6 Proofs for God's Existence
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ค. 2023
- When we consider the most profound question of life, “Does God exist?” we should follow the evidence wherever it leads. In this video, Kyle Butt presents six "evidences" proving God’s existence, from the complexity and order of our Universe to the morality, free will, and reasoning in humanity. And a former Christian responds.
6 Proofs for God's Existence | Proof for God
• 6 Proofs for God's Exi...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I had an email discussion with Mr Butts and explained to him that the 'big bang' wasn't what he thought it was. He just told me I was wrong. Then I suggested he look it up. That was the end of that email conversation. He never replied.
So it's willful ignorance at best
Wow, that is definitely willful ignorance at the highest degree
He needs to write a book and call it “Mr Butt and the Big Bang.” Tell me that wouldn’t sell.
@@billcook4768
Might I suggest the slightly pithier, alliterative, and more suggestive, “Mr. Butt’s Big Bang.”
@@briley2177 "Banging the Big Butt"?? Ah, no, that's a movie.
3 irrevocable proofs that Thor exists: Lightning, hammers, beer. I'm not going to elaborate.
Sold! I'm all in on Thor as my lord and savior! So where do I get the free beer for believing?
@@jasonsabbath6996 I live each day like there's nothing to lose
But a man has needs and the need is booze
They say all the best things in life are free
So give all your beer and your rum to me
I fell to my knees with tears in my eyes and a beer in my hand in reverence. 😄😄👍👍
That’s 3 “evidences”.😜
All Kyle proves here is that Apologists continue to make the worst scientists
If that's true how comes its theists who have by far made the most contributions to science?
@@sgloobal3091Didn’t say “theists”, said “apologists “.
@@jimkoss3318 apologists also dont like to read sentences.
@@jimkoss3318 that includes atheists then
@@sgloobal3091
I haven’t stumbled across your good self for ages. Greetings.
Now to my actual question: I assume you have actual credible evidence for your assertion. I would like to know what this evidence is.
Counterpoint here that annoys me when it's ignored: Big explosions DO tend to make uniformity. If you study explosions you tend to find they scatter debris in a surprisingly uniform manner, with the object that exploded having debris fields closer to the center than objects blown apart around it which will have a surprisingly predictable shatter or spray pattern. It's not exact, but we understand it enough to be able to reconstruct what happened at an explosion site pretty well. Almost like they make... patterns!
Thank god for explosions!
...wait😒
Things that work only because we understand the predictability of explosions:
Fireworks. Combustion Engines. Ammunition/Firearms. Literal Bombs (Imagine dropping a bomb, with no idea how big the area of impact would be!). And I'm sure other stuff.
@@LadyDoomsinger Explosion welding. Popcorn. Nuclear reactors. Blast armor. Anything in the entire field of pyrotechnics.
These are religious apologists. They don’t want anything to do with logic.😂
You all are ignoring that you’re speaking about things that already exist and some of you even mentioning natural and man made things like popcorn and bombs. All of your comparisons are totally off. The real question is uniformity to the extent of intelligent minds and consciousness from what seems to be nothingness according to science. This nothingness is perfectly answered by the concept of God. Science is actually validating this more than ever. Time, space, and matter began in an instant in a very specific way that sustains the universe and galaxies and even more incredibly, life. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Time, space, and matter proofing into existence. Those peasants must of been onto something. Love you all. Jesus is Lord.
It happens that just yesterday, I saw a debate of Bart Ehrman with this guy, it was as brutal as you can imagine, one of the comments in that video said "This guy gives the immediate impression that he's trying to sell you something" 😂
Kyle still debates? The courage of stupidity xD
He is
ooh! link please!
@@brianmeyer6926 th-cam.com/video/8FRtKANMXCQ/w-d-xo.html
How's that?
@@brianmeyer6926 I haven't watched it myself; I just looked it up on YT.
Whenever I hear Kyle and his fellow travelers talk about science, I am reminded of a line from the Firesign Theatre (The Tale of the Giant Rat of Sumatra):
"It's very electrical, and dangerous."
Firesign explains a lot that we ascribe to magic.
I AM the Electrician!!!
I get the idea that they think scientific theory is like Bozos: "Animals without backbones hid from each other or fell down. Clamasaurs and oysterettes appeard as appetizers. Then came the sponges, which sucked up about 10% of all life. Hundreds of years later, in the late devouring period, fish became obnoxious. Trailerbites, chiggerbites and mosquitoes collided aimlessly in the dense gas. Finally, tiny edible plants sprang up in rows giving birth to generations of insecticides and other small dying creatures."
Nick Danger, Third Eye.
Talk about dating yourself… 😂
the tale of the what now? that sounds way more interesting than Kyles reasonless drivel.
@@dyamonde9555 Look for it on the youtubes.
I'd put in a link, but YT disapproves.
Ya know, I hadn't actually thought about people using "evidences" as a plural of evidence until seeing it brought up in apologetics. Weird, but I guess apologetics does tend to use language in strange ways to confuse people, so not out of character.
It's been my experience that whenever someone incorrectly uses "evidences" as noun instead of a verb, generally a lot of stupid is going to follow.
I actually stopped the video to look it up because I thought “wait a minute, that’s wrong.”
According to the Oxford dictionary _“In general English, evidence is always uncountable. However, in academic English the plural evidences is sometimes used: (specialist) The cave contained evidences of prehistoric settlement.”_
Kyle not being an academic his use of “evidences” is probably the result of ignorance, or to be charitable, a feature of his dialect. 😊
@@pansepot1490It seems to be part of the apologetics dialect. As you noted, the only other place I've ever encountered the word being used a noun is in research papers.
"Evidence" can be pluralised in the sense of meaning 'types of evidence.'
For example, one could say, 'Evidences that will be used in this study include...' as an alternative to, 'The types of evidence used in this study include ...'
However, its use is extremely rare. Apologists like to use it, I suspect, because its rarity suggests a scientific usage and they think it makes them sound more authoratitive, when in fact it makes them appear like they are scraping the bottom of the water Butt.
@dougt7580 While the odd plural "evidences" may be acceptable in some academic circles, the only place that I hear it used consistently is in Christian apologetics.
It's become a shibboleh of sorts, for them.
Kyle: And proof number 6 ...
Me: I'm still waiting for proof number one.
So are all the religious apologists.😈
Everything has a creator the universe didnt jus spawn in from literally nothing it had a creator
@@billybobchicken8769 You made 3 claims. You proved none of them. Have you ever heard of something called logic?🤡
@@billybobchicken8769 prove it
@@billybobchicken8769 and who said it "spawned" from literally nothing? Nothing (whatever that is) and God (whichever out of literally 1000s that is) are not the only.two options
Kyle being the "Butt" of Paul's jokes is peak schadenfreude 👍
Hes the butt of apologetics. 😂
Now now, don't make fun of him, or Jamie will come and whine at you...
It's absolutely adorable how Kyle Butt makes an assertion without evidence and calls it a conclusive argument.
It's one of William Lane Craig's favorite gambits. Craig always does it with absolute smug assurance, as if he's shown up his interlocutors as idiots.
"If Free Will exists, therefore God" argument at 20:19 caused me 4D6 psychic damage.
I made my Will saving throw, so I only took half damage.
It just blows my mind how they can't see that a conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, personal creator-God who has always existed and will always exist outside of space-time takes substantially more leaps of faith than simply saying all matter-energy used to be packed really tightly.
I always like the idea that we are the most advanced machines ever conceived and yet we lack modularity. Something that tech prior to the Bible could have. Imagine being able to just grow new eyes for the blind or limbs for amputees. Heck growth gills for humans, grow the ability to undergo photosynthesis, to drink ocean water and have it hydrate you, or immunity to all poisons. God is so short sighted.
never mind all those… the human body is a sum of near-fatal failures that managed to barely often enough produce offspring that produced offspring.
We need to take a breath not because we are low on oxygen but because the CO2 levels in the blood get high. thus we can happily die of oxygen starvation in nitrogen or helium - we get rid of the CO2 after all.
Birth has been utterly complicated by the race to become a biped. Back pain is a clear design defect. We have no proper regulation on calories needed, hence we rarely keep a proper weight.
And whoever put the sewer and the playground in close proximity needs their head checked, especially as human mating very rarely produces pregnancy. Cats for example have a mechanism where the eggs are released at the end of the act to maximise the chance. Other animals show their ovulation status clearly. Humans… guesswork.
Anything that doesn't look like it was designed is because of sin, everything that works well is because of God. Problem solved!
@@matthewnitz8367 Why did god not rid us of the problem of sin? The fact that sin is unavoidable is poor design and humans don’t decide what sin is.
Christianity is absurd even when made into rhetoric.
The Bible (at least some versions) does claim immunity to poisons for Christians. And implies regeneration as well. So perhaps these aren't design flaws but failure to follow the owner's manual :)
to be fair the entire proposition is ludicrous from the outset.
things that are designed tend to have a point.
what exactly about a barren deadly thermonuclear shooting gallery with one known small area of exception inside an infintely expanding sphere sounds like it has a point?
there isn't even particular case that were you to assume something was responsible for everything it would make sense on that scale that such a thing would ever be able to see something so comically small.
mind you expecting sense out of the people who'd try and pray away a mould and frantically scream at the "infesting demon" is an exercise in madness in and of itself.
I was going to comment that Kyle is a "B" level apologist but then remembered that apologetics doesnt have anyone that is above "F" level.
“B” for Butt?
@@briley2177Ha! I actually meant I think his apologetics shtick is a step below some of the more well known figures, but that works too.
We'll need a whole new scale.
Really? I've always thought of Kyle as lowest-level. His arguments tend toward the simplest and most common, and he repeats himself often.
@@briley2177 That's where my mind was going, but I didn't want to be the one to say it. Thanks.
Good point about free will. If we really have free will the way Kyle suggests, every human thought is an effect without cause.
Wow. This is incredibly insightful.
I agree, but I suspect he would appeal to a claim of thoughts originating from a soul, and thus not being a material process.
So consistent under his beliefs, but not at all convincing to us.
@@stevewebber707 That would be still a cause. And it doesn't solve the problem: the soul made the brain think, without a cause of its own.
Since general claims about properties things can have are asserted to break down when talking about "supernatural" entities, opposition can simply claim that supernatural things are allowed to be uncaused.
Or, in the worst case scenario, you can just say "god did it", since the entire argument is founded on the idea that fully general laws of logic apply to everything _except_ god.
@@fieldrequired283 In that last scenario, thoughts would be caused by god, so we wouldn't have any agency at all.
The "evidences" grammatical error is so obviously a top-down coordinated effort that I'm often curious about it all by itself -
sad thing is even atheist youtubers are starting to slip up and say it, simply by having heard it so much I assume...
My conspirancy theory is that apologists, especially creationists, are so used to just repeat what they are being told without fact checking, not even grammar fact checking, they just take the word "evidences" as the correct expresion and use it to comunicate on other aspects of life.
And as that is how language works, by usage, then by sheer force of stupidity the word 'evidences' become an acceptable word.
Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
@@Julian0101 Hah! I think you're almost certainly right - this just another example of their willingness to repeat dogma
Some say it might be an acceptable usage, Viced Rhino did an entire tangent on that once xD
@@Slum0vsky "Some" would be wrong. "Evidence" is a plural noun in English.
Mr. O’Gia digging deep into the apologetics archives and I am here for it!
Bible prophesies a global Nuclear War that annihilates humanity, even describes dimentions of ICBM's, Nuclear payload of 34kg, Atomic firing mechanism, flight path, destructive capacity, radiation sickness, and 430 days of nuclear winter.
Now you can delude yourself to believe that this is not evidence of a Supernatural Intelligence who can violate Eibsteins CAUSALITY, and reveal this to humanity 2500years before it happens, but personally I was an Atheist who is now a believer, because Science declares that information to be evidence of the Supetnatural.
He doesn't even have red hair!
This says everything about his confidence in his ability to defend his beliefs:
"If you would like to ask a question about the material presented in this video, please submit your questions to us from the contact form at this link: "
Grifters gonna grift and sell personal information to the -highest- all of the bidders.
Well, sure. Always control the narrative.
5:05 Note that Butt has dropped the quotation marks at this point, he's not even trying to pretend to be presenting the current cosmological hypotheses regarding the initiation of our current universe.
At this point the blinkers are off and even he is admitting he is being deliberately deceptive.
At 25:11, the only actual quote he uses in his whole video, he omits quotation marks, just an apostrophe at the end.
@@akiblue fwiw, that apostrophe is merely to close out the one starting the paradigm-inclusion, on the line before. Nothing to do with this whole paragraph being a quote.
@@irrelevant_noob oh yeah, thanks, I just saw that, I also just saw the large graphic quotatiom marks.
I think Butt's dog example clearly shows that morals are a subjective human construct.
Thank you Kyle for debunking your own "evidences".
Some are, but there are many definite morals that appear to be because of evolution. Not killing within ones tribe is a very near universal moral in humans, only those with mental issues don't have this inate feeling. Not that this supports a gawd at all, it's just another feature of evolution
@@DarkAlkaiser Human sacrifice was still a common practice in pre-Columbian cultures in South America. We haven't evolved much in the following 600 years, it's just a societal practice that has died (been stamped) out.
There's a current hunter gatherer tribe, I think in Ppaua New Guinea, where old and sick members of the tribe may be abandoned or killed, as they are a detriment to the tribe as a whole (slow them down, can't hunt or gather etc.)
I don't think we have developed morals through evolution exactly, and they're not objective morals and the religious like to pose, we have developed societal behaviors that benefit the society that shares those morals.
My thought is that when it comes to domesticated animals ie pets then there is no such thing as a 'bad/naughty' dog but only bad owners.
It follows that there is no 'bad' human only bad 'creators' ie god.
@@ziploc2000 yep, religion can override anyone's morals. Those cultures believed those sacrifices were for the good of the tribe, so not exactly evidence against what I said.
@@DarkAlkaiserNo morals are objective or definite, some people think killing their own is a-okay and even within their own "tribe" whether they are sick or not
Guys, don't be mean to Kyle because his last name is Butt. He can't help it.
Be mean to Kyle because he's a grifter who eschews logical and moral reasoning to push his preferred Bronze Age fairy tale as "The One Big True True".
Well, he could go to court and petition to change his name. I think the judge would understand him wanting to change his name to almost anything, so long as he proved he was not trying to defraud his creditors.
@@rudra62 Isn't name change perfectly normal and legal in the US? Where I live you can change your first or last name to anything you like (with a few exceptions, such as "royal" names - and possibly profanity, I've never checked), the petition is just a formality and never gets rejected. Seems weird if you can't do this in the US.
Pretty sure most people here who make fun of Kyle for being a Butt only do so because he's such an ass, so it's hard not to.
@LadyDoomsinger yeah, it's pretty much a formality as long as you follow certain restrictions, such as it has to be writable on official documents. Such as when Prince changed his name to that symbol, his legal name was actually a string of standard symbols you can find on a keyboard which could vaguely be combined into the symbol he used publicly.
@@LadyDoomsinger You can pretty much legally change your name to anything - but in most states you have to provide a reason. It doesn't have to be a great reason - more than one person I know has had, "I don't like my current name. I want to change it to (umpty squat)." It almost never gets rejected, so long as there is evidence you do not intend to defraud anyone, and agree to notify all creditors of the name change.
I remember seeing a clip of him affirming the constant mockery, but whether or not he's going to do something about it remains to be seen.
I guess having no new material for several years now is the direction he has chosen. Yes, I know that's par for any pseudoscience "communicator" regardless of stripes, but he's not even doing the likes of Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind and recycling his same scripts across multiple videos ad nauseam.
Oh lords, it’s Kyle Butt, and my pet peeve ‘evidences’. Evidence is a non countable noun, evidences is a verb…
It seems he gets his diction and cadence from kent hovind.
@@pureflix8086yeah, Kyle speaks soooo slow, it's infuriating
I'm so glad that I'm not the only one who gets teed off at his use of the word "evidences".
Mine is "multiply millions of years". I don't know why it pisses me off so damn much, but hearing it instantly makes me enraged.
If I didn't know otherwise, I'd guess English is not his mother tongue, because in my language for example, "evidence" is perfectly countable. In fact, in my country people learning English make this particular mistake quite often as it seems natural to them.
Y'know, the "all effects must have causes" argument reminds me of the "we must be living in a simulation" arguments. I wonder if this guy could be convinced of that.
Nope, that doesn't come with Jesus' throbbing, pulsating love deep inside
They're not that different, ultimately. Whether the simulation takes place in a hypercomputer or the mind of a god, there's no evidence for it, and the former just a restatement of the latter.
If a person will believe one unproven claim, there’s no logical reason they shouldn’t believe any other unproven claims.😂
Somehow they've managed to be even more obviously dishonest that your usual apologist. They haven't simply closed comments, they've left them open but all comments, except the one they pinned themselves - get auto-deleted. This way they can pretend to be open to comments while in reality having blocked comments, and it's so obvious that they must somehow have intended to show they're more dishonest than other apologists...
Even worse are those like Testify who mute comments without telling the authors, so that they continue wasting their time. Very poor way to treat people.
I believe the purpose of science is not to disprove any religion, but to understand how things work.
Absolutely.
Agreed and since religion is a "thing", it has been scientifically studied. There are plenty of scientific studies into religion, and how it came about, why we have it, and how we use it to control others.
GO science!
The trouble comes when the findings of science turn out to be different from the claims of religion.
Scientists don't care. It's the religious fanatics who get upset.
What would a non designed universe look like? And how do we know?
A conflation of random events that create Boltzmann brains contemplating themselves
What does a non designed universe look like? You live in one, just look around.
How would we know? With curiosity, scientific investigation and evidence. It takes a larger leap of faith to believe in a designer than to base your beliefs in evidence. Who designed a designer that is capable of designing a universe? And who designed a designer that is capable of designing a designer that is capable of designing a universe? And who is capable of designing that designer? Do you see the wormhole your logic takes you down?
I bet it would look like mostly empty dark space where things constantly collapse with each other destroying themselves. A universe doomed to a cold death where space expands until every single fundamental particle eventually becomes absolutely isolated. A universe where, if there is life, it's very rare and it's based on random mutations where most of them turn out to be catastrophical, and it's only after billions of years that such mutations lead to more complex lifeforms that have to maul or devour one another in order to merely survive for a few years. A universe where there's parasitism, predation, disease, suffering and death.
That's the thing, isn't it? According to apologetics literally everything is designed, so any design markers they claim for life should be present in the wind, rock crystals, the CMB etc.
These are the honest, fundamental questions they prefer to hand-wave away.
Haha classic Kyle. It's easy to forget when you watch the questionable logic of Craig, Turek, Wallace and the like, that the barrel of apologetics goes much deeper. And keeping in mind that Kyle is not exactly bottom of the barrel, it's pretty scary to think of how bad the apologetics in some congregations would be!
From what I've seen, a lot of it is just bald assertions followed by insulting anyone who disagrees.
I'm almost certain that on any given day, some apologist is threatening physical violence as an argument for their god.
@@rainbowkrampus just from the numbers alone, it wouldn't be surprising. Plus there are enough hate preachers doing that was well. My limited experience in churches has mostly been about people expressing how blessed people are and how grateful they are to be saved, and how much they love Jesus. But whenever I tried to understand how they came to know what they believe, I never get a straight answer. Or maybe I just didn't understand. People always start from a bunch of claims that I don't know how they know, and go off from there. Maybe they don't have to patience to deal with my inability to just accept something and go from there, or maybe they're not used to speaking to people who don't already believe what they do.
@@pesilaratnayake162 Before the covid vaccine, when people were at least nominally staying home, YT started serving me the livestreams from all kinds of churches.
I'd tune into some every now and again to see what some of these smaller churches were up to.
It was not pretty. And of course it ruined my YT recs for a year.
This is also when I was introduced to the world of catholic apologetics. Which are very similar to non-catholic apologetics but with some deeply bizarre stuff concerning their glorified tradition.
The well of apologetics isn't so much deep as it is very wide and full of toxic micro organisms.
It's a deep barrel..
As a former apologist, I have to say sorry for all the times I used language poorly and thought I had made a good point. Trusting the bible to teach me how to reason gave me a false sense of what matters. Mr Butts, and all apologists do the same thing; use language to cover up what they deep down know to be true. What they say is nonsense that does not conform to mountains of information about the reality we find ourselves in.
You know, apologist is the perfect term for what these folks (and i) used to do. Apologize for the many, many problems with the worldview they hold to be true. I apologize for the arrogance I had, thinking myself humble. When I broke out of my indoctrination I saw that I was actually everything I didnt want to be. When i shed religion i became me again, and it feels great.
Edited because im never happy with what i wrote. 😊
Welcome to the world of the thinkers.
How long have you been out?
When you were an apologist did you know deep down that it was all BS or did you genuinely believe what your were saying?
Asked with polite curiosity.
I was a non believer early, in my teens. Then my family got me when I was weak and i spent 24 years as a Christian. I have been an apostate now for about 2 years. It's been rough because I was a true believer and now many of my family members think I am embattled with satan. Makes casual conversation complicated to say the least.
Did I know it was bullshit? Not at first. At first it sounded just good enough to marry the two worlds. I also didnt stop with the funny apologetics. I was more interested in the ID community, especially as time went on.
The truth is I was probably much like many Christians. I assumed my truth and then set out to make the world conform to it. I couldnt say "I dont know". I had to fight for god. Now I find myself constantly reeling from what I used to think true.
Nothing like a deconversion from a lifetime of belief to trump any other midlife crisis. 😂😊
And there is never a need to apologize for a question. Questions are what brought me out. Never being quite satisfied and genuinely seeking something we call truth. I may never find it, at least not in the same way I thought I had. You know what? That's cool.
@@jsnel9185 Thanks for that.
I spend a lot of time (some say too much time) talking to people like your former self here on YT.
I 'try' and have adult conversations without resorting to petty insults, though sometimes it is difficult to remain civil in the face of outright dishonesty.
I am genuinely curious as to 'how' people convinced themselves that it is true but I never get a decent answer, instead I mainly get people telling me 'what' they believe like Kyle in the video.
I never really know how much impact I have as honest feedback is non existent.
Would you be kind enough to tell me the points, questions and arguments that made you think that maybe you were not correct in your beliefs?
You can believe in a creator and not believe any of mans religious faiths which are erroneous..i have a hard time thinking a blind.. brainless universe created all we observe.. something created it or there is no creation
When I saw that it was Paul vs. Butt, I thought, "This is going to be brutal--in the most polite Canadian way, of course."
“Yes I have free will; I have no choice but to have it.” ~Christopher Hitchens
I chose to surrender my free will to God.
For all of these apologetics, I just want someone to ask them "so what?" Even if you accept all of their outlandish "proofs of god," at best you're just left with some vague amorphous entity of no real detail or possible interest in human-life, no where near the depths of their specific "God." The leap of "creator" to "Christianity" is massive.
I was just thinking "none of these prove the Christan God even if it proved A God"
They just immediately jump to it
@@zuglymonster It's the classic God of the Gaps. It's constant with Christian apologists.
1. "Big bang theory is complex, therefor God."
2. "The universe is complex, therefor God."
3. "Life is complex, therefor God."
4. "Morality is complex, therefor God."
5. "Free will is complex, therefor God."
6. "Logic and reason are complex, therefor God."
Actually, 6 is something like:
"This authority on atheism converted, so you should too!"
Christians often ask 'who created the universe?' Well, it was me. I've been keeping my light under a bushel until now, as I have been very busy with herd business as of late
"Were you there?"
Yeah, I was. I saw it all. I set a stopwatch, even. It broke a little after the 4 billion year mark, unfortunately.
I love this answer. 😊
You should be aware that many people are very angry about this and it’s widely considered a bad move.
@@cullenjohnson0 that was an excellent Douglas Adam's reference, well done.
Mr creator, I wish to register a complaint.
I sometimes feel bad for adopting a southern accent when imitating a preacher, but then I see things like this and I'm like....
0:41 "Six proofs that God exists" - my prediction is that we're going to get 6 philosophical/logical _arguments_ but there won't be a shred of actual evidence.
7:57 Okay, we're on track for no evidence. But regarding "design" requiring a designer, there is a flip side to that. If something _wasn't_ designed, then there was no designer.
15:18 And here we get the fallacy that the Bible offers an objective morality. This usually goes hand in hand with a notion that morality is unchanging over time, an idea that flies in the face of actual Christian morality, which has changed dramatically with changes in society.
You should get in touch lol
Well yeah that's what "proofs" mean. Not evidence but why I believe in God.
@@totalspoof8344 He didn't say "why I believe in God". He said, "proofs that God exists". He wasn't talking about his faith. He was claiming to have PROOF that God _exists_ .
Everything has a creator
@billybobchicken8769 does God have a creator? He is a something, which is part of everything, which means God must have a creator. And that creator is also a something, so who created the creator of God. Repeat ad infinitum.
I wish to go on record that my intuition *never* suggested to me that *any* of the many aspects of nature Kyle brought up look designed. Also, slight correction to Paul: there is a sharp (if unintuitive) line between organic and inorganic chemistry because organic chemistry is defined as chemistry that includes carbon.
It's not that sharp, because there are molecules that contain carbon that are not labeled organic.
Quick tips for the apologetics out there. These “logical” arguments convince no one. All they do is allow you to feel there is logic behind your faith and belief. But if someone doesn’t have that faith to begin with, this won’t lead to belief. Want an argument that will convince people that not only is God real, but he loves us? Beer.
Apologetics isnt supposed to convince anyone. it's supposed to assuage doubt of people that are already convinced. The Goal is retaining believers, not converting new ones.
"God created Man in his own image, and Man, being the generous type, returned the favor."
There’s no reason to think a deity is eternal but the cosmos is not. Maybe things just “are”, even if it’s tough to comprehend. Being kind to others seems like a good way handle such an uncomfortable and awkward truth
Lol designed. "Hey guys you know that skin at the end of the penis? Yaaaaa gonna need you to cut that off my bad"~God.
😂
🤣🤣🤣
Reminds me of the guy from Office Space. "Yeaaaaa, so if you could just go ahead and cut the skin off the tip of your cock by this afternoon that'd be greeeeat"
God looks designed, and he was designed to filled a gap in our knowledge .
3:50 "That's what is popular today, that there was a singularity that exploded"
-- That was popular among scientists 50 years ago, but not anymore. It's still somewhat popular among laypeople who haven't caught up, but now scientists know we get to complete speculation territory before we get back to a singularity. It's now 'popular' (consensus) that we do not know if expansion goes back to a singularity, and wont know until we get a complete theory of quantum gravity.
Hey Paul. Please make a video describing what you consider to be the most compelling argument for the necessity/existence of God and why it hasn't changed your perspective overall.
I like your content! Subscribed! Keep up the great work!
No one with any education in the subject thinks that a singularity "caused" the universe, or that one "exploded" for that matter.
Cause and effect is not as simple as Kyle claims. As it turns out, effects can preceed causes on the quantum level. This happens every day, we just don't experience it, of course.
One of the principles of my life is actually, "Sometimes, shit happens for no reason at all."
Like when you are gong up the stairs and you miss the step. Or when you trip over a crack in the sidewalk. What was the "cause" for that? Nothing "caused" you to to that, you just did.
@@flowingafterglow629 Technically, your brain caused you to do that.
9:04 Butt used the "Look at the trees!" argument. Not basically, literally.
There might be an issue with a noise gate or some other audio filter, I keep noticing missing 's' sounds at the ends of sentences, and at one point the word "expected" sounded like "ekpected". (Edit to add: I'm specifically talking about Paul's audio, the video he's responding to sounds fine)
I noticed the same thing, and was surprised that more people hadn’t commented on it. Glad to know now that it wasn’t just me. His audio, like every other aspect of his videos, is usually so well produced, seems strange that this would happen, but I know nothing about video editing. To me it was more than you described. It sounded almost as if he wrote the script and had it read by an automated program in his voice.
I had to wonder if he wasn't poking fun at Kyle, who has a tendency to screw up that. Assuming my memory isn't wrong, anyway. Whenever I tried to think of him screwing up his English, all I can hear is "multiply millions of years", and then I'm too busy resisting the urge to scream in rage to search my memory further. I don't know why that's the one that drives me up a wall whenever I hear it, but it does. It really, really does.
I like Kyle Butt and I cannot lie.
You other atheists can't deny.
When an apologist walks in with an itty bitty argument and a fallacy in your face you get sprung.
Brilliant, outstanding commentary for anyone from the lay to the scientist or philosophy expert. I find your material gripping and it's surprisingly not getting old. ❤
I'd like to see theist debates or commenters but I understand if we don't get many.
The notion of free will seems to negate cause and effect in how the "MIND" works.
If I choose an apple over orange, there was causal-chain of mental states that led to that choice. Determinism = Causes.
But if we throw randomness in there it certainly FEELS like we have free will (the ability to choose otherwise).
Idk, imo free will is just philosophical masturbation based on poor understanding (or lack thereof) of how human brain work.
The brain is an organ that evolved specifically to make choices. It gets inputs from sensory systems, analyses them and then determines what to do. What does “free” even mean? Unrelated to previous inputs? Random?
If that’s the case actual “free” will occurs only in impaired brains that don’t function properly.
He most impressive thing about Mr Butt's video is just how damn well that shirt is ironed. I'm in awe!
He's not much of a philosopher, but when it come to laundry, he's got his shit wired tight.
The kyle of all jokes.
Great work as always. I did notice though that your line reads cut out a little early, chopping off the very ends of words between takes.
Love that mayfly & houses analogy. I’ll be using that in the future.
I like the religious definition of supernaturality, it defines their god out of existence.
I still have never seen a compelling theistic response to the fact that altering certain parts of the brain can fundamentally change who a given person is. We have seen enough cases of brain injuries at this point that we have a pretty good idea of what parts to change in what ways to get a given alteration of self.
That's a pretty sad fact but it does bring up a good point. In the Bible I imagine that would be similar to the character Legion and treated like a demonic possession. Certain religious practices (even within Christianity) have superstitious "cures" for demonic possession, but the Bible does not. If God doesn't call a prophet to remove the demon, that demon is unlikely to ever go away. I've had digestive issues myself on and off for the past several years, and sometimes it feels like a demonic possession when my upper GI gas gets REALLY bad and I can barely eat, and the medical community considers it idiopathic, but I think it's brought about by God himself as a way of him telling me, "Look, you don't need to be a slave to flavor and sugary foods. The less pleasures you get from this world, the less tempted you will be to follow its path." And I would definitely rather have digestive issues than be enamored with reality TV or music laden with profanity and positive references to illegal activity. Of course, if it got so bad I was throwing up every day, well, I'm not sure. I REALLY hate throwing up, but I also REALLY hate music with a lot of profanity.
By the way, I love that little snippet of Celtic music at the beginning of your videos. What is it?
One commenter stated that free will is essentially an effect with no cause. I think there's a lot of merit to this idea; Christians think we have a soul that can't be detected, but is the essence of who we are. If we did have souls, then changes or damage to the frontal lobe would cause no personality change to a person. But we've seen how frontal lobe damage drastically affects the victim in a variety of ways, including ideology and temperament.
6 proofs of why kyle is the butt of the jokes.
When I was 7 I was questioning god, when I was around 13, I derived on my own intuition, that in order for us to have free will, we needed something -outside- of the material world.
Never read about it, but I was always very thoughtful. And when bringing up these type of scenarios about free will / determinism.. people would get emotionally upset. It's a thought that breaks our narrative.
I eventually realized I was just holding on to god due to a narrative, and that I did not actually believe in it, but was going around it from the social pressure I received.
I've been a fan for a couple of months, thank you for your content.
I remember asking my brother about this kinda stuff a long time ago. I questioned how I could have free will if God knew everything.
While not the same question as yours, it was the first inconsistency I noticed, which was the start of me unraveling my religious indoctrination.
No reason to believe in an invisible sky wizard and plenty of reasons not too.
But if there's not god/afterlife, what hope do these theists have after they die? ;)
@destronia123 Theists probably won't be doing much hoping after they die. Just like atheists.
Theist: If I argue long enough and insist on my unfounded assertions hard enough, God will exist.
After a lifetime I have found that one of the best arguments against proofs of God is that anyone thinks that they are necessary. I don’t need proofs of existence of my dog.
"When we [ask whether] God exists, we should follow his advice." Nice presupposition you've got there, Kyle.
Speaking of mayflies...it is one of the most haunting facts of nature that mayflies do not have a functional mouth, cannot eat, and starve to death.
Cool design, bro
I dont know why, but I find that EXTREMELY GROSS!
Also, that IS a very stupid design!!
To be fair... that's more human prejudice than bad design per se. It's human prejudice because we tend to see the final form as the 'true' form, but in some insects, that's not defendable. Mayflies life almost all their lives as larva, with mouths and everything. We should thing of those larvas as the 'real' mayflies. The last winged metamorphosis only serves to procreate, and they can do it in a day or two, so, they don't need to last more.
Some cicadas are even more extreme, spending decades as larva and only days as reproductive adults. Antlion larvae are arguably much more terrifying than their adult forms.
We think 'reproductive adults' are the 'true form' of living beings, because we see our children just as imperfect adults on the making. And that's reasonable for us, because our offspring is pretty helpless, but that's not true for every life form.
Anyway, that was just a mindless tangent, i'm not advocating from creationism in any form.
@@juanausensi499 well, to be fair ×2, I've considered all of that, and I'm still not convinced the "design" is any better than a being the last man in a human centipede
@@koenigcochran Think of that as brutal efficiency. Adult mayflies emerge all at once, and they only objective is to procreate. Stepping off to feed could mean you are out of possible partners when you return. Mayflies that didn't feed when adults outcompeted the ones that did. After a time, mayflies that didn't have a digestive system at all outcompeted the ones that had one.
it is a cool design, bro. Though designed by evolution, not a ‘designer’. Like the other guys said, the nymphs live for years in the water, eating all that they can with their perfectly functional mouths. The adults only live for a couple of days, and only need to do one thing before they die. The ones that do it quickly, without worrying about meal breaks, are more likely to pass on their genes.
Im reminded of one of my favorite Hitchisms.
"Yes I have free will; I have no choice but to have it. Because the Boss says so."
-Christopher Hitchens
You have free will to either do exactly as I tell you or not. The penalty for not is eternal torture in a pit of fire but it's entirely your choice, no pressure, choose as you see fit. It's totally your free choice. It's really not too far removed from gentlemen from Sicily saying, I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse. The only difference is that it stops when you die.
@@andystokes8702 Exactly
Puddles always perfecly fill a void. It doesn'tmean they had a designer.
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods and they are unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." -- Marcus Aurelius
Jesus said to the jews - do you not know ye are Gods. We humans one day are like Jesus. Our Brother. God is testing us, seeing if we are fit to be Gods. Before you hand someone an atom bomb, you give them a pistol. See if you are responsible. SANE.
If you want to have fun at Kyle's expense without being too juvenile about his name (however tempting it may be...) check out his debate with Dan Barker.
In that debate Kyle just stood there like a rabbit in the headlights and was completely eviscerated by Dan.
However debating Kyle is like playing chess with a Pidgeon, he struts around the board, knocks over all the pieces, shits everywhere and then declares victory.
I thoroughly dishonest and confused individual.
Some scientists are working on theories that include quantum forces that could create the singularity from nothing.
Nothing in quantum physics is not the same as philosophical nothing. IIRC Sabine Hossenfelder made a video some months ago about the various types of “nothing”.
As someone replied, we have to first agree on what "nothing" means.
I know Paul has mentioned it a few times, but there was a book he recommended about death and grief not too long ago. I wish I had purchased a copy (or a few) then as I'm unexpectedly dealing with it now, and don't have the energy to troll through multiple videos to find it. Can anyone remind me of the title?
Thanks
0:25 Is it though? Rorty said that the correct answer to a question we haven’t answered in more than 2000 year is “I don’t care”
It might be a good time to ask ourselves what we aspire to become.
1. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that an undetectable supernatural realm exists that is inhabited by undetectable, all-powerful, immortal beings, some good and some evil, all of them privileged to know the veracity of all things knowable and unknowable?
2. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know they are intimately familiar with a reality that is undetectable and unknowable, and have an intimate personal relationship with an undetectable good supernatural being that allows them to communicate telepathically with their master in the undetectable supernatural realm?
3. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that while our superstitious ancient ancestors went about creating religious holy books, they did not do so while pretending to know things that are unknowable?
4. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that an undetectable good supernatural being has bestowed upon them thousands of unknowable truths, including what it thinks and wants?
5. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings are continuously monitoring and passing righteous judgment upon every human thought and deed?
6. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have ordained them with the exclusive ethical moral authority, knowledge, and duty to advise me as to the truth of all unknowable knowledge that good supernatural beings supposedly want me to also pretend to know?
7. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that we are all immortal supernatural beings temporarily trapped in a mortal flesh body?
8. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable evil supernatural beings are manipulating my thinking to prevent me from pretending to know the unknowable knowledge that good supernatural beings want me to pretend to know?
9. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that being tortured in a lake of fire for eternity is just retribution for failing to pretend to know the same unknowable things that they pretend they know?
10. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have endowed them with the exclusive ethical moral authority, knowledge, and duty to recognize, challenge and condemn anyone who dares to spread a different version of unknowable knowledge?
11. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to restrict the questions, facts, narratives, and realities, I may entertain?
12. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings are responsible and deserve credit for every good thing that I experience in life?
13. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have informed them that I am responsible for, and deserve blame for, every hardship I suffer in life?
14. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have informed them that if I fail to dedicate myself to a life of servitude to undetectable good supernatural beings, it is only because I have willfully chosen a life of servitude to undetectable evil supernatural beings?
15. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that it is their righteous duty to visit hate, discrimination, misfortune, hardship, oppression, suffering, and destruction upon those whom their undetectable good supernatural mentors disapprove of?
16. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to them the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to outlaw sex acts, preferences, and practices that do not conform to the undetectable supernatural realm’s sexual standards?
17. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to them the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to condemn your sexual thoughts, desires, and fantasies?
18. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to them the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to condemn masturbation?
19. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have granted them the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to restrict access to birth control?
20. Should I allow myself to become one of those who pretend to know that undetectable good supernatural beings have delegated to them the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to regulate which adults you may or may not associate with, cohabitate with, have sex with, love, and/or marry?
Being obvious but to acknowledge the time it took to write this, i shall answer NO.
I dont wish to become one of those people & frankly don't understand those that do. I see no moral superiority in basing my thoughts, opinions & life on a book of someone else's ideas.
Quite the opposite i see it as weak & cowardly to attempt to back up anything about my life by saying its what someone else said.
In a perverse way I kind of wish the god thing was true, it surely is a good feeling for those who think they're protected and cared for by this god, but I just can't make myself believe it
@@cygnustspYes, but it can be traumatic when the imaginary Deity fails to protect them. On balance I think it’s better to accept reality.
@@snooganslestat2030 I appreciate the time you took to respond and I congratulate you for your critical thinking on the subject.
@@cygnustsp Congratulations. I wish someone had asked me to ponder these questions when I was young. Unfortunately, I was a great pretender.
Dr. Seymour Buttz. Hello my name is Dr. Cheeks and I'll be doing my rounds and I'm a little behind.
After his first statement that the universe must have a 'cause', there was no point of going on. My life is too short!
Hey Paul as always you put out a spectacular vlog. Would love to see some more with Morgan because she makes me laugh till I cry! Truth be told, I think we all need that now!😊
I think instead of the goal of flourishing of all "humans" we should be striving for the flourishing of all "conscious creatures".
This seems to be a more consistent goal, and less arbitrary too. Because morality cannot exist without a subject of an experience.
Great video as always!
I get what you mean, but my gut tells me I'd prioritise a human baby over a baby chimp or dolphin in a trolley problem type situation.
@@benlewis4241 there are reasons to pick the human baby over the non-human baby in that situation, but that doesn't mean the plight of the non-human baby shouldn't enter into our circle moral consideration.
14:30 I remember the Extreme Home Makeover episode where they built a house in about 40 hours, SO CHECKMATE ATHEIST
Awesome video Paul keep up the great work
Love the "This Too Shall Pass" nod. 🙂
Hey @Paulogia, Weird question…was the sound on this edited by AI or something? Not as clean as your work usually is. Just curious if you experimented with something new.
@Paulogia Your words were cut off a few times throughout the video. For example, at 5:25, it sounds like you said "univer" instead of "universe", and at 13:55, the "st" in "past" is cut off.
My understanding of video editing and audio engineering is as undeveloped as Mr. Butt's reasoning skills. Coincidentally, though, Logiked noticed a similar problem in a video he reviewed recently, and he figured that the guy had the noise gate level set too high.
I'll keep this succinct.Great video.Enjoyed it immensely.
Thank you for refuting the complexity argument. For someone with a art & design background in design, that argument drives me nuts.
This is a gold mine for definitions. Good stuff.
I remember listening to Kyle on Dogma Debate, he hasn't gotten any better.
Hey Paul, great video as always!
Like you, I am a determinist. However, I am also aware of chaos theory, and the fact that identical starting conditions will not result in identical outcomes in chaotic systems. Would you say that determinism only applies at the point of decision ie that the choice will always be the same, but chaos can create alternate outcomes?
Chaos theory only requires *slightly different* starting condition to result in completely different outcomes; in a deterministic system the same starting conditions always result in the same outcome. The way this is formalized is if you have two systems started in slightly different ways, if you run them long enough they'll eventually get arbitrarily far apart in outcome. In other words, it's about how "well mixed" the states become over time.
as a former IFB cult member, i can get on board with you Paul! When i started my journey as a YEC apologist i kept noticing the closer i looked at "God's" creation the less of god i saw in it and the more haphazard and less designed it all looked to me. it is a fact that the gods of the major religions of the world do not exist in the way that they are described due to the fact that many of the cataclysmic and miraculous things they caused to happen on the Erath would leave evidence and those evidences cannot be found no matter how hard we look.
6 proofs God is real
1: I believe he is real.
2: I am telling you he is real.
3: Someone told me he is real.
4: The people around me say he is real.
5: The people who say he is not real are wrong.
6: No one can look at the first 5 reasons and not be convinced.
Kyle's entire video is a great example of why Hitchen's razor is so useful.
“The atheists idea that there is no god.”
It’s not an atheistic idea, it IS the definition of atheism. There isn’t more to it.
That simultaneous cause sounds like something that came up between Low Bar Bill and Comic Sceptic.
hi paul, just wanted to comment on some editing thing i noticed. around 2:44 - 2:46 there are a couple cuts that go by quickly. they seem almost like they were cut down to remove as much silence between the lines as possible. there are a few other edits like this throughout the video. as a former audio editor i get that impulse, but in practice it seems to cut off some of the softer ends of words (turning "kyle" into "ky") and makes some of your delivery sound odd and harder to parse on a first listen. i think you've mentioned before that you're starting to use AI to help with editing - if that's the case, i think the silence removal threshold should be tweaked a bit. i love your content, but having to rewind a couple times to make sure i understood something correctly because of these edits isn't great. not a huge issue, just something i noticed.
It's interesting how these people constantly go to the "something from nothing" argument. In order for that to begin to make sense, you would first have to demonstrate nothing.
Lol, the passing mention of the appearance of the earth as flat could start a whole new line of 'debate'
At 5:15 - To be pedantic, "singularity" is a term Physicists borrowed from Maths, where it means "a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point where the mathematical object ceases to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as by lacking differentiability or analyticity" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)).
In General Relativity the general maths term takes on a specific physics meaning which is usually described as "a point where spacetime has infinite curvature". But, as I understand it (I'm just a lay person) the "lacking differentiability" part of the mathematical definition is more accurate. I.e. a GR singularity gets that name because you can't differentiate across it.
First time I've come across your videos and the Socrates intro tells me we're going to get along.
Yay, I've missed the animated versions.
I've never understood why anyone would think the material in their skull for some reason functions differently than the stuff outside of it.
2:25. Where’s your, “For the dictionary tells me so” jingle, Paul?