark, you end up stubbing your toe or someone else's, and thus end up with evil that is wicked. "Evil" of the birth defect variety is due to mankind's being apart from God, just as the animals are. It is a result of Adam's choice, not God's. If Adam had never sinned, there would be no birth defects because God, Jehovah, would be in control. Birth defects are due to the fact that flesh corrupts without God keeping it in check. (Romans 8:20-22) This is for the purpose of establishing our reliance on God. Without reliance on Him, we have futility. Volume has nothing to do with it. You either have God's help or you do not. It is a simple matter of yes or no. If no, then whatever volume of evil mankind suffers is by their one and only choice. God does not cause their suffering. He simply does not interfere except where He can preserve a remnant who choose God. Your definition of "good" is not consistent. One would argue that if God helped a serial killer or ch.ld mol.ster in the way you claim, that God would be complicit in that murderer's or mol.ster's actions. If, then He would be complicit in their sins, then He would be complicit in the sins of all people He would help in that way. Therefore God's consistency in goodness is established by His consistently NOT helping those who choose a path away from Him. 2) God outside of time, but interacting in time. There is nothing contradictory in this. It is like one putting their hands into a lab box. You can interact with the environment inside the box without having to share that environment. There is no contradiction. God's living outside time only means that He is unaffected by it. There is nothing that makes it impossible. Scientists stil do not know what time is, and you are making some grand assumption about its being impossible for something outside of time to interact with anything inside of time. It is patently shortsighted and ridiculous. God is not an integer. He is not abstract. He is a concrete being with deternizing action. He being outside of time does not make Him comparable to an abstract concept that is neither living nor existent at all. "5" has no existence outside of the purpose assigned to it. It cannot do anything outside of time so obviously it cannot do anything inside of time. You are comparing a person to a scraping on a piece of paper. Of course the scrape does nothing active, but the person does. 3) No reason to believe in God. For someone who is content to live a discontented life, having no answers to life's big questions, and not knowing what to do, stumbling around in darkness for a brief instant like the ember out of a fire, sure, there is no reason to believe in God. But for someone who wants to find out what life would be like in the light, having answers to their questions and having a hope to live forever, then they have reasons to believe in God. Anyone seeking surety and not content with a brief existence seeks God. But it does go to the c.ckroach. You could say, by your own limited judgment, that there is no good reason for a c.ckroach to exist. But that does not mean that there is in fact no good reason for the c.ckroach to exist. It is simply that you are ignorant of such reasons. As to the elephant, that is argumentum absurdum and is therefore pointless to attempt to counter. You can direct the discussion any direction you want when you are comparing God to something that has no basis in relatity, because your ultimate goal would be circular to say that because the elephant existing is ridiculous, therefore the existence of God is ridiculous. It's just another non-argument, one in which you aattempt to spin us in circles. Really, the argument is saying only that because you can't see God, he doesn't exist. That is an exact one-to-one comparison. That is argument from ignorance, which is some of the worst reasoning there is and countered easily by that there are many things you have never seen and never will that do exist. Can you see a muon? No, but you can see its effects. Likewise, God's fingerprints are everywhere. Finally you break down into poisoning the wells with Zeus. Does this guy make his living on logical fallacies or what? God did appear in the right way at the right time to the right people. It is why Christianity is the largest segment of the world, but still only millions, not billions respond because most claiming to be Christian still want to do things their own way instead of obeying God. Again, He does not interfere in mankind's affairs because minkind chose the path away from Him. Mankind continually chooses a path away from Him. Like I said, even those claiming to serve Him choose a path away from Him. This is their own fault, not His.
You believe in a God that became his own son and then sacrificed himself to save humanity from a curse that the very same God inflicted on all the descendants of a couple who ate an apple because they were convinced to do so by a talking snake. That is the definition of insanity. Furthermore, you believe in heaven and hell. A heaven where you will be eternally happy even knowing full well your parent or child is suffering eternal pain in hell. Says a lot about your morals.
@@karagi101 You have made an incorrect assumption. "There is actually to us one God, the Father, ... and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, ... "--1 Corinthians 8:6. "Jesus said to her: “ ... say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”--John 20:17. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. We believe according to these Bible verses, not according to mainstream sects. Jesus is NOT God. He is the only-begotten Son of God.--John 3:16; 4:9.
@@karagi101 Also, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that anyone is tormented in a fiery hell. Hell is the grave, while the fire before Jehovah's throne is a place of complete destruction. "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire."--Revelation 20:14. God did not "inflict" the condition on Adam and Eve. They chose not to have God in their lives and thus missed out on his ability to sustain and renew their lives and the instruction he could provide on how to avoid the calamity mankind has wrought on themselves. God also did not abandon them. He gave the life of his only-begotten Son so that Adam and Eve's descendants would be able to undo the effects by demonstrating their faith despite their sinful condition. This was necessary because, through the death of a righteous man, all who put faith in him could receive his resurrection to unending life in paradise in an abundance of peace. Those are the things Adam and Eve lost and Christ's death and resurrection regains for their descendants. The whole matter was in order to perfectly counter Adam and Eve's sin through Christ's sacrifice for obedience to God, demonstrate righteousness through the life of Jesus, provide a vehicle for faith and open the way to an undefiled relationship with God. Only a limited number go to heaven to serve as kings and priests.--Revelation 5:9, 10; 14:3.
@@Dismythed Dummy… it was no sacrifice for Jesus to die. It’s no sacrifice when you know you will be resurrected in a few days. LOL You believe in a lot of things just because they are written in a book which was written decades after the supposed events and of which we have only copies of copies of copies - nothing original. The same book other Christians believe in and feel that they interpret correctly and that your interpretation is heresy. What a mess! Didn’t anyone teach you that everything written is not true? It’s called fiction.
@@Dismythed your "god" supposedly set the whole thing up knowing what would happen in the first place. So IT is responsible for all evil and suffering.
@@scambammer6102 because that word encompasses the concept/process that is actively acting on in to mantain it, not just describing the act itself (sorry for my english, I hope is understandable)
@@MrBeatTH-cam I understand your point well. I don't think we need a "concept/process" for maintaining life, reality or force. Those things just exist based on general principles of physics. Particularly the word "concept" implies an intelligence, which is a projection of human thought onto inanimate matter. The "process" involved is simply physics, which we understand imperfectly, but there is no need to call it god.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Oden said there would be no Ice Giants for he would slay them, well I don't see no friggin ICE giants! All hail Oden.
If there is no time I think the concept of eternal doesn't mean anything. Eternity just has meaning inside time.
Well there are things like numerical constants like pi.... but if something is eternal and doesn't CHANGE with time, then it is also frozen in time and not conscious. This would require god to be eternal but constantly changing, and if he was perfect and unmatchable, then how could he do anything but become less perfect if he changed?
No need for arguments to be an atheist. If theists could prove their claims then the concept of atheism vanishes.
The evidence for God is the Function Category .... and ... Thermodynamic Systems.
Only an intelligence makes abstract & physical Functions.
All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions and originate from the surrounding system which must provide the time, space, laws, matter, energy & INTELLIGENCE to exist & function.
These are the facts we know about anything that is a FUNCTION ...... or ...... thermodynamic System.
God is an intelligence like Man or vice-versa.
And the Universe & Man ... are thermodynamic Systems.
Proved.
Take a hike, Atheism. You have no evidence nature & natural processes can make the simplest physical function 13.7 or 4 billion years ago. All just religious nonsense.
Exactly, there is no proof. Faith is required. I have faith, my whole vantage point in life is so different from someone without faith, you can't imagine.
@@JerseyLynne Don't confuse Faith with belief.
A religion is simply an organized firm belief in someone or something responsible for existence.
Theists believe in someone (deities).
Atheists believe in something ( nature).
Science is simply a method to explain natural phenomena using fixed laws of nature ... or ... prove a hypothesis/belief.
The evidence for God is the Function Category .... and ... Thermodynamic Systems.
Only an intelligence makes abstract & physical Functions.
All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions and originate from the surrounding system which must provide the time, space, laws, matter, energy & INTELLIGENCE to exist & function.
These are the facts we know about anything that is a FUNCTION ...... or ...... thermodynamic System.
God is an intelligence like Man .... or vice-versa.
The Universe & Man ... are thermodynamic Systems.
Science proves the firm beliefs of Jews & Christians that God created the Universe & Man over 6 days less than 6000 years ago.
Belief & Faith ... are clearly not the same word.
And faith is not blind belief in God, but involves both the body & soul(Mind of Man).
Look around the world in late 2022. Every thing hunky dory? Peaches and cream? After all, scientists have put it all together. Unified field theory
Yup no problem we learn more and know now just about everything. That’s why everything is so wonderful. Once we threw out religion it was like switching on a light, right. Only problem is if you think about it you haven,t a clue what it’s all about and everyone’s at each other’s throats. See here,s the plan, just before it all collapses we all jump in our rocket ships and to different planets. If a planet has religion we skip that. And then we just land and unpack and jump in the pool. Remember the day when the scientists found out the big secrets and decided to all agree? Whoops,
Watch out for that black hole on the left!
"God's a big guy - how could you miss him?!" 😅
The best argument for atheism is the complete and total lack of even the tiniest demonstration, by theists, of god. Any god. For at least 4000 years now.
@@cosminvisan520 See!
What are you talking about, I saw him appear in the sky in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Are you going to try to tell me those were just phenomenal special effects?
@@cosminvisan520 Nothing… Again
@@cosminvisan520 What conversation is: I am god?
@@cosminvisan520 What do you get out of telling obvious lies on the internet?
The only thing that would fall apart is the story’s that man has come up with regarding God…God is FAR beyond anything man could EVER describe.
Top 3 arguments will depend on the definition of god(s) in question. Which already hints at whose contradictory definition of god(s) to use? And how come there are contradictory definitions?
What is your alternative explanation of our universe?
@@20july1944 which troll are you?
@@20july1944 We don't know yet. We are working on it.
@@SandipChitale That's a meaningless statement -- you don't know.
Your opinion is meaningless until you actually have an alternative answer.
@@scambammer6102 I just like fighting with atheists.
Carl Sagan wrote a short story called The Dragon in My Garage that was very good.
He never explored yoga or qigong. He was ignorant.
@@SelectCircle He did, actually. You seem to be the ignorant one.
@@SelectCircle No he was not ignorant, just not interested in pseudo-science, religious ramblings, and eastern light gymnastic. You think you are very smart because you know yoga or qigong? Those Indian and Chinese exercises make you smart? Sorry, those are equal to morning gymnastics, and there is nothing special in those things. Try the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics. I am sure your yoga and qigong prepared you so much for real science...
@@ozymandiasultor9480 So you're both ignorant and bigoted.
@@SelectCircle Carl Sagan was a master of rationale and an absolute gentleman.
I think there are 3 strong arguments against the existence of a God and 3 strong arguments supporting it
Against
1) the problem of evil
2) its absence from our perceptions
3) the scientific evolution regarding man evolution and earth position/insignificance in the universe.
For
1) The fine tuning
2) The longing for God in every human being-culture, various paranormal-mystic experiences
3) The first cause, intelligence vs randomness.
Very good reasons against but I can refute:
1) The very purpose of belief is the moral attainment of "the good".
2) Many things in history were previously out of our perception i.e. gravity, quantum level of reality..
3) The scientific revolution was preceded by religious thinking and learning. Monks who spent their time in prayer also pursued study and learning. I e. Copernicus was a priest.
In other words the argument without historical premises is circular.
Your "against" arguments are ridiculous and all addressed by Idealism.
fine tuning is the worst argument ever for a god...
if there is a god and he is omnipotent and all the other words that start
with omni.. he can do whatever he wants .. you cant use science to prove gods existence
but then say god himself is above science.. cant have it both ways
To have an argument against god, you first need to define the properties of that proposed god.
Regarding your second "for" argument, how is a longing for something evidence that that something exists?
Your 3rd "for" argument is completely unsatisfying. If a first cause is required for things to exist, what was the first cause that led to god? It adds a level of complexity that adds nothing to our understanding of the phenomenon.
@@nyworker i agree with something you said ... but regarding "evil" is not about moral choices. Is about the "evil" that exist in nature. The kitten that die starving in a wood, the little monkey eaten by a feline, the rains that drown a kid ... a background of "cruelty" that nature have (along many beautiful things).
*LIVING LEGEND*
The fundamental problem here is semantic: and that is the definition of the word “God”.
Western culture implicitly assumes that everyone understands what it means when they use English word “God” (or equivalents in other languages). Yet it is not.
If I were to ask you “Do you believe in Fnd$@ ?“ Presumably your first question would be “what is Fnd$@?” In other words clearly define what “Fnd$@“ is and we can intelligently discuss it.
Furthermore, what does the word “believe” in this context mean? If I ask you “Do you believe in Harry Potter?” one could reply “Yes, I believe there exists a Harry Potter in an alternate universe created by a human being in our shared universe labeled JK Rowling”
So the onus is on the one who asks the question to be precise on the semantics before one can intelligently consider the question.
Semantic is the definition of god ? Then god must be an endless black hole of redefining the meaning of every definition. God is pretty slippery
all words and definitions were invented by humans, as were all gods. Show me a god and I will debunk it, easily.
@@scambammer6102 What is your alternative explanation of our universe?
@@20july1944 "god" isn't an explanation sparky, it's just made up bullshit. I don't need an "explanation of our universe" to know that. Can your god tell you how many fingers I am holding up? Tell me right now or it doesn't exist.
Arguments for atheism on youtube? This takes me back...
Is it just me or is the audio weird?
It has what is called a “flanged echo”.
There has been audio problems in the past with other videos for some reason.
There's a cockroach on the mic.
It is a miracle. God did it.
A great argument thanks 👍
An argument is a claim, and by arguing atheism incurs a burden of proof
@@cosminvisan520
Then you don't exist.
@@ksdogg That's not any definition of argument I've ever heard. A more common use is that an argument is reasoning used to support an idea or a conclusion.
@@mikel5582 Well a conclusion is a claim, and an "idea" that is supported by an argument is a claim. But an argument can also be made AGAINST a claim without incurring any burden of proof.
@@ksdogg An argument is not a claim. A claim requires an argument, but an argument can also be made against a claim without incurring any burden of proof. So eg, agnostics argue against the claim "one or more gods exist" by simply disputing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the claim. OTOH strong atheists affirmatively assert that there is no god, which is a claim requiring a burden of proof. So whether atheists incur a B of P depends on the type of argument being made by the atheist.
Ah, but does anyone have any good athoothfairyism arguments? If not for the tooth fairy leaving coins underneath children's pillows in exchange for their lost teeth, then where do all the coins come from? There is no other explanation possible, none other at all, I can't imagine another explanation, therefore there isn't one. Checkmate atoothfairyists, checkmate.
The Tooth Fairy, according to a book I read, was actually the Bogeyman; case of mistaken identity
Any discussion about god is ridiculous
*But necessary and entertaining, nonetheless.*
@@StellaMontenegro I agree that sometimes it's entertaining.
@@cosminvisan520 Hello, How are you doing up there ?
When are you gonna show up ? or are you a man on earth and god in heaven !
@@freiheit3 god is an internet troll
@@scambammer6102 Yeah that makes sense, since his whole career was writing funny stories.
Why does Robert never explore the argument of legitimacy of knowledge about God? Wherever any theologian gives any info about his god or religion we never can have a reliable source to check ourselves and all arguments are always constructed in a way Russel's teapot or invisible pink unicorn are? Most theologians themselves describe god as beyond understanding and beyond our concepts, but if so how did they gain that kind of knowledge?
Theologians have a job, to persuade us there IS a being for which to construct a theology. It's a self-fulfilling system, you CANNOT prove OR disprove the existence of the supernatural, but you CAN play on people's fears and uncertainties for power and profit.
Because theologians are making it up. The real problem in the world is that people entertain such unfalsifiable non sense.
@@cosminvisan520 What do you get out of telling obvious lies on the internet?
BS.
The evidence for God is the Function Category .... and ... Thermodynamic Systems.
Only an intelligence makes abstract & physical Functions.
All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions and originate from the surrounding system which must provide the time, space, laws, matter, energy & INTELLIGENCE to exist & function.
These are the facts we know about anything that is a FUNCTION ...... or ...... thermodynamic System.
God is an intelligence like Man .... or vice-versa.
The Universe & Man ... are thermodynamic Systems.
Science proves God of the Jews & Christians created the Universe & Man. Anything you want to know about God ... is in the Torah (Bible).
@@thesoundsmith yeah okay I get it, but why does Robert never discuss this?
You first need to know the definition of the thing you're arguing against. That's tricky here as people have so many different ideas about what ''God'' is, and it's often vague.
As Walter says, an argument against the existence of Zeus might not work so well against a differently defined God.
But I think his arguments are pretty good re the Perfect Omni Present, Omniscient and Omni Good God, who isn't bounded by space and time (whatever that could mean).
eh. there's only two kinds of gods, supernatural and semantic. Supernatural gods (Jesus, Zeus etc) are contrary to established natural laws and cannot exist. Semantic gods ("god is love" "god is nature" "god is the first cause" etc) Can exist (or not), but they are trivial: they just exchange the word "god" for another word. Theists often combine the two. Eg, WJC's Kalam starts with a semantic god ("god is the first cause" - so what) and then bootstraps his favorite childhood deity.
@@scambammer6102 Really? How do you explain our universe without God, a personal God like Jesus's Father?
How about a Creator God, forget the "omni"s.
What is your explanation of our universe?
@@20july1944 "god" isn't an explanation it's just made up bullshit. Projecting a giant magical human onto the universe isn't an explanation it's kiddie stuff. Actual science is working on the origins of the universe. Whether or not we ever figure it out, your "god" is a joke.
@@20july1944 Can you define this creator God?
If you can't, then think about why...
While we're on this rock we invent religious philosophy to explain meaning. When we start exploring the universe we'll uncover the real answers.
What would we uncover elsewhere that we can't here?
Is physics different somewhere else?
Are you suggesting that somewhere we'll find a white hole where matter is continually coming into existence?
@@20july1944 We have already discovered a ton of stuff about the universe. No gods were needed. Read a book.
@@scambammer6102 I've read many books on the subject, and I agree we've discovered a ton of stuff but we don't know where the matter/energy of our universe came from. It can't be infinitely old or it would be in heat death
@@20july1944 right, and none of that required any god. Cosmology is very interesting, but it was not the subject of this video.
@@scambammer6102 Has something always existed, or did some first thing arise where/when there was nothing before?
When we had no answers, we made up religions. Hundreds of them. It is time to move on.
What is your alternative explanation of our universe?
@@20july1944 For some of us, the logical response to our species' ignorance regarding the origins of the universe isn't to just make stuff up and declare it as truth.
I don't know why there is something rather than nothing. It would be cool to find out but I'm not threatened by this knowledge gap in the slightest.
@@mikel5582 I'm not asking you to make stuff up, I'm asking you to THINK.
You are aware that it MAY be God after all, right?
@@20july1944 I listen to scientifically proven facts. God was so good to grace us a son, 2000 years ago. One who died with only 12 followers. At any rate, it would be really cool if he'd be kind enough to impregnate another virgin... No? .
If God is God, he is not good. If God is good, he is not God. Take the even, take the odd.
good video but why does the audio sound like it's coming from down a tunnel?
God is turning out to be one of the worst ideas human beings ever had
*"God is turning out to be one of the worst ideas human beings ever had"*
... I don't know; filling zeppelins with hydrogen gas was a pretty bad idea.
pretty vague bucko. Which of the innumerable gods is coming in for your opprobrium at this moment? Singling out Christianity for no clear reason? Parrotting Christopher Hitchens? Got anything original to advance?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC And why god didn't stop that if god is all powerful and all-good? There is no god.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 there is noneeee
@@ManiBalajiC Yes, I know.
Min 5:11 RLK tries to counter argue Theodicy saying "[The Down Syndrome] with have to do with God's purpose for the whole world, systematized...eh.. random probabilities are developing and some ultimate goal..., that these are some of the byproducts and God in his own way is going to solve it." RLK has difficulty articulating the counterargument. I suspect the apparent incoherence of his language is his subtle way of telling us that the advocates of religion will give you an absolute nonsensical answer dressed in incomprehensibility: God mysterious ways
Well, given the most prominent feature of the universe we know, the evolution of things, God should have given us something along the evolutionary path towards understanding his mysterious ways. The math known to one of the greatest, Fermat, was very tiny compared to the math known to Andrew Wiles. God could have given us some hints, like a little Fermat to begin unraveling the mysterious ways he uses. Galaxies evolve, life evolves, our understanding of mathematics evolve, but our understanding of concepts essential for the survival of our eternity does not evolve. There is something seriously flawed with that argument. All the intrigue that may pique the curiosity of philosophers trying to unravel God's mysteries disappears if we conclude that the whole story of god is a lied repeated thousands of times.
The number 5 does not exist outside time and space. The number 5 exists in the minds and culture of human beings. And human beings exist in time and space.
Yep, numbers are a human concept. They don't exist on their own.
just like GOD
*"The number 5 does not exist outside time and space. The number 5 exists in the minds and culture of human beings. And human beings exist in time and space."*
... I have five mathematical "points" with each one being represented by their coordinates. Now, these five 0-dimensional "points" have no size, shape, volume, mass, or any wave properties nor are they subject to gravity nor require any substrate to exist.
*Q:* Do these five "points" exist outside of time and space, and how many of these "points" are there?
@@ManiBalajiC God by definition must exist outside and beyond our perception/comprehension/imagination. The root BRHM carry multiple meanings, one of them being "one beyond comprehension" - which is also reflected in the semitic name for God (الله) which carries the meaning of source of bewilderment/awe.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC They exist, like I said, in your mind. And now mine. And in whoever else bothers to read this... Until we all forget about them and then they cease to exist.
The number "5" only exists in one's mind. To compare God, if he exists, to a number does not work. I would like to ask this fella where he believes everything came from. If it was not created then it has to be eternal.
"created" is a loaded word. Tyr "formed" instead.
AND, if it were eternal, it would already be in heat death and it isn't.
That fact that in 2022 people still believe in invisible, magical wizards still blows my mind.
What is the mind?
Don't use any term unless you know exactly what it is.
Imagine being the guy that doesn't believe in Zeus in 2022, where do you think the lightning come from smartass?
*"That fact that in 2022 people still believe in invisible, magical wizards still blows my mind."*
... Let's take it one step further with, _"That fact that in 2022 people still believe in an invisible, magical multiverse still blows my mind."_ The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree, ya know?
@@SelectCircle Irrelevant.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC yep, insane ramblings from people who don't understand what they're talking about. Pretty much what I expected.
These two demonstrate that even today belief systems can very complex. Regardless of their veracity, varieties of belief systems should be allowed to flourish so that everyone can come closer to truth.
What? Regardless of the veracity, we should allow varieties of "belief" systems? Sorry, science is not a democracy, and if we follow your logic we should open schools for religions, all types of charlatans, flat-Earthers, anti-vaxers... No. And the truth is not some object, one can't reach "truth" in such a way. Truth is connected with statements and claims, and not everyone can say statements that are true.
No, it's the ones that are demonstrated to be true that should be believed. Something seemingly being closer to the truth isn't a good reason to be convinced.
The concept of God isn't worth an intelligent person's time or effort.
The question isn't whether or not "God" exists; the question is what does one mean by "GOD"? Clearly nobody is presently generating there own existence or sustaining it. And it should also be clear that nobody can account for existence--neither the existence of anything or everything. So we exist in a condition of unrelievable Mystery. To FEEL this Mystery is to speak of "God." But this is not a God of BELIEF, but rather a God of direct EXPERIENCE.
You: *scratches head, ignores comment*
I want to add one point to the argument that God has a plan that is impossible for us to understand: why doesn't God even try to explain the plan to his people? Why is it that the moral system he gives us doesn't apply to his own problem of evil? God doesn't sound like a wonderful, all-loving leader at all. He sounds like an unaccountable dictator.
Well that would disprove the notion of a good god if you insist on equal moral standards, but honestly I think this doesn't have much value of consideration. For instance, if I made a computer simulation of virtual life forms, would I be evil for not taking a personal interest in the well being of each individual virtual life form if I'm not micromanaging the simulation?
@@medexamtoolscom Sure you would. You created the simulation.
You can't say on the one hand that god is mysterious when asked the hard questions, and then make claims about who God is. I thought he was mysterious?
So mysterious that he's indistinguishable from not existing at all.
Do you know basic astrophysics?
If you can explain our universe without God, that would be good enough for me to say theists should not use this argument.
@@20july1944 why is a complete explanation necessary? We don't have access to all the information, explanation gaps should be expected.
@@uninspired3583 If you're an unthinking lout it isn't necessary.
Do you have any intellectual curiosity on the matter?
@@20july1944 intellectual curiosity is important, but so is epistemic rigor. Assuming an answer when the information is insufficient is just fallacious. Perhaps you've heard of Occam's Razer.
@@uninspired3583 But you need to make a decision here with incomplete evidence.
Being "unconvinced" is saying "I don't respect God".
Man dreamt up God. And then almost immediately started killing their children on altars because of it. Maybe a clue there?
Without God there is no dreams, and therefore you are a nonconscious biological robot.
@@ksdogg So when I had that dream as a teenager that involved me and the cast of Charlie's Angels... That was God? ; _)_
@@longcastle4863 Yep and what is happening in your dream now is God.
@@ksdogg no you are thinking of the Sandman. It's a tv show. Dreams are just your brain resting. duh.
@@scambammer6102 Brain is just an idea in consciousness and you've been beaten in debate many times on here.
Since God does not show "himself" unambiguously in this world even though "he" is assumed to be capable of doing so, "he" must not exist as a sentient object of worship. God disappears into something equivalent to gravity. Would JC have been more loving if instead of being crucified he had continued to preach, performing miracles, and forgiving sins in person over the thousands years up to day?
So, what is your explanation of the universe instead of God?
A natural explanation WOULD be better, but you don't have one.
@@20july1944 The Universe (not our observable universe) is infinite in extent and duration.
So tired of hearing about gods, haven't we grown up enough to dispense with this conversation?
The quickest path to discussing that question objectively is in astrophysics.
If you know some basic astrophysics, I can explain the evidence for God that I see there.
You’re so tired of it, yet here you are watching a video and posting about it, perhaps it’s you who hasn’t grown up???
@@jag1124 Yes, isn't it strange that Dicky-boy picked this video to watch and then comment on?
@@20july1944 he’s soooooooo intellectual that he’s dispensed of the conversation in his own mind but not in real life
I wonder how Nima Armani-Hamed’s idea that space time is doomed affects the “God is outside of time” argument?
There is no more reason to believe in a God than there is to believe in Santa Claus. It's just been around long enough that its difficult to let go of. Evil isn't a good argument. Evil is just an occurrence that we decided was unwanted.
Do you know basic astrophysics, Richard?
The evidence of God is objective and starts with astrophysics.
@@20july1944 Share with it!
@@MRnormi98 We'll need to agree on assumptions and premises.
Do you know basic astrophysics, specifically why a star is hot and bright and doesn't last forever?
@@20july1944 I know physics well, don't worry. State your premises and following conclusions. Simply your evidence. Then, if I disagree with something I can give you my objections. We don't need to go through steps together. It's a youtube comment sections, not suitable for chatting.
@@MRnormi98 No, that's not how I roll, I need to agree on premises first.
If you know physics well, let's "cut to Hecuba" and tell me if you adhere to some big bang cosmogony?
I do, as a Christian theist.
Incompatible properties arguments should be googled for a deeper view of such ideas.
if you had the ability to make an argument you would do so
I am an atheist but grew up Christian and I don’t think any of the arguments this guy presented are compelling. Thinking back to my Christian days, I could’ve come up with “good enough” arguments to counter everything he said. He greatly underestimates the mental gymnastics believers are willing to go through to align their internal belief in god with science and logic.
I agree. He presented 3 weak arguments.
Do you know basic astrophysics, Justin?
That's where the clearest objective evidence for God lies.
It's clear that any god, if it exists, is not affecting outcomes in the Universe. But there's an obvious reason why that might be the case...
yes, it doesn't exist
Mankind has witnessed countless horrors ,an all good god (if exists) never ever intervened
according to the Bible god CREATED many of those horrors (all of them really)
Do you know basic astrophysics, Vanshraj?
That's where the clearest objective evidence for God lies.
@@20july1944 I know more about astrophysics than you do. God is a joke.
@@20july1944 Astrophysics is evidence of astrophysics.
@@Captain-Cosmo Did the universe begin to exist?
There is no need to explain Gods into existence to satisfy any criterion of the physical world we can detect. What do you mean? You'd more likely argue FOR the existence of something that has any corresponding phenomenon in the physical world, but which is just beyond our ability to currently explain.
Oh hell, now I believe in Zeus. Next time it rains look out...or was that Thor?
Do you know basic astrophysics? The evidence for God starts there.
@@20july1944 Oh really July, do you have any idea what a joke is?
@@Ed-quadF Yes, but I didn't read you post as a joke. If it was, so be it.
i think the best argument is that god isnt even the biggest of all illusions since not all humans fall victim to as contradistinction to time/freedom/free-will and love...
Is love an illusion? You can say it's just chemicals and electrical signals, but so is thought itself. I don't think you'd argue that thought itself doesn't exist, on the grounds just because it happens to be chemical and electrical in nature, so why wouldn't love count? The question first is exactly what is love? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more. Sorry, had to say it.
Interesting perspective. Maybe there should be a ranked list of the biggest cons of all time. God is up there but falls far short of free will in terms of the number of people duped. Time is one I hadn't considered much. Are you arguing that my perception of time is an illusion?
Love and freedom may require more precise definitions to be considered. As another poster mentioned, what we call love is manifested in biochemical and biophysical processes that evolved for reasons such as mate selection, successful copulation, pair-bonding throughout child development, etc. To me, that emotion is more likely to be "real" than free will.
@@mikel5582 nope god is by far the biggest scam of all time. A small fraction of people have even heard of "free will". Various political entities would be #2
without hearing the video, we can say-
arguing against god(s), in itself, belies the arguments(s)
after all, we don't hear much argument against the tooth fairy, neh?
Because we don’t have millions of delusional people believing in the tooth fairy.
"neh?" are you a horse?
@@karagi101
so now we are to straighten out the delusional?
any progress with this project yet?
@@friendoengus It’s slow going but we’re making progress. The number of delusional believers has consistently been trending down. Europe is way ahead of the US on this project.
@@karagi101
being well-traveled in the states, especially in the mountainous west,
i can report obvious, increasing delusion over more than a half-century
concurrent with masking/jab/lockdown application, a radical uptick in the last few years
these folks roll with whatever the telly leads them to (nearly definitional so far as monitoring delusion)
if your campaign to break down their misguided beliefs outweighs this, go for it
i've not been in europe enough to weigh in much, but from my limited travels there (uk and netherlands), they are not much different, perhaps less naive and more jaded/cynical
His argument against theism attacks only Abhramic concept of God. Hindu Dharmic concept of God is different and varied.
yeah but it's still just made up BS. Invented about 1500 BC in northern India. So what?
I’m surprised in the XXI century “philosophers” are still arguing about a superstition. Atheism does not need any demonstration
It does in America
Really, Pedro? Do you know basic astrophysics? The evidence for God starts there.
Suuuure.. for astrology too!
@@MatteoRuberto Are you interested in chatting?
Do you think the universe began with a big bang?
If anyone could ask, "If God is good why is there suffering," it is God Himself, who in Christ suffered more than all of us combined on the cross. He understands, and will soon redeem all suffering.
@@realitycheck1231 the wrath of the omnipotent God for the sins of the world is a massive, massive amount of suffering. Read Jesus’s comments on the pain and suffering of hell, then multiply by millions of times.
@@realitycheck1231 chapter and verse?
Nice house. Amazing how far those poor oppressed atheists can get in today's society.
That's just due to them being smarter than your average religious thinker...
Imposible to post a better comment!
@@longcastle4863 *"That's just due to them being smarter than your average religious thinker"*
... Sitting back and doing nothing while everyone else is trying to discover the truth about existence, and then shouting _"Prove it!"_ after they propose something isn't very smart. It's just plain lazy. When atheists start putting some skin in the game, only THEN you can say they are _"smarter than your average religious thinker."_
Could also say nice church. Amazing how far those poor oppressed theists can get in today’s society
@@jeffamos9854 A twitty comment meant to shame - just like what they deal in. Atheists and fundies have a LOT in common.
If God were real this argument wouldn't exist.
The only fundamental argument atheism makes is that the arguments for the existence of some invisible magical god-friends are not convincing whatsoever.
If theism fails, atheism is born.
God has nothing to do with religion.
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Many would disagree, but I have not said anything about religion to begin with.
@@andreasplosky8516
1. You've already admitted you know zero about Idealism.
2. You've already admitted you know zero about non-duality.
3. Physics works exactly the same under Idealism, Materialism, Non-duality, or any other substrate.
4. Only the religious have "invisible magical god friends"
5. Science cannot demonstrate brain activity causes consciousness. Not now, not ever. The best it can do is show correlation.
You have the knowledge and intellect of a housefly
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 "5. Science cannot demonstrate brain activity causes consciousness. Not now, not ever. The best it can do is show correlation."
It will be fully understood by the end of this century. There were sceptics like you in the past claiming that something is unknowable. Time shows they were all wrong. History likes to repeat... Room for unknown is diminishing rapidly.
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 "Science cannot demonstrate brain activity causes consciousness." lol what a dope
True, if God exists outside of time and place, then he's in Nichtnong --- Nowhereville.
No, any 6-dimensional being, were one to exist, would perceive our entire universe like a very long sitcom, they could poke at any place in our space/time to catch the action, Universal Tivo. (That or, like us with 2-dimensional fields, just pass through without noticing.).
The mental gymnastics people do to desperately try to rationalise the notion of an invisible supernatural peeping tom. 🤯
The mental gymnastics to rationalise the notion that life and the universe came into being for no reason and all just fell into place of its own accord and claim it is more logical and scientific to say creation has no Creator.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 "Reasons" are a anthropogenic concept. Complexity is an emergent property of simplicity, do some reading. No sky daddy required.
@@TurinTuramber your notion of 'rationalism' is as construed as 'reason'. Rationalism in contrast to what, irrationality? Sounds like you cannot escape anthropocentric notions and undermine your own 'rationality' from what I can only gather you believe comes from irrationality.
@@seamusomurchadha2620 Sorry, you missed out the part where your proved the existence of any one of the thousands of supernatural gods. Since we can all make up unfalsifiable supernatural nonsense in our heads, so forgive my skepticism.
@championchap You would need to define "nothing" before we went there. I don't think I used that term. 100% of sentient beings contemplating their existence, happen to live within the "something". This is not a spooky coincidence instead it is an absolute prerequisite.
Simple things making complex things this is an objective fact. Invoking the most complex thing imaginable at the beginning makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I say imaginable because at this moment, that is what god is. The only reason I cannot falsify a god claim is because it's entirely unfalsifiable at its core. Are you invoking a god creator to me?
The establishing question is: "What are strong arguments for atheism?" Once again, atheism is presented as a belief, rather than the rejection of a claim. The rejection of any claim does not require an argument. It is the claim which requires an argument. I do not need to offer an explanation of why I do not believe a claim that magical elves cause airplanes to fly with pixie dust; my decision whether or not to accept the claim will be based upon my evaluation of the evidence. This type of fallacious arguing begins with the erroneous assumption that theism and atheism are two separate claims, each requiring supporting arguments. That being said, claims that "there are no gods" do require supporting arguments, as any claim would. But asserting there are no gods is very different from a purely a-theist rejection of a god claim. Without a god claim in the first place, "atheism" doesn't even exist.
This whole God is a man thing is tired
*Invented by men. Go figure!💡 🙆🏼♀️*
@@cosminvisan520 *Likewise. 😇*
It's quite absurd to ascribe a sex to god if there's only one of them, the entire purpose of biological reproduction disappears if there's only one. Clearly any "god" worth its snuff would be genderless.
Yet we learn from failure.
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
Proverbs 13:24 KJV
Not watching this a 4th time. That man can only give you ignorance, and it is absolutely clear he never once sought out to understand anything. A complete and utter fraud. I wouldn't give my energy to that vampire.
Interesting, that a man who thinks, and does not buy into all the fantastical magical theistic nonsense is called a vampire. You could profit from reading his books, they are full of insights, without resorting to magical fantasy. The truth is difficult to handle, is it not? It is not easy to be confronted by the debilitating deficiencies of theism.
@@andreasplosky8516 don't show your teeth at me. It's noon anyways; you're one of that daywalker vampires.
@@S3RAVA3LM pfft.... You are funny...
@@S3RAVA3LM You are totally delusional... I recommend a nice big dose of Thorazine or some similar ani-psychotic.
@@andreasplosky8516 He is not funny, he is pathetic. One of those who can't understand, and cling to their delusions because they are culturally conditioned and are not capable to break through because of lack of insight, intelligence and good education.
Just think of the alternatives. If there was no suffering then that would prove something is looking out for us and most would conclude it was some higher being and so there would be no free will by that alone. Ok so what if there was suffering but to a lesser extent, that would means God was involved directly and would have to pick and choose who to make it easier on which creates favouritism which in turn means unfairness.
So judging by this the best way to create ultimate free will and fairness is to bring forth a creation which randomly creates life based on eventual events that are likely to occur over long periods of time aka evolution but then people would say it would be impossible to believe in God by these standards and this is where religion enters especially Islam which is often reffered to as the guidance to mankind from the creator and mostly by signs as opposed to science because describing quantum physics in religious scriptures would be a bad idea. At the end of the day it's a very fragile balance and only God knows in his ultimate knowledge why it is the way it is. (pun unintended)
With regards to the God debate. Why do we have to go back to Religion? Why not talk about God through Deism?
suffering in this world are examination of us
Yes. Allowing children to be born with painful birth defects is a great way to challenge those babies born with original sin.
First time seeing Lawrence openly debating instead of maintaining the objectivity that every interviewer should have. He even loses his composure at times. Very sad.
In science, you cannot prove information based on lack of that same information.
yes you can. in fact that is MOST of what science does, ie, eliminate false positives
Kant said it is illogical to declare that God exists as it is to say that God does not exist
In times gone by their parents or/and their religious beliefs would have been to blame, and we have seen what happens with this line of thought......a lot
Then now thinking about it out of all the "isum's" at a guess that would only leave voyeurisum.......and now i don't really want to think about panspermia (did that clap of thunder sound strangely a little like a laugh🤔)
How could a not religious person possibly know what a person who claims to be without belief in something (ambiguous) that he calls "God" or "god" means? Both the person who claims to believe in God and the person who claims to nor believe in "God"are engaged in the exact same folly since both are defining their own beliefs by the ambiguous not defined term. Without the person using the term defining it, nobody could know what is being claimed either way.
His evil argument to support atheism is a limited response to particular notions of gods embedded within distinct social and historical contexts, as he admits. However, it quickly falls apart from internal inconsistencies if you take into consideration the ramifications of other notions of god which believe that god set the universe in motion and it evolves according to internal principles, but with unexpected emergent properties which occur without outside interference. In this type of view, god, and the consequences of their initial actions, are neither good nor evil and are not constrained by contemporary notions of good or evil. Thereby, god is only a prime mover that sets things into motion with novel and unpredictable consequences and need not interfere with anything that happens afterwards.
It requires limited, subjective moral construction of good or evil to call anything good or evil to such an extent that any attributions of good or evil are merely contingent human appellations that do not define or constrain god or prime movements. Good can still exist; evil can still exist; but only in certain times and places which cannot be fully predicted and do not entirely delimit future, different views of good and evil.
In taking this view, I would argue that down syndrome is not an evil, but an eventual statistical likelihood given combinations of human genetic code, which evolve according to natural laws, as do physics and chemistry. It is neither good nor evil, but could be called either good or evil within various moral frameworks. Therefore, he cannot call down syndrome evil without presupposing that a god who defines good and evil, and also maintains direct ongoing causal influence, actually exists. Otherwise he has nothing but subjective opinion as a basis for his moral premise on which his central argument balances.
I'm a Christian and the one question atheists always ignore is the "block universe" where Einstein says the past and future both exist in the same way as the present moment. So science says the future exists, not religion!!! So I want to hear an atheist argue this point, as it seems utterly contradictory to our tiny minds. How can the future already exist????? If this apparent paradox is true, why cant God exist??? The Bible says that God knows the future and Science seems to suggest this is true. Also the moment of creation ....how did the universe burst into existence from nothing???? Why are laws of physics set the way they are????
What is paradoxical about saying the future exists?
God told Elijah, Your thoughts are not my thoughts and your ways are not my ways.
Gods exist only as imaginary characters
We simply do not understand what time is. We can't define it, cannot segment it beside Planck time, or otherwise characterize it as something other than another dimension of space. God is simply the deepest rippling of vibration in our collective neurological evolution expressing its intelligence and wisdom in a massively complex system of information processing (nervous system).
intelligence is the product of living brains. Attributing intelligence to anything else is unwarranted.
An eternal, unchanging God can act in time and space through consciousness, similar to human consciousness act in time and space? God might limit his conscious actions on physical reality based on consciousness of life and things in physical reality?
nope
Those are arguments against a certain type deity, not an argument for Atheism.
Yes, they entirely failed to provide a definition of "god" to begin with.
there are 2 kinds of gods, supernatural and semantic. Supernatural gods are contrary to established natural laws and cannot exist. Semantic gods (god is nature, god is love, god is the first cause) can exist, but they are trivial, substituting the word "god" for something else. There's your atheist argument condensed to 3 short sentences. Enjoy.
If God were Eternal, Omniscient and Omnipotent, really existing and having all of the qualities of perfection that are attributed to him / it; then I observe a fairly simple problem for us :- in such an eternally perfect state there could arise no disturbance. There could arise no need; because ALL needs would have been met, all disturbances eliminated. There would be no incentive to create or to change anything and there would be nothing to do. He can not have been bored or lonely since those qualities are imperfect.
Christian teaching in Genesis tells the creation story; which describes the "will of God to create" - and so He embarks on a festival of creation. This implies there was a disturbance. A need arose. Something was missing - there was a void to fill. But If this is so, then God can not have been eternally perfect.
God, if you believe to exist "within time and space" MUST be eternal : If NOT you have the problem of How and why and by whom was God created. (Presumably by a force more powerful) If you believe God to exist Outside of time and space then you have to redefine what "to exist" means; and you have the problem of how does something non-existent within time and space affect anything within it. IF you argue that "He Can because he is God" - then you are left with my original point : Why did he have a void to fill if he and everything was already perfect.
it's a puzzle. I do not Know. So I guess I am Agnostic about it :-)
My additional argument against God is that it is perfectly understood WHY people can believe in things that are not there (e.g. it has an evolutional advantage and that's how our brain works).
I don't really see the Bible as contradicting atheism. The Word, which has created everything [John 1], can simply be seen as a platonic form, and God the Father is the unmanifested Word, and Christ is the Word manifested. The argument about evil I think is weak, because we can look at it from a bigger cosmic perspective and see the "fall" of humanity simply as a temporary, and necessary, evolutionary stage.
How to explain that many people experience God in one way or another, from least extent to greatest extent?
People have wild imaginations formed by their cultures and personal beliefs. They experience 'something' and attribute it to God. Same is true for people who claim to see UFOs and Aliens from space. They see something (or just lie) and decide that was an alien/ufo.
I'm very grateful for these incisive and illuminating arguments and the unbiased way the interviews are conducted by Mr. Kuhn.
The unwarranted conclusion from the speaker that God doesn't exist because of the three main reasons he gave are in my opinion unpersuasive.
First the age old argument that if God exists he would prevent the suffering of innocent children from certain horrific diseases is not convincing. Here's why; we grant that no child deserves to experience the pain and agony of suffering with a disease they had no responsibility for contracting. The example given above is Down"s Syndrome and the bowel blockage once associated with this condition. No innocent child would suffer this if God was real and all-powerful is how the argument goes. Lets take the argument apart. One might say that if God were just than no child should suffer needlessly, not only from Down's Syndrome but from any serious medical condition that was life threatening, and not only innocent children but all people who contract a terrible illness that they had no causative association with in their habits or behavior. By Mr. Sinnott-Armstrong's logic no innocent person should suffer this unjust possibility. If an innocent child should be afforded protection from God then every innocent child should receive the same, and by this logic every innocent adult should also because it's completely reasonable to expect equal treatment from God to all. If God intervened when any disease threatened children and/or adults, humanity would have no impetus to develop medical science, immunology, vaccines, or any of the life saving technologies that have made our world a better place. Luis Pasteur had to watch his children die one after the other from contagious disease and yet he used this tragedy to discover how the microbial world can threaten humanity and used his research to develop strategies to combat microbial disease and in the process helped save millions who might have suffered the same fate as his children. He didn't blame God, he instead used his personal loss to make the world better. The seeming absence of God has worked to insure humanity's eventual self-empowerment.
The argument that God cannot exist outside of time and then intervene into time bound reality is unconvincing because we don't even have an adequate grasp of what time is. The stock answer that time is a measure of matter in motion explains nothing more than that, and steers clear of the much deeper question as to the origin of time. If God exists than we must accept that there is no definition of God that's valid if we exclude him from existing outside of time. Why and how is it not possible for God to exist both in time and outside the linear flow of time? If something existed prior to the Big Bang which brought time into being and something had to exist to "act upon" and exert a controlling power over the original singularity that brought the universe into existence then that "something" existed prior to the emergence of time, and must be described as "timeless." It's not at all self-contradictory to assert that a transcendent power could exist both in time and separate from it.
The final argument that God doesn't exist because if he did he would show himself to non-believers who need him the most is pedantically absurd. The notion that God should somehow appear dramatically to scare people into doing the right thing is a notion that lacks credibility. A universe where God appears regularly to herd people into piety and good behavior is a universe that's not consistent with human freedom.
So your first argument goes, if God didn't allow suffering then human beings wouldn't have invented all the stuff to ease suffering... Honestly, that's hardly worth a poke at ; /
@@longcastle4863 There is no logic or reasoning behind your "hit and run" comment.
Yes that's what I'm saying because the impetus to embrace any change or improvement is and always has to be "motivation." This is a self-evident statement. It's not for me to defend any self-evident statement. If you think this is not true than it's incumbent on you to say why it's not self-evident.
@@michaelmckinney7240 It wasn't a hit and run comment, it was a devastating rebuke of your first extremely dumb argument. The fact HUMANS do things to alleviate suffering does not explain why god allows it in the first place, and humans can only alleviate a tiny portion of the suffering that "god" allegedly created.
You could poke holes in a hundred arguments that no god exists but still be absolutely no where closer to proving that a god does exist. I make no claims of either sort, and I am not convinced by either argument. I don't know if any gods exist, and I am not convinced that others know. I am convinced that others believe that they know, but that does not persuade me given how prone to confirmation bias we are, to say nothing of our tendency to lie our asses off. If no gods wish to reveal themselves to me, it is not my fault if I don't accept them as real.
@@cosminvisan520 No, I am God. :)
I would like to add that there can be a "Personal God" or as our forefathers believed "Nature's God." Nature's God could have created the universe and left it to develop on its own like a farmer planting seeds in his field then walk away from the field. Nature's God would have provided all the tools his life forms would require to not only survive but thrive over time. So eventually Nature's God creations were able to stop the suffering caused by Down's Syndrom! I think this point neutralizes one of Walter's key criticisms - his definition of God is not broad enough!
Down Syndrome children still suffer in lots of other ways. As do children for various reasons all over the world.
Good point. A watchmaker God may not even be all-knowing or all-good. But I have found arguments regarding universal fine-tuning to be a bit contrived, as if philosophers or scientists know the true possible distribution of all physics parameters, or the probability of having, say, complex life with parameter sets way different than we can imagine.
Yes there's the difference between a personal god or one that would perhaps not even be conscious by our standards in two extremes, and one that micromanages the universe versus one that just set it all going at the start on two other extremes. There are other parameters by which "god" could be different. There are individuals that think "god" is just "the universe itself". Which is not productive in my opinion, there's already another word for the universe itself, and that word is universe, we don't need to be calling it god as well. The takeaway I think is that we need to come to an agreement on what qualifies as a god so that the goal posts can't be shifted. What kind of a god are you trying to claim, and what evidence physical or reasoning for or against can be produced.
You are defining .... a god according to you.
Al Lah .... is the arab moon god.
Akbar ... is the arab sun god.
The god .... called God ... is from Judaism & Christianity which state there is only one true God, and all others are false.
There are over 2.6 billion who believe in God.
There are 1.6 billion who believe in Allah .... & ... Akbar.
And there are over 1 billion who believe in multiple incarnations of gods.
The Function, Intelligence Categories .... proves everything is a Function made by an Intelligence.
Man is a natural Intelligence .... made by ... an unnatural intelligence.
Man has a natural mind (brain).
But the Mind of an intelligence is UNNATURAL (soul/spirit).
So the complete Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul).
God really did create Man in His likeness ... with a body & soul.
There is only God.
If there is such a god… one that just set the wheels in motion, then why worship him? Why pray?
As an agnostic, I would love to hear a debate between an ACTUAL A-thiest vs a Diest.
I’m tired of listening to atheists debating/arguing the existence of the Christian god.
How about the debate ‘Does god not exist?’
This interview was a complete waste of time.
Brian, if you know basic astrophysics, I can give you extremely strong reason to infer there is a Creator God. No Bible or philosophy, just some pretty basic physics and probably a few odds and ends from logic.
This presupposes that what religious books say about God is correct and complete. (A mighty big assumption!)
God can be outside time, but his children can operate inside time.
"God is not omnificent-he does not personally do all that is done." According to a Mighty Messenger temporarily sojourning on Urantia [the universe's name for Earth].
For the problem of evil there's thousands of examples, I think Epicurus summed it up well.
Although it doesn't disprove god, it just suggests if there is a god it's either weak or doesn't care (or both).
I'm not even sure where the Christian god acquired those attributes anyway, maybe in the bible.
It's all too farfetched for a rational human being to begin to take seriously.
Suffering in this world is just a test along with evil. When some one is suffering from birth defect or some illness this suffering will be exchanged with more rewards by The One God than suffering he got in this short period of time. Eventually Every one will die except The One God. So sufferings or not every one will die and will face the result like we do in exams for rewards. Examination here is so simple to believe in The One God and obey. Do what ever God likes. If some one has mental issues that cannot understand or think they all will directly go to paradise.
@@TheStopworld And how do you know there will be more rewards?
No one on earth has proven god(s) even exist, yet you seem to know the finest details about said god.
And also, rewards doesn't equate with misery.
Would you let me cut off all your fingers and toes for £1,000,000. Even if you said yes, you would change your mind once the pain started.
So your "rewards scheme" sucks, why not just not give children horrific medical conditions in the first place?
Your excuses are pathetic, don't you see?
Audio is scuffed AF on this one
Min 4:35 "Maybe God has desires, goals and purposes that are so far beyond your conception..." That's not a decent argument. Entanglement, time dilation, superposition, are pretty much beyond the conception of everyone, even seasoned quantum physicists, and we are still able to carve out meaning out of their boundaries. But the notion that when it comes to God letting millions of babies die horrible deaths we must remain silent and do not question his very existence because there is an impenetrable barrier of meaning in the very scenario where we are condemned if we do not follow the commands of the creator. What a ridiculous trap. It sounds like the water gun with which my nephew threatens me. Well, sorry, but I am not afraid of getting wet by a silly water gun.
the problem of evil is a weal argument because it assumes an omni god. what if god is not all powerful? or all benevolent?
@@scambammer6102 The proposition that is being negated is "god is ALL powerful, and ALL good." Your reasoning is circular because you use as a premise "what if god is not all powerful" exactly what you try to negate, i.e., god is not ALL powerful. Theodicy is a devastating argument against the idea of god.
May I refer to Hinduism which is not touched upon in this session. God exists outside of time and watches movie and it takes avatar that is it takes birth when needed be. Good and evil all exists within god and they are all encompassing. Now is God themself evil or greedy?No. Coz he is the seer where all actions accumulate in the frame of space-time.the reaction We got is birth..or shall we say our ancestors passed there actions or karmas in the form of genes to be part of the material that is movie. Desire is the cause of suffering (Buddhism) whether desires are good or bad. When u detach yourself from karma that is action or their accumulation, u have rested your engagement with time and space and u become aware and one with the seer i.e disappearing of self and now all encompassing unperturbed.
When no desire i.e no.action is taken, no change has been brought in space and time. There is no change that needs dissipation to restore to the eternal. We are accumulation of actions and historical data of accumulation of actions can predict ur future states. God is a timeless state (samadhi) it has always been there regardless of the receiver (ego) which is a subject of space and time just like dreamless timeless deep sleep where your energy system is in coherence with that of universe (creation). God acts upon itself to take avatar( physical form) in order to restore the equilibrium i.e. to restore the creation (universe) by engaging with spacetime and binding itself with requisite action to be taken during the course of time be it actively or passively.
Hinduism refers to rebirth (change of energy from one form to another) and existence beyond death (till that energy is materialised if any residual exists at time of death. If someone is one with God then his ego (form) has disappeared and karmas accumulated by the ego and beyond will dissolve and u have attained samadhi i.e the ripple wave in the lake has eventually settled with time and become one with the stable state of Lake itself which can be referred analogous to timeless state. Time is a constraint to the ripple and not to the lake. God is all encompassing and only being acted upon. It is like a repository where u act as per ur desires and get reacted in spacetime accordingly.
why does god always have the stupidest defenders?
What if life never existed and there were never any ideas? Is 5 an abstract object?
The best argument against God are the things attributed to him in the Bible. There are many troublesome examples, but here are the main ones:
The first two humans screw up, so every human thereafter must suffer.
Humans (God's most cherished creation) become so evil that He drowns every living thing on the planet, including babies, bunny rabbits, and koalas who were just minding their own business.
After this mass genocide, the one family that he spared because they were so "good" immediately screws up and the process starts all over again.
I won't even go into the Jesus and Mohammed sequels, because by now you should realize this is the worst case of "fine tuning" ever.
Don;'t worry about what the Bible says, that's a completely separate issue than God's existence and I say that as a Christian.
I can give you a very solid argument for both God and Jesus specifically as His Son without claiming Bible inerrancy.
Let me know if you want to discuss.
@@20july1944 oh please. Now you want to just cast aside the Bible after all these years and say "never mind that, i have something better." That's hilarious. BTW, it's not the big bang anymore. Scientists for years have been trying to wean the public off that misnomer that was originally meant to mock scientific discovery on the origins of the universe. And if it's so simple, perhaps you can enlighten me on such topics as the universal relationship of all matter, Planck time, the nature of the primordial state, proton decay, etc. Just go away, please.
His second argument is built on the premise that the math / the number five exists outside of time and space, which implies a sort of metaphysics in and of itself (which is problematic to his argument, to say the least).
I also think this argument is based on a potentially false assumption though, since one could argue (and some mathematicians and philosophers do) that all math IS ONLY relational to the properties or assumptions of a physical universe. There are equations that posit an entirely geometric universe that is axiomatic from within that geometric structure, and I don’t think we’re anywhere close to disapproving this hypothesis.
no his argument is that nothing can exist outside of time and space, including numbers
God shares many attributes with mathematics: it is present everywhere (omnipresence), it is immaterial hence it is immune to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it transcends time (e.g., the square root of two is irrational before there was a universe and will be irrational afterwards), it is always true, it does not negate itself, is infinite. Walter is wrong when he says that 5 does not interact with the material world. In fact 5 interacts with the material world through consciousness. Physical laws say that a mass of 1 ton cannot levitate, but with mathematics humans make airplanes. There will be no airplanes without the number 5, or without any number for that matter. As the blending of electricity with magnetism produces light, the blending of consciousness with mathematics produces pyramids, bridges and even the JWST which is a bundle of mathematics in a scaffold of metal, plastic and lenses, the river bed through which the flow of calculations will reveal features of the universe. What about the blending of consciousness with God, what comes out of that? Instead of pyramids, bridges or telescopes, the blend produces inquisitions, crusades, burning at the stake and excommunications. Carl Boyer wrote a book covering 3,000 years of mathematics where one finds disputes and confrontations, but mostly collaboration and celebration of new discoveries. Diarmaid MacCulloch wrote a book covering 3,000 years of Christianity and one reads about wars after wars, ugly stuff.
RLK's argument against Theodicy saying that God is so mysterious we cannot understand him is vacuously true, it says nothing. If it held any water how come we can interact with mathematics and build bridges but cannot interact with god because we will never understand him. He should at leat, give us a cognitive apparatus to understand him.
We have to posit God in some image, otherwise we're just saying everything and anything is God, and then we're seeing God in all things which makes the concept meaningless.
the word "god" and all concepts thereof were invented by humans. It's not all that complicated, although some people try to make it so.
Do you ever explore the god question via cosmology: age of universe, multi verse.
That's really the only way to take a step closer to resolving it, through observations of reality after all.
@@medexamtoolscom no it isn't. "god" is just a word invented by humans. Cosmology is an entirely different subject. I can disprove god without any reference to cosmology whatsoever.
Bet never waited for 1000 more subscribers this bad
As always, it is up to those making an assertion to defend it; and since atheism is not an assertion-it is a refutation-atheism requires no defence.
Did the universe always exist, Dan?
We don't know if there's a God or not, but we know from science the universe began to exist.
Atheism is a truth claim, that there is no Creator God required to have caused our universe.
@@20july1944 < I never argue with someone who doesn’t know the difference between an assertion (“there is…”) and (“there isn’t…”) a refutation.
@@danohanlon8316 Did I make an assertion you want to question?
Did the universe always exist, Dan?
We don't know if there's a God or not, but we know from science the universe began to exist.
If you really know the substance, I'm eager to learn from you.
I was expecting some intellectual arguments from the atheist but none were offered. Firstly, sickness/illness from birth does relate to genes and defects in genes does relate to previous sick/ill conduct. Also a period of suffering is nothing compared to an eternity of suffering and so if you had the choice to trade a period of suffering for heaven eternal any sound person would choose heaven. Also, we are inclined to project our disposition on to others such as people with down syndrome or other illnesses but they do not experience their affliction like we imagine it with our different brain and so it is not as traumatic for them, it is traumatic for the parents and I would say they are the ones whose lives are made more difficult and so they are the ones God is holding to account possibly or who are being tested in their faith because the short suffering for eternal heaven is the better deal. Time argument is dumb, eternal exists based on time so God can be eternal and exist within time which is something that just requires 2 parts to measure space in between, God is just not effected by space and so also not by time. No reason to believe in God is also a weak argument because he says he can’t see the elephant so he thinks it is not there but how about if there was something not there before and there after as a result of the elephant having been there which could be a broken desk or whatever, point is you don’t need to be seeing an elephant to know one was there - so with God you can see the creation and intelligence and life and even test the teachings of God for their soundness about life to know God is and must be real. As ignorant as it would be, it would be more intelligent to say God may well be real but I do not care or I do not want to follow God’s teachings
Defects in genes related to previous sick/ill conduct? Ever hear of random mutations? Like cancer? How are those related to previous ill conduct? A cosmic ray can hit a gene and cause a mutation that leads to a birth defect or cancer.
I am not talking about something in a science lab I am talking about humans so what is the random mutation in humans you speak of - ah the missing link maybe. Mother drinks alcohol or smokes or is on drugs the child is born with a defect. It extends to behaviour which effects the mind and then effects physiologically also - social decline is evidence itself of that. As for cancer, I would say it stems from many I’ll things, toxins in food, depression, anxiety, etc… so these are all things unnatural and that mess with a person’s equilibrium and so it passes in their genes
Cosmic ray 😂 who is going into space to get cancer from a cosmic ray 😂
@@Terencemadinah You are a science illiterate. Cosmic rays hit the earth. You have no idea how mutations happen. No idea about causes of cancer. Stick to reading your fairy tale book.
@@Terencemadinah hopefully you do. take your fg god with you
Has this guy read Job?
I bet he understands it way better than you do
Any thing u say you have free will to say it and accept it. But reality is that everything has creator. And for everything to be created in such balanced way that if any little bit of constants changed everything will be destroyed there must be The One Creator. No two or more creators can agree on so much fine tuning. Because creation itself created by The One Creator. It is impossible that there is no creator or there is more than one creator. Because there would have been no meaning of the creator because creator himself would have been created. And therefore The Creator Must Be Uncreated and is always there. And it must be One Creator. This is the most logical thinking. So this whole universe is telling us that I am the creation of The One Creator.
If u still not agree than you must also accept that one day robots will evolve and then start saying that they have been not created and they only evolved from Nothing.
Any body rejecting The One Creator Must also accept this idea of robots. And they must think how much logical this robots idea is
I recommend Bruno Groening short movies to you, sir..
1: Evil exists because this is a fallen world. Plus evil wouldn't exist without good, and good wouldn't exist without God. So the problem of evil in a way is an argument for God.
2: Since God is all powerful he can act in time and outside of time. I've never heard this argument before.
3: God has left more than enough evidence that he exists, and he has revealed himslef in the person of Jesus Christ.
These are cherry picked arguments for which you have canned answers you feel address them sufficiently for your audience.
Your three cherry picked arguments:
A - The problem of evil is but one of the problems, and it only affects a god that defined a certain way. And, as is typical, the escape clause of 'mysterious ways/beyond our understanding' is invoked to brush that one aside and instead.
B - The eternal/time/changing/etc thing, is too heady for people not well versed (most people) in temporal discussions, and it's not really something most people go to in their thinking unless they go down a lot of philosophical rabbit holes and generally serves to abstract the argument out to the extent most people lose interest and wander off (on either side).
C - If he existed there would be better clear reasons to believe in his existence... This is where many often go in their thinking, it's simplistic, which is not a bad thing, but it gets waived away by 'look at the trees' level nonsense arguments.
For me it's the source material of the God claim, the early old testament. The rest of the old testament and the new testament is either expansions / derivative work based on those first 5 books, or an expansion added on by the christian movement to differentiate themselves from the jewish faith. The Jews had their saviour figure, Moses, who saved them and led them out of slavery. So, Christians had theirs, Jesus, who led them away from the Jews. And Jesus' character story was a strong parallel to Moses'. Impossible origin story, a king figure slaughtering male babies for some bizarre reason, then vanish for a few decades only to return a leader. And at the end of their story leave no corpse behind.
Every critical story in the writings is very clearly written by a human ignorant of how things work in this world, and their sole concept of 'powerful' is the ability to wage war and violence against their enemies. At no point does God display tolerance, love, wisdom, or even kindness as a show of power. This fails from the very first story with his custom made humans. Adam/Eve break 1 rule and all of humanity is cursed. That's loving? No, not even close. That's a narcissist with an anger management issue.
And the notion of angels, these have no function in the God universe, he is all knowing, so he has no need for helpers to watch and report on things, he is all powerful so he has no need of helpers to carry out orders. Their only purpose in the story is to fit the model humans understood for a leader and that was a king/emperor with servants and generals. And the idea of these angels rebelling against God is silly as well, it's a plot device to give an origin story to satan, a character needed for their carrot and stick model that is basically equal to God in power, something that is irreconcilable in the 'one true god' model of the monotheistic religions.
So no matter what story you look at in the writings it will fall apart rapidly with even a modicum of critical thought. If the base material, the bible as a whole, is fictional, as this would all suggest, then the God character himself is fictional.
Prior to 'God' being a thing humans attributed things they did not understand to 'gods'. As cultures and leaders vied for power over the people the god being followed took on some importance, and finally the gods with limited powers, areas of specialty, were replaced by this one top dog of a god, and rules were written to keep it unassailable, like no graven images. If the god character your culture follows has no physical manifestations in art form then people cannot deface it. Simple rule that keeps things rooted firmly in the imagination.
It's an ancient game of who has the better written god, but this was taken far too seriously and this old tribal war god now lives in 3 primary forms, the christian god, the jewish god, and the muslim god allah, which is fully derived from the other 2 forms with a few added stories from muhammed which do nothing to make things more valid.
1) The "problem" of evil. This is a non-argument. This assumes that "evil" is a created thing or that God somehow causes it or maliciously ignores it. It is not; He does not. Satan was not created evil. He was simply created and taught God's ways, but chose, in his free will, independence from God, accusing God of seeking to deceive His creation. Thus evil (of the "wicked" variety) is simply a path away from God and away from His ability to guide us for our benefit. This abandoning the source of right action causes one to choose what is right for themselves, but to stumble around in the dark doing so. And we all know that when you stumble around in the dark, you end up stubbing your toe or someone else's, and thus end up with evil that is wicked.
"Evil" of the birth defect variety is due to mankind's being apart from God, just as the animals are. It is a result of Adam's choice, not God's. If Adam had never sinned, there would be no birth defects because God, Jehovah, would be in control. Birth defects are due to the fact that flesh corrupts without God keeping it in check. (Romans 8:20-22) This is for the purpose of establishing our reliance on God. Without reliance on Him, we have futility.
Volume has nothing to do with it. You either have God's help or you do not. It is a simple matter of yes or no. If no, then whatever volume of evil mankind suffers is by their one and only choice. God does not cause their suffering. He simply does not interfere except where He can preserve a remnant who choose God.
Your definition of "good" is not consistent. One would argue that if God helped a serial killer or ch.ld mol.ster in the way you claim, that God would be complicit in that murderer's or mol.ster's actions. If, then He would be complicit in their sins, then He would be complicit in the sins of all people He would help in that way. Therefore God's consistency in goodness is established by His consistently NOT helping those who choose a path away from Him.
2) God outside of time, but interacting in time. There is nothing contradictory in this. It is like one putting their hands into a lab box. You can interact with the environment inside the box without having to share that environment. There is no contradiction. God's living outside time only means that He is unaffected by it. There is nothing that makes it impossible. Scientists stil do not know what time is, and you are making some grand assumption about its being impossible for something outside of time to interact with anything inside of time. It is patently shortsighted and ridiculous.
God is not an integer. He is not abstract. He is a concrete being with deternizing action. He being outside of time does not make Him comparable to an abstract concept that is neither living nor existent at all. "5" has no existence outside of the purpose assigned to it. It cannot do anything outside of time so obviously it cannot do anything inside of time. You are comparing a person to a scraping on a piece of paper. Of course the scrape does nothing active, but the person does.
3) No reason to believe in God. For someone who is content to live a discontented life, having no answers to life's big questions, and not knowing what to do, stumbling around in darkness for a brief instant like the ember out of a fire, sure, there is no reason to believe in God. But for someone who wants to find out what life would be like in the light, having answers to their questions and having a hope to live forever, then they have reasons to believe in God. Anyone seeking surety and not content with a brief existence seeks God.
But it does go to the c.ckroach. You could say, by your own limited judgment, that there is no good reason for a c.ckroach to exist. But that does not mean that there is in fact no good reason for the c.ckroach to exist. It is simply that you are ignorant of such reasons.
As to the elephant, that is argumentum absurdum and is therefore pointless to attempt to counter. You can direct the discussion any direction you want when you are comparing God to something that has no basis in relatity, because your ultimate goal would be circular to say that because the elephant existing is ridiculous, therefore the existence of God is ridiculous. It's just another non-argument, one in which you aattempt to spin us in circles.
Really, the argument is saying only that because you can't see God, he doesn't exist. That is an exact one-to-one comparison. That is argument from ignorance, which is some of the worst reasoning there is and countered easily by that there are many things you have never seen and never will that do exist. Can you see a muon? No, but you can see its effects. Likewise, God's fingerprints are everywhere.
Finally you break down into poisoning the wells with Zeus. Does this guy make his living on logical fallacies or what?
God did appear in the right way at the right time to the right people. It is why Christianity is the largest segment of the world, but still only millions, not billions respond because most claiming to be Christian still want to do things their own way instead of obeying God.
Again, He does not interfere in mankind's affairs because minkind chose the path away from Him. Mankind continually chooses a path away from Him. Like I said, even those claiming to serve Him choose a path away from Him. This is their own fault, not His.
You believe in a God that became his own son and then sacrificed himself to save humanity from a curse that the very same God inflicted on all the descendants of a couple who ate an apple because they were convinced to do so by a talking snake. That is the definition of insanity.
Furthermore, you believe in heaven and hell. A heaven where you will be eternally happy even knowing full well your parent or child is suffering eternal pain in hell. Says a lot about your morals.
@@karagi101 You have made an incorrect assumption.
"There is actually to us one God, the Father, ... and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, ... "--1 Corinthians 8:6.
"Jesus said to her: “ ... say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”--John 20:17.
I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. We believe according to these Bible verses, not according to mainstream sects. Jesus is NOT God. He is the only-begotten Son of God.--John 3:16; 4:9.
@@karagi101 Also, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that anyone is tormented in a fiery hell. Hell is the grave, while the fire before Jehovah's throne is a place of complete destruction.
"And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire."--Revelation 20:14.
God did not "inflict" the condition on Adam and Eve. They chose not to have God in their lives and thus missed out on his ability to sustain and renew their lives and the instruction he could provide on how to avoid the calamity mankind has wrought on themselves.
God also did not abandon them. He gave the life of his only-begotten Son so that Adam and Eve's descendants would be able to undo the effects by demonstrating their faith despite their sinful condition.
This was necessary because, through the death of a righteous man, all who put faith in him could receive his resurrection to unending life in paradise in an abundance of peace. Those are the things Adam and Eve lost and Christ's death and resurrection regains for their descendants.
The whole matter was in order to perfectly counter Adam and Eve's sin through Christ's sacrifice for obedience to God, demonstrate righteousness through the life of Jesus, provide a vehicle for faith and open the way to an undefiled relationship with God.
Only a limited number go to heaven to serve as kings and priests.--Revelation 5:9, 10; 14:3.
@@Dismythed Dummy… it was no sacrifice for Jesus to die. It’s no sacrifice when you know you will be resurrected in a few days. LOL
You believe in a lot of things just because they are written in a book which was written decades after the supposed events and of which we have only copies of copies of copies - nothing original. The same book other Christians believe in and feel that they interpret correctly and that your interpretation is heresy.
What a mess! Didn’t anyone teach you that everything written is not true? It’s called fiction.
@@Dismythed your "god" supposedly set the whole thing up knowing what would happen in the first place. So IT is responsible for all evil and suffering.
What about something like the Brahman? No need to be good or evil, just a life/reality force or source
then why call it god?
@@scambammer6102 Semantic and language limitations, I guess
@@MrBeatTH-cam well, we have words for life, reality and force. So I see no reason to call any of that "god"
@@scambammer6102 because that word encompasses the concept/process that is actively acting on in to mantain it, not just describing the act itself (sorry for my english, I hope is understandable)
@@MrBeatTH-cam I understand your point well. I don't think we need a "concept/process" for maintaining life, reality or force. Those things just exist based on general principles of physics. Particularly the word "concept" implies an intelligence, which is a projection of human thought onto inanimate matter. The "process" involved is simply physics, which we understand imperfectly, but there is no need to call it god.