@@dogboy5398 And who's talking about hearsay?? You made a statement that one prefers one truth over another truth. That in itself is a contradiction. If we're contrasting two things, and your conclusion is that both of those things are truth, even when they contradict each other, then you're an enemy of logic. It can be true in another sense, but not in the same sense when you contrasting upon eachother
@@dogboy5398 I'm glad you said you don't know. Neither can you refute the evidences for God. Unless you can refute the evidences for Christ ressurrection and God's existence, keep on attacking strawman. That's a willful ignorance. You're being intellectually dishonest. You're a walking contradiction. You live like God exists, yet claim God doesn't exists. I don't take internet atheists seriously. Currently it has been shattered. Where are the pioneers of the new atheists?? LOL. Critical thinking is an atheist kryptonite. Refute all the arguments in front of you then I can take you seriously
I often try to avoid comments sections but for those who struggle to understand Swinburne, whether because of his voice or because they don't understand what he is arguing, essentially Swinburne has taken an essentially entirely new approach to arguing for the existence of God. The traditional arguments for the existence of God were generally considered to have been sufficient in themselves (each one by itself) to prove God's existence. However, as I'm sure you know, those arguments for the existence of God have generally been subject to much debate, so the claim that each individual argument should be sufficient seems to be weak, given that each individual argument only grants that it is *likely* God exists. Swinburne, however, argues for 15 or so arguments (I've only read one of his shorter books, so I'm unclear on how many he has argued for) all of which, add a piece to a puzzle that explains how the world around us in a better way than an aethiest view could. So, his individual arguments, or pieces, appear to 1) fit in together with the other "pieces" of the puzzle, 2) each increase the likelihood of the existence of God. So, in short Swinburne argues that many individual arguments for the existence of God when argued coherently together create a very strong likelihood for the existence of God. He says if these argumemtd are wrong, then we are unjustified in believing in God, and if we're unjustified in believing in God then it seems we probably should not believe in God.
It seems to me that Swinburne is not original, but returns to a kind of thomistic view, which held that each argument taken from one of the five ways is not in itself demonstrative, but that the whole package of them is conclusive and convincing. This position leads to unavoidable criticisms, because if each argument is not evident in itself, then the whole isn't neither. But the court analogy, which introduces his reasoning, has to be taken seriously, because it support the fact that one can reasonably judge about something by being convinced by several pieces of evidence, which are very strong and persuasive if they are taken together.
The way Swinburne makes the case for theism is similar to how Oppy makes the case for atheism and as an atheist I like that from Swinburne. He is quite honest and different from some other theist philosophers who pretend to prove god with a single argument premises of which are dubious.
@@anteodedi8937 Yes, I agree with you a lot. The only theistic philosophers who I really enjoy are Descartes, Berkeley, and Swinburne. Descartes I like because even though I'm sure he's wrong about just about everything, he still makes an interesting set of arguments. Like you, I like Swinburne because of his method. Berkeley I enjoy because I think he's right about just about everything. I don't think he proves a theistic God in the regular sense exists. But I think that he proves there is almost certainly a mind of some sort that maintains the existence and continuity of the physical (perceptual) world.
@@Rspknlikeab0ssxd Oh Berkeley's idealism? I don't think he proves it but assumes it to explain the continuity of the physical world. I have serious issues with that view as you would expect from a naturalist/physicalist but however I have always found it intriguing.
@@anteodedi8937 I can agree with You that in the "Principles of Human Knowledge" Berkeley leaves his immaterialist View largely undefended. There He really just lays down what He sees as true, in Principle form, and then responds to Objections and shows the Consequences of those aforesaid Principles. But, in the "Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous" Berkeley defends the same Immaterialism. In the first Dialogue he defends the View that we only perceive mind-dependent Sensations, and in the second Dialogue he defends the View that there are no Things that are both unperceivable and are not Minds. I can go into detail about the Defense if you want. I'm curious what serious Problems you see as arising from Berkeley's Immaterialism, or (which is the same Thing), the empirically grounded View that all that can possibly and actually does exist are That which experiences and That which is experienced.
"virtual structure" Existence is truth. Truth exists because it's possible for some things to be logically consistent. Truth gets structure by having "gaps" or "disconnectedness". The gaps represent "falsehoods". One could say truth gets structure from falsehood. If truth exists, we don't have any contingency problem.
@@----f I haven't seen that particular debate, but that's probably the same guy, yeah. The point isn't Lawrence Krauss. The point is that the "Contingency" or First Cause arguments don't actually make much sense with what we know (and what we don't know) about the universe. It's a flawed argument and it's been put to bed by many people. If you don't like Dr. Krauss, there are countless other physicists and philosophers who can explain why it's not convincing.
I think it is far more likely that Cameron will lose his faith because of his brother than his brother converting to Christianity because of apologetics.
I agree, it is an accumlative case. When one e planation explains all the evidence, from origins of universe to origins of life, to origins of consciousness to historical events to logical arguments and morals, then you have the best explanation. To deny God you need just so stories for eachi dividual component.
@@georginam2028I would argue that they are precisely made up fairy tales. Especially when physicists go about infinite multiverses and neuroscientists say that consciousness doesn’t exist, all just to be able to stick with materialism
One can't disprove the existence of god, or gods. But given the billion galaxies and quadrillions of stars, the idea that He, She or It would have any concern for an individual person's moral behavior or ultimate fate is beyond ludicrous. And without such divine concern, prayer or any sort of supplication becomes pointless. Religion becomes insupportable without prayer. If you tear out prayer from religion, the question of whether there's an all powerful eternal being becomes a merely scholastic one. Who cares?
@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13 Exactly! Swinburne is so genius that people don't even recognize it. They ought to pick up one of his books and try to comprehend it.
When people started taking some of the story books seriously religions came into existence.those religions appeal masses more which are based on colourful books dotted with sexual adventures and voilence as Is the case with movies like Godfather and blue films.in fact blue movies and books are hundreds of times more popular and seen then all the religious books put together.even the religious preachers themselves spend most of the time either in acting the sexual fantasies on the gullible rabid believers or Just viewing the pornographic matiriels.thease preachers are very intelligent as they know the easiest way to fulfill theirs fantasies is to put fear in the gullible people's mind that if they don't comply with theirs orders then afterlife hellfire awaits them.
Life is not about sex and violence my friend, Jesus Christ walked our world to teach us about Love! Those awful preachers you speak of do not accept the Love from God, and we must accept Jesus Love in order to be truly loving. Take care and blessings from Sweden.
Every philosopher that discusses the existence of God explain what they mean by it, so saying "what about Zeus!" gets you nowhere. The individual arguments don't have to be convincing on their own to make a good case when you put all the pieces together.
@@alexrothwell2053 incoherent. No amount of unconvincing arguments will ever lead to anything convincing. And it's got nothing to do with what a philosopher means by the idea of God. A convincing argument for the existence of jehova will not get you ganesh.
@@muhammadfarrukhiqbal9158 terms like "convincing" & "unconvincing" have to do with your psychological state of affairs. No good argument can convince you even if it's valid and sound, if your mind is closed (ironically).
Just because there is a lot of “evidence” that makes it more probable does not mean it makes it correct. To use his own example, people get incorrectly convicted of murder fairly often.
Your example assumes that there was strong evidence for the conviction and that the person wasn't convicted for other variables. In many of those cases the evidence wasn't necessarily strong to begin with, rather it was a failure on the part of the legal system.
@@seanhaviland3448 Even so, one can hardly be faulted for siding with the preponderance of evidence as we perceive it. Should we ignore where the available evidence is pointing instead, or perhaps hold out in faith that it will turn out to be misleading? We do not typically do that in other areas of our thinking. Why here?
@@youthresist8956 What I wrote could have been worded better, but you put words into my mouth. That is not what I said. My point was just because you have "evidence" that makes it more probable that your claim is true, you could still be wrong. There's allegedly a lot of evidence for bigfoot but no one has actually proven its existence.
@Dog boy A lot of the universe cannot be observed by humans but that's no reason to believe in occult superstitions. If you can't detect something at all it is effectively outside your reality. Gods are obviously products of human imagination, they are symbolic characters in the dramas we create about our own desires and fears. We can't detect other universes directly (yet) but their existence is indicated by our understanding of the universe we can observe. Atheists have open minds, but they demand evidence, they are honest about what they don't know. It is the religious mind that demands certainty, even a false certainty based on wishful thinking rather than evidence.
@@fernandolozano7981 I'm not claiming that any particular fantasy character is real in the absence of physical evidence, I'm merely pointing out a truth-- the universe is not dependent on the existence of your favorite deity.
@@fernandolozano7981 You are not "following my line of argument," you are simply repeating the words back in a mocking way typical schoolyard spats among children. Learn to argue rationally. For e ample, tell us why God is more real than Santa Clause or leprechauns or the many gods that have been worshipped through history, which are also invisible and endowed with magical powers.
@Lewis Hughes Commandment # 3- You shall not take Gods name in vain. Jesus said in John 10:30 - I and the Father are one. Jesus Christ is God. You just used the name of God in vain.
@@schoolisdrainingme5312 That was actually pretty funny. The thing is, Swinburne says the cumulative arguments for God could add up to increase the probability for his existence. On the other hand, would you be willing to grant that the cumulation of arguments against God from great minds as Hume and Hawking contribute to a lessened probability for the existence of God? I'm not convinced that the cumulation of arguments for God outweigh the reasons against, and let's be honest-some arguments from both side are crap.
Micah Aalders It’s definitely true that there are bad arguments on both sides, but Hume’s arguments have been debunked, and Hawking’s argument is just awful.
What I love most about Athiests is their belief that they had anything to do with science or its creation. The greatest minds in history were all theists. The illuminator of Genetics was a Christian monk. Tesla, one of the greatest geniuses of the living world was a man who believed in God and even believed that he had a spiritual connection with his mother and knew the exact moment she passed away. Isaac Newton, the founder of physics.....also a devout Christian. So no, you being associated with atheists doesn't make you smarter and athiests dont have a say or monopoly on what is essentially a Christian creation.
@@theblackhundreds7124Religious indoctrination was also much more pronounced in the past than it is today. If these people were alive/born today, some would definitely not be religious.
@@hmdchy No it does not. It is a colloquial term used to describe a uniquely personal thing that is not real and only exists in the individual's mind. The various sky fairies that humans have invented throughout history to worship fit into this category.
@@bobwhelan5636 Hmmm...yes...and I suppose a key part of your thesis is that you are so much more enlightened, rational, and adult than the rest of us that your mind encompasses the totality of creation and you can say for sure that the sensus divinitatis is just some kind of delusion rather than a properly functioning sense?
@@wjdhamilton What I said was that theists try to define their invisible friends into existence as opposed to providing evidence. That's not a thesis, it's a statement. As for this sensus divinitis thing, other than being a hypothetical thing that is in no way a functioning or indeed measurable or demonstrable sense. So then, yes, if people are claiming to have such a thing, then delusion is a good way to describe it.
@@bobwhelan5636 Very stupid considering there is visible light and invisible light. There are also many things you cannot see that are still there. Not at all incredulous to say there are things outside our sight that are there by other methods.
![[[OFFICIAL MV]] เอิ้นขวัญให้อ้าย- อ๊ะอาย สกุณาพร | ค่ายเพลงเป็นหนึ่ง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/83x6L3X3qh0/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m sitting here smiling thinking about all the headaches this wonderful man has given Richard Dawkins.
You shouldn't be taking pleasure in this. It's a weird thing to see it as "us vs them".
@@dogboy5398 one truth over another?? Do you believe in truth??
@@dogboy5398 And who's talking about hearsay?? You made a statement that one prefers one truth over another truth. That in itself is a contradiction. If we're contrasting two things, and your conclusion is that both of those things are truth, even when they contradict each other, then you're an enemy of logic. It can be true in another sense, but not in the same sense when you contrasting upon eachother
@@dogboy5398 I'm glad you said you don't know. Neither can you refute the evidences for God. Unless you can refute the evidences for Christ ressurrection and God's existence, keep on attacking strawman. That's a willful ignorance. You're being intellectually dishonest. You're a walking contradiction. You live like God exists, yet claim God doesn't exists. I don't take internet atheists seriously. Currently it has been shattered. Where are the pioneers of the new atheists?? LOL. Critical thinking is an atheist kryptonite. Refute all the arguments in front of you then I can take you seriously
@@lostfan5054no. Us vs him lol
I often try to avoid comments sections but for those who struggle to understand Swinburne, whether because of his voice or because they don't understand what he is arguing, essentially Swinburne has taken an essentially entirely new approach to arguing for the existence of God. The traditional arguments for the existence of God were generally considered to have been sufficient in themselves (each one by itself) to prove God's existence. However, as I'm sure you know, those arguments for the existence of God have generally been subject to much debate, so the claim that each individual argument should be sufficient seems to be weak, given that each individual argument only grants that it is *likely* God exists. Swinburne, however, argues for 15 or so arguments (I've only read one of his shorter books, so I'm unclear on how many he has argued for) all of which, add a piece to a puzzle that explains how the world around us in a better way than an aethiest view could. So, his individual arguments, or pieces, appear to 1) fit in together with the other "pieces" of the puzzle, 2) each increase the likelihood of the existence of God. So, in short Swinburne argues that many individual arguments for the existence of God when argued coherently together create a very strong likelihood for the existence of God. He says if these argumemtd are wrong, then we are unjustified in believing in God, and if we're unjustified in believing in God then it seems we probably should not believe in God.
It seems to me that Swinburne is not original, but returns to a kind of thomistic view, which held that each argument taken from one of the five ways is not in itself demonstrative, but that the whole package of them is conclusive and convincing.
This position leads to unavoidable criticisms, because if each argument is not evident in itself, then the whole isn't neither.
But the court analogy, which introduces his reasoning, has to be taken seriously, because it support the fact that one can reasonably judge about something by being convinced by several pieces of evidence, which are very strong and persuasive if they are taken together.
The way Swinburne makes the case for theism is similar to how Oppy makes the case for atheism and as an atheist I like that from Swinburne. He is quite honest and different from some other theist philosophers who pretend to prove god with a single argument premises of which are dubious.
@@anteodedi8937 Yes, I agree with you a lot. The only theistic philosophers who I really enjoy are Descartes, Berkeley, and Swinburne. Descartes I like because even though I'm sure he's wrong about just about everything, he still makes an interesting set of arguments. Like you, I like Swinburne because of his method. Berkeley I enjoy because I think he's right about just about everything. I don't think he proves a theistic God in the regular sense exists. But I think that he proves there is almost certainly a mind of some sort that maintains the existence and continuity of the physical (perceptual) world.
@@Rspknlikeab0ssxd Oh Berkeley's idealism? I don't think he proves it but assumes it to explain the continuity of the physical world. I have serious issues with that view as you would expect from a naturalist/physicalist but however I have always found it intriguing.
@@anteodedi8937 I can agree with You that in the "Principles of Human Knowledge" Berkeley leaves his immaterialist View largely undefended. There He really just lays down what He sees as true, in Principle form, and then responds to Objections and shows the Consequences of those aforesaid Principles. But, in the "Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous" Berkeley defends the same Immaterialism. In the first Dialogue he defends the View that we only perceive mind-dependent Sensations, and in the second Dialogue he defends the View that there are no Things that are both unperceivable and are not Minds. I can go into detail about the Defense if you want.
I'm curious what serious Problems you see as arising from Berkeley's Immaterialism, or (which is the same Thing), the empirically grounded View that all that can possibly and actually does exist are That which experiences and That which is experienced.
I think the argument for contingency is an uncrackable one.
"virtual structure"
Existence is truth.
Truth exists because it's possible for some things to be logically consistent.
Truth gets structure by having "gaps" or "disconnectedness".
The gaps represent "falsehoods".
One could say truth gets structure from falsehood.
If truth exists, we don't have any contingency problem.
I agree, alhamdulilah
The argument from contingency falls apart quickly. You should look up what folks like Lawrence Krauss have to say about it.
@@lostfan5054 Surely not the same Lawrence Krauss that couldn't successfully argue whatsoever in his debate with H. Andreas Tzortsiz lol
@@----f I haven't seen that particular debate, but that's probably the same guy, yeah.
The point isn't Lawrence Krauss. The point is that the "Contingency" or First Cause arguments don't actually make much sense with what we know (and what we don't know) about the universe. It's a flawed argument and it's been put to bed by many people. If you don't like Dr. Krauss, there are countless other physicists and philosophers who can explain why it's not convincing.
2:25 wow, he has enormous hands
Just curious, is your brother still an Atheist ? Or have your Apologetics had an effect on him ??
TheJason909 I hope they have
@@gabepearson4732 he is still. He recently make a video about hin
@@Kenji17171 who made a video? This guy or the atheist brother
@@shawndurham297 they both.
th-cam.com/video/qFm7VpVNj0Y/w-d-xo.html
I think it is far more likely that Cameron will lose his faith because of his brother than his brother converting to Christianity because of apologetics.
You ask me how I know He lives.
He Lives within my heart.
I agree, it is an accumlative case. When one e planation explains all the evidence, from origins of universe to origins of life, to origins of consciousness to historical events to logical arguments and morals, then you have the best explanation. To deny God you need just so stories for eachi dividual component.
not if those explanations are made up fairy tales.
@@georginam2028I would argue that they are precisely made up fairy tales. Especially when physicists go about infinite multiverses and neuroscientists say that consciousness doesn’t exist, all just to be able to stick with materialism
I find it difficult to hear his voice
Thank you for this videossssss
An argument for the existence of God is not, just by itself, enough to be convinced that God exists; we must first have the need for God.
One can't disprove the existence of god, or gods. But given the billion galaxies and quadrillions of stars, the idea that He, She or It would have any concern for an individual person's moral behavior or ultimate fate is beyond ludicrous. And without such divine concern, prayer or any sort of supplication becomes pointless. Religion becomes insupportable without prayer. If you tear out prayer from religion, the question of whether there's an all powerful eternal being becomes a merely scholastic one. Who cares?
Maybe but as my astronomer professor used to say "Humans might be insignificant but by no means does that entail we're unimportant"
This is one long non-sequitur.
The Shroud of Turin
Does the Christian God indubitably depend on the Bible?
I could barely hear what he said
*THE BANANANANANANA*
ya tasty
I believe in God but I'm afraid that mumbled treatise would not convince me if I did not.
He mumbled for 2 minuets but didn't say anything.
The guy is like 83 years old. Maybe give him a break
@@MrKenh63 "He spoke for x minutes and didn't say anything" = "What he just said went entirely over my head". You always find this comment.
@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13 Exactly! Swinburne is so genius that people don't even recognize it. They ought to pick up one of his books and try to comprehend it.
1:10 A conciliance of evidence.
What was his answer??
He thinks that no one argument is better than the argument. Rather he argues for a cumulative case for God by all the arguments put together.
How then are we alive?
Yet, where did God come from?
It’s impossible for nothing to exist. God has always existed. God is being itself. God is the uncaused first cause that caused all the causes.
When people started taking some of the story books seriously religions came into existence.those religions appeal masses more which are based on colourful books dotted with sexual adventures and voilence as
Is the case with movies like Godfather and blue films.in fact blue movies and books are hundreds of times more popular and seen then all the religious books put together.even the religious preachers themselves spend most of the time either in acting the sexual fantasies on the gullible rabid believers or Just viewing the pornographic matiriels.thease preachers are very intelligent as they know the easiest way to fulfill theirs fantasies is to put fear in the gullible people's mind that if they don't comply with theirs orders then afterlife hellfire awaits them.
Life is not about sex and violence my friend, Jesus Christ walked our world to teach us about Love! Those awful preachers you speak of do not accept the Love from God, and we must accept Jesus Love in order to be truly loving. Take care and blessings from Sweden.
@@spaak3465Look around the world sex and violence is everywhere, man hasn't really changed in 2000 years...
That entire paragraph, is the most incoherent gibberish I've ever heard
Interesting stuff.
Who is this guy I want to buy his books
Richard Swinburne. He's good.
Why buy a book if you can't even read the title of the video?
@Dr.exsack what are you talking about, sir? Since you don't read videos
@@greatfilmmaker omg Reading is not your forte...
@@Dr.exsack I've read your statement and responded to it, so that's not true.
None of the individual arguments for God's (which or who's God(s) anyway?) prove his existence so taking them all together adds no weight at all.
Every philosopher that discusses the existence of God explain what they mean by it, so saying "what about Zeus!" gets you nowhere. The individual arguments don't have to be convincing on their own to make a good case when you put all the pieces together.
@@alexrothwell2053 incoherent. No amount of unconvincing arguments will ever lead to anything convincing. And it's got nothing to do with what a philosopher means by the idea of God. A convincing argument for the existence of jehova will not get you ganesh.
Your heart is sealed.
@@muhammadfarrukhiqbal9158 your mind is closed.
@@muhammadfarrukhiqbal9158 terms like "convincing" & "unconvincing" have to do with your psychological state of affairs. No good argument can convince you even if it's valid and sound, if your mind is closed (ironically).
Man spoke for 2 minutes and said nothing.
All talk and no evidence.
He gave you like 1/2 dozen arguments you could look into.
I have looked into it. They all logic and evidence. What's your favorite guess?@@No_bread-and-circuses
@@robertlight5227 Well, logic and evidence is pretty good stuff for basing our beliefs on.
Do try it some time.
Just because there is a lot of “evidence” that makes it more probable does not mean it makes it correct. To use his own example, people get incorrectly convicted of murder fairly often.
Your example assumes that there was strong evidence for the conviction and that the person wasn't convicted for other variables. In many of those cases the evidence wasn't necessarily strong to begin with, rather it was a failure on the part of the legal system.
Isn't that precisely the conceit of extreme atheism? That there is no evidence for God? But if evidence exists then it must be faulty?
@@seanhaviland3448
Even so, one can hardly be faulted for siding with the preponderance of evidence as we perceive it. Should we ignore where the available evidence is pointing instead, or perhaps hold out in faith that it will turn out to be misleading? We do not typically do that in other areas of our thinking. Why here?
Mans really just said “Just because there’s evidence doesn’t mean that it’s likely to be true”
@@youthresist8956 What I wrote could have been worded better, but you put words into my mouth. That is not what I said. My point was just because you have "evidence" that makes it more probable that your claim is true, you could still be wrong. There's allegedly a lot of evidence for bigfoot but no one has actually proven its existence.
Anyone that's credible I'm still looking 😂
God is about as much of a "necessary being" as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Necessary to allay your own anxieties, maybe.
@Dog boy A lot of the universe cannot be observed by humans but that's no reason to believe in occult superstitions. If you can't detect something at all it is effectively outside your reality. Gods are obviously products of human imagination, they are symbolic characters in the dramas we create about our own desires and fears. We can't detect other universes directly (yet) but their existence is indicated by our understanding of the universe we can observe. Atheists have open minds, but they demand evidence, they are honest about what they don't know. It is the religious mind that demands certainty, even a false certainty based on wishful thinking rather than evidence.
Following your line of reason one might be tempted to say that the truth of your statement is as true as the existence of the tooth fairy.
@@fernandolozano7981 I'm not claiming that any particular fantasy character is real in the absence of physical evidence, I'm merely pointing out a truth-- the universe is not dependent on the existence of your favorite deity.
@@fernandolozano7981 You are not "following my line of argument," you are simply repeating the words back in a mocking way typical schoolyard spats among children. Learn to argue rationally. For e ample, tell us why God is more real than Santa Clause or leprechauns or the many gods that have been worshipped through history, which are also invisible and endowed with magical powers.
it is still a necesarry being as someone had to make the first particle of matter
@Lewis Hughes Commandment # 3- You shall not take Gods name in vain. Jesus said in John 10:30 - I and the Father are one. Jesus Christ is God. You just used the name of God in vain.
If they ever made a movie based on the Fallout game, Swinburne would be an excellent choice to play a ghoul
god does not exist. Not one "argument" for the truth of that delusion has stood up to reason.
If you ad up enough crap , then..........
It is still crap.
that's atheism
@@schoolisdrainingme5312 gottim
@@schoolisdrainingme5312 That was actually pretty funny. The thing is, Swinburne says the cumulative arguments for God could add up to increase the probability for his existence. On the other hand, would you be willing to grant that the cumulation of arguments against God from great minds as Hume and Hawking contribute to a lessened probability for the existence of God? I'm not convinced that the cumulation of arguments for God outweigh the reasons against, and let's be honest-some arguments from both side are crap.
Micah Aalders It’s definitely true that there are bad arguments on both sides, but Hume’s arguments have been debunked, and Hawking’s argument is just awful.
@@schoolisdrainingme5312 no its not. for not believing in a crap claim you do not need any crap.
What does Swinburne know about science? Answer: Nothing.
how "science" related to the existence of God ? science is a tool we use to understand our universe.
Science doesn't prove or disprove God.
What I love most about Athiests is their belief that they had anything to do with science or its creation. The greatest minds in history were all theists. The illuminator of Genetics was a Christian monk. Tesla, one of the greatest geniuses of the living world was a man who believed in God and even believed that he had a spiritual connection with his mother and knew the exact moment she passed away.
Isaac Newton, the founder of physics.....also a devout Christian.
So no, you being associated with atheists doesn't make you smarter and athiests dont have a say or monopoly on what is essentially a Christian creation.
Are you joking?
@@theblackhundreds7124Religious indoctrination was also much more pronounced in the past than it is today.
If these people were alive/born today, some would definitely not be religious.
There they go again, arguing their invisible friend into reality.
'invisible' does that mean anything you cannot see does not exist?
@@hmdchy No it does not. It is a colloquial term used to describe a uniquely personal thing that is not real and only exists in the individual's mind. The various sky fairies that humans have invented throughout history to worship fit into this category.
@@bobwhelan5636 Hmmm...yes...and I suppose a key part of your thesis is that you are so much more enlightened, rational, and adult than the rest of us that your mind encompasses the totality of creation and you can say for sure that the sensus divinitatis is just some kind of delusion rather than a properly functioning sense?
@@wjdhamilton What I said was that theists try to define their invisible friends into existence as opposed to providing evidence. That's not a thesis, it's a statement.
As for this sensus divinitis thing, other than being a hypothetical thing that is in no way a functioning or indeed measurable or demonstrable sense. So then, yes, if people are claiming to have such a thing, then delusion is a good way to describe it.
@@bobwhelan5636 Very stupid considering there is visible light and invisible light. There are also many things you cannot see that are still there. Not at all incredulous to say there are things outside our sight that are there by other methods.