I will sometimes hear, "Well, you can't disprove god exists." I always go with, "True. I also can't prove there isn't a tennis match being played on the dark side of the moon." I will occasionally continue with something like, "The evidence for such a tennis match is about equal to the existence of god. So, do you believe that tennis match is being played? You probably don't. Ask yourself; why."
Katie Anderson I'd say the tennis match is actually more probable. We actually know we have the technology to reach the moon and build a structure there.
Katie Anderson A Tennis match taking place on the dark side of the moon is confirmable and provable. Whether or not you have the ability or evidence to convince anybody is not bearing on whether it can be proven. You're actually presenting a tu quoque fallacy argument on their behalf. If I were to argue against your statement, I would point out that I could build a space shuttle with a large flashlight on it and rocket you and myself up there and we can take 3D 4k video of what we find there. Maybe we don't see a tennis match being played. That doesn't prove it's not there. You might just need to take a better look at whats right in front of you. I know building a shuttle with an enormous flashlight and getting enough money to afford a 3D 4K camera are similar to the amount of faith it takes to see god playing tennis on the dark side of the moon. But he'll give you the space shuttle and the camera for free. Or something along those lines if they're half competent. There are assumptions within that argument but that's irrelevant. The proper way to state your analogy would be to say you CAN prove there is a tennis match. You can in the sense that it is feasible/possible to do so. You would need to provide the images of people holding tennis rackets with a tennis ball and net in the vicinity. The synergy of the claims that there are 2 people, using tennis rackets, their position being on the dark side of the moon and the presence of a tennis ball and net would be needed to prove that there is a tennis match being held on the dark side of the moon. In order to disprove that there are people playing tennis on the darkside of the moon, only one of these statements would need to be debunked. It wouldn't contract from the rest of the claims but any of them being untrue would contract from the claim that there is a tennis match being playing on the dark side of the moon.
That's a very silly statement. For instance, there's a lot to learn from the Bible, even if you are an atheist. Listen to Robert M. Price's great podcast, the Bible geek - or read some of the very many books he mentions in his programme.
Your ignorance is the problem, not the Bible - if you really believe that it contains ONLY nonsense. Listen to a few episodes of Robert M. Price's The Bible Geek and hopefully you'll realize that.
Piero della Francesca I didn't say the bible is ALL nonsense, but the extraordinary claims of the bible don't stand up to critical inquiry and scientific discourse. There are some truths in the bible just like there are some truths to ANY holy text such as the Koran and vedas. But the things that are true in the bible are NOT true because its in the bible, its true because later we found them out to be true.
Vlad Tepes Preposterous! What she does is a cheap knock-off of my original recipe, produced under unethical working conditions in a foreign country, using produce that would be illegal anywhere else due to the content of pure plutonium and neurotoxins.
Believer: Your Relationship with god is simply a profound and dynamic relationship with the self, with your ego. This is why god can seem so very real to you. In a sense he is real. He is you. This is why god's opinions are so very often your opinions. This is why two believers of the same religion can both claim to agree with god's opinion but not with each others. When you pray and god gives you answers you are the source of those intuitions. You are simply having a conversation with yourself and don't even realize it. This is why god can always assuage any doubts of the believer. You see, "God" knows exactly how you think because he is you. He knows your tastes, your biases and all the gaps in your logic. Therefore it follows that "he" knows what arguments you will find compelling and what mental gymnastics you are capable of to ignore any arguments to the contrary. Ironically I probably can't convince you of anything I stated above because of the very fact that it is in fact true. You are "god". The next time you hear someone preaching or waxing poetic about god, Jesus, Mohamed or Joseph Smith, change all the names and pronouns you hear them say, in your mind, so that they refer to the person speaking and trust me you will get a whole new perspective on life. This is why believers have such a strong emotional reaction whenever they encounter a non-believer. They simply misperceive the non-believers rational skepticism about the supernatural and occult as an assault on their "god" which is to say their own personal identity. There are a vast multitude of religions and superstitious beliefs in the world that espouse many mutually contradicting doctrines. Therefore they cannot all be true. but they can certainly all be false. Even if one were actually proven to be true it would still follow that human beings have a rather remarkable propensity for making up entire religions from whole cloth. I think that all religions and other supernatural beliefs are cultural phenomena of purely human making. Much of this impulse in human culture is driven by peoples existential angst, their innate and instinctive fear of death. Their own death and the death of the people they love. It can seem easier to deal with death by convincing ourselves that it is not real. "My loved one is not dead they are in the afterlife", we tell ourselves. And "Of course I will never die! that's absurd!". You all need to grow up. Embrace the suck! And make the most of the time you actually do have. You are mortal. Death is real...... Get over it. I sincerely and earnestly do not believe that gods exist. But you have each other. Perhaps that alone could bring meaning to your lives. However if you insist on believing in supernatural claims at a minimum please do us all a big favor and don't give your hard earned money to religions pimps and hucksters.
I loved, LOVED the bit in the opening statement about your opponent having to prove your position because they don't believe in other gods. that was brilliant.
Matt Dillahunty thank you for posting this. Over the past few weeks I have been engaged in debates (on the internet) with theists who simply don't understand how burden of proof works. I suspect that many theists believe that because an idea is old and generally accepted, that burden of proof lies with the atheist, and reveals an important assumption: that atheism is an opinion, belief, or a world view. Although many theists I've spoken with voice this assumption outright, I think it is important to point it out in the event that they do not. I had a conversation with several theists, at length, on Dan Arel's recent Patheos post, "10 Myths About Atheists That Won't Go Away," who maintained just such a position. Atheism is the logical rejection of the proposition that a god exists - nothing more. In other words atheism, by definition, makes no claims and - in and of itself - therefore has nothing to prove. That isn't to say that atheists don't make claims, nor does it mean that atheists are exempt from providing a rationale for those claims. The burden of proof is _always_ on the claimant no matter who it is.
***** I don't disagree with you given that you repeated what I just said. A negation in the belief that a god exists, which is the definition of atheism, is not the same as saying a god does not exist. Beyond agreeing with me that burden of proof is on claimants, I have no idea what you're talking about.
***** nowhere have I said that I believe that god does not exist. Atheism is the negation of the _claim_ that god does exist. Atheism does not negate the existence of god, nor the possibility. As it happens, I can justify my negation in light of the fact that no empirical evidence for the existence of god is available; I haven't been provided with a reason to believe that god exists. You're making a lot of assumptions here, and also proving my original point. You have every right to believe what you do, and I am in no position to rob you of that. It is not my goal to get you to stop believing in god. No one is saying you cannot believe in god, but doing so implies a truth positive claim. You are saying that you have a reason to believe that it does exist. That makes you the _claimant_, and therefore the burden of proof is yours. It is not my responsibility to tell you why you're wrong, but it is _your_ responsibility to provide a reason why others should accept your claim. You don't _have_ to do anything. You are not required to explain yourself at all, unless your goal is to convince people of your claim, then the onus is on you. That's just how logic works. Would it be reasonable for me to make it your responsibility to prove that my pet unicorn, Larry, does not exist? Or is it more reasonable for me to show you a photo, or bring you to my home to substantiate my claim about Larry? Do you believe in Thor? Shiva? why or why not?
***** classic example of someone arguing from definition, but neglects or omits the part of the definition that is inconvenient. _or _*_lacks belief_*_ in the existence of God or gods_. There, now we get a full picture. That "or" is a disjunction and is not there for decoration - it's there for a reason. It signifies either "a" *or* "b." To say that one "lacks belief" is another way of saying, "I don't have a reason to believe what I'm being told." You are coming to me saying "god exists, " and I'm telling you that "I don't believe you." With that out of the way, _atheism_ is the _negation_ of the *_claim_* that a god exists, which is what the definition you provided means. You're operating under the assumption that atheism _makes the claim that god does not exist_, or that it means that _one believes that a god does not exist_ and neither of those statements are true. As a theist, your claim is you believe in a god or group of gods. As an atheist, I'm telling you "_I don't believe you, and I don't have a reason for believing there is a god or gods."_ Saying "I don't believe in a god or group of gods" isn't the same thing as saying "I believe there are no gods." Here's an example, and tell me if you see the difference. Let's say you tell me to grab three oranges from the kitchen, however, I am unable to find them. I might reply with one of two statements: 1. I don't see any oranges. 2. There are no oranges. In the first statement, I am asserting that I am not able to find any oranges. The first statement demonstrates a negation of the _appearance_ of, or _evidence for_, the oranges. I'm not saying there aren't any oranges in the kitchen, I just don't see them and have no reason to believe that they are there. In the second, I am claiming that there are _no_ oranges; I am negating the *existence* of said oranges. I'm telling you that there are absolutely no oranges in the kitchen. Do you see a difference between these two statements? If you don't, then I don't think you and I have anything further to discuss.
***** this conversation is over. Your inability to learn, or unwillingness to grasp basic propositional logic, or to adhere to the basic rules of making a claim indicates that this exchange is going nowhere. But let me leave you with a few things to ponder: 1. Burden of Proof wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Burden_of_proof www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm thelawdictionary.org/burden-of-proof/ 2. You say: _"also if I ask you to disprove god just say I cant don't be a child and say its not my job"_ But you haven't asked me to disprove god, and if you had I would tell you that you're being intellectually disingenuous because, again, you want to shift the burden of proof to me. The same way that, again, if I tell you that I have a pet unicorn named Larry I wouldn't make it your job to prove me wrong. It is clear that you have no concept of what having the burden of proof actually means. 3. With respect to what you believe about the word "belief," the door does not swing both ways for "belief" and "lack of belief." If you believe something to be true, you are making the claim - you are taking the position- that something is true. If I say "I don't believe you," or that I "lack the belief" in what you've told me, I am _dismissing_ your claim on the basis that you haven't provided me with a good reason to accept what you say as true. The negation of the phrase "believe in" isn't "believe in nothing," it is "I don't believe." I would also add that atheism is a "belief" to the same extent that "bald" is a hair color. 4. You focused on the section of a definition for atheism that, you deem, is the best-suited to make your case but have conveniently omitted the rest of the definition itself. Do you find this to be an honest gesture? 5. You get to believe whatever you want, and no one is going to stop you. But when you come knocking on our doors trying to sell us an invisible product, don't be surprised to find those doors closing when you've got nothing to sell. And no amount of definition neglect, or term distortion is going to make it past me. Let me be perfectly clear; I don't want what you have - I'm not buying what you're selling. I find you to be intellectually dishonest and have absolutely no desire to continue this conversation with you.
***** you love definitions so much, yet you don't seem to understand me when I say "this conversation is over." Go to your school's principle and suggest that your teachers be fired because they have failed - miserably. Good bye.
Matt knocks it out of the park again, well done. The only thing that might have made it better would have been to give (more?) examples of other theoretical debates that show the problem with the debate topic. Perhaps such as "Can sewing machines disprove knitting?" or "Can the fork disprove chopsticks?" Maybe these aren't the best analogies but I'm curious if there are better ones because it might cut through some of the fog on this.
what I would like to see is a debate being refereed by a small set of philosophy judges who could stop the debate occasionally if one debater has committed a logical fallacy. They hit a buzzer when there's a foul, stop the discussion and illustrate the fallacy and let the offending party adjust their point. Maybe 3 or 5 random Ph.Ds in philosophy who are agreed upon by both debaters. WLC, where are you now?
+Matt Dillahunty True. Or they would have to abandon each point quickly and their first round would be over quickly. Or more likely you would get no takers on the concept. Keep up the great work. Will be getting involved in Patreon soon.
@@SansDeity would take hours, yes, and so it should. That exactly should be the point. Lawyers are not allowed to introduce . . yanno . . bullshit whenever they want. I know, I know, debates should be civil and respectful and blah blah blah but given the pattern of apologists' . . yanno . . . *bullshit*, it is time for the respect to end and simply demonstrate, repeatedly, for hours, their . . .yanno . . .bullshit.
I like how progressive you are about furthering the discussion, Matt. While many are so closed about it, like shut the door, your wrong and that is it, your refined argument is continuing to evolve in such a way as to show your genuine caring for these people. I like these tools and how you shared them here. Thanks.
splendid video as per always matt, thanks so much for your efforts in sharing these, they are exceedingly informative and quite interesting. take care.
James Powers *"Yeah, dismiss me, but you can't dismiss my irrefutable facts"* how about you even present some instead of preaching... *"LOL. So much for "knowing how to deal w/ it" :) We both know you can't "deal" w/ me."* Im "dealing" with you like a pigeon on a chessboard knocking over the pices and shitting on the board while its thinking its winning the game i just need to sweep you aside and wait for a real challenger... *Getting serious for a sec*. Preaching at me is not even playing the game of "rational discourse" why would i indulge you?
James Powers *">>> No problem: I can easily prove God: Look at your hand. It's muscles, nerves, bones, blood vessels with a high complexity meticulous design for an obvious task of high functional ability - all hooked up to the rest of the body right up to the brain and the rest of the body - a BRILLIANT DESIGN."* NON SEQUITUR. *" Could you make it? No"* YES, i just need to have a kid ....duh....=/ *"How about the universe. Could you create the universe?"* just because i cant doesn't mean a god did. *"Clearly, both your hand and the universe & all things in it, are designed and didn't just"* no, they are natural occurrences. from the starting conditions left over from the Big bang. *" I called you on it every time. My irrefutable detailed facts are to be refuted in detail or you default."* claims are not facts in of-themselves. *">>> Big talk for someone that I have consistently proved has no bullets for battle, LOL!!"* because your not worth even the air the bullets displace. *">>> You count yourself special while you're just another # destined for hell. You know where the door is. Atheists have lost against truth before we even start."* Preaching at me is not even playing the game of "rational discourse" why would i indulge you?
Ziliath Hahaahahhahahahahah nice. Yeah James Powers is one of those ultra butt hutt Christian trolls who thinks too greatly of himself. Basically his attitude is to make a big deal about how amazingly intelligent and unbeatable his arguments are as he preaches and babbles on with utter nonsense making fallacy after fallacy. The guy lives his life with his head buried up his own arse as he tries to emulate smart people. It's just a shame the guy doesn't seem to realize that smart people don't think making claims is the same as point out a fact and the point of intelligent conversation is not to dig his heels in and refuse to ever be willing to admit error ever arguing his point constantly, no matter how obvious it becomes that his position is illogical, but is actually to discuss things in and adult, honest manner and to enlighten people or become more enlightened if it's demonstrated that you're the one in the wrong. He seems to have this pathetic, high school jock attitude, rambling on about how crushed his puny enemies, and owned every last one of them. He's a pretentious windbag and a sad excuse for a human being who's here trolling Matt Dillahunty's channel because the existence of atheism along is enough to send him flying into a rage storm of hissy fits, insults and empty hell threats. I wouldn't bother taking him too seriously. It's obvious he has nothing better to do with his time chucking a tantrum and acting smug on atheist videos so he can pretend he's smarter then everyone in order to compensate for the fact that he's a moron. What a sad, small, weak individual. Small man syndrome is a bitch and one doesn't need to be short in stature to suffer from it. Apparently it's common among intellectual midgets who stand next to intellectual giants. I mean the guy thinks that this is how you refute something- "NUHHHHHHHHHH UHHHHHHHHHHH!". Clearly low on the intellectual ladder wouldn't you say?
Demogorgon47 I concur whole-heatedly. This is my second conversation with him, the first time i actually took him seriously and actually indulged him in rational discourse... That, was a mistake. And i didn't want to repeat that for this conversation; of which he completely ignored the topic and wanted to get back to our old conversation... So i basically told him that he wasn't worth my time... and being a Butt hurt troll he tried to snag me anyway, He still has yet to tell me why i ought to indulge him in rational discourse.. all he could think to do was insult me and preach at me... When will people like him realize that doing so; DOES NOT WORK! lol...
I'm really nitpicking, but I get all twitchy when someone uses "prove" in a non-deductive reasoning mathematical sense instead of "demonstrate". I know people use them interchangeably and I don't want to be a language prescriptivist, but it still bugs me a bit.
I debated this issue once in a big forum at my school I'll give you my approach its very similar to his method. 1) nail down the definition of God and establish that you are not required to disprove God as you are not making am epistemological claim. 2) I was debating a fundamentalist so he equated God as the biblical Jesus 3) I got my opponent to cede certain things and properties about his God which I had come up before hand that we're directly contrary to science. 4) nail him on these points, and don't let him redefine God whatsoever. 5) I recognize that it is not always this cut and dry as most savvy theological types tend to have a nebulous definition of God. However, if you can get them to nail down a definitive God with properties that run contrary to science you pretty much have them 6) I won't do this topic again as it really plays into the theistic hand. Thanks for the video Matt i love this project I have started a secular student alliance at my school and these videos have helped all of us hone our ability to engage theist at our catholic conservative school.
Yes science/logic can rule-out some types of god. There are a couple of levels. 1. Gods which even are not coherently defined. In this case, there is nothing meaningful to start with. 2. Gods that are logically inconsistent. This type of god doesn't exist by its own contradictory definitions. The god of the bible is in this category. 3. Gods that have attributes that contradict fundamental physical laws. Violations of speed of light, conservation laws for example. 4. Gods that might not contradict physical law but whose attributes would be inconsistent with the world as we know it.. Of course the response will always be that any such god ruled-out by such a method is "outside of the laws of the universe" or some variation of "magic". But this automatically redefines the god into category 1 because a god outside of the universe cannot possibly act within the universe without being subject to those laws. It also makes the whole argument circular.
AdamWho 1. Science can't disprove this. Philosophy already did. 2. Theists can just say that their invisible friend is magic, therefore the physical laws don't apply. 3. Again: magic. If you want a view of theism from the scientific point of view, may I recommend God: The Failed Hypothesis by Stenger?
Paul T Sjordal I was going to post this, fully agree. 1 is disproved by the laws of logic, not science. 2 and 3 ignore the nature of supernaturalism: anything goes, it's unfalsifiable. Science can deal with certain supernatural models, not by tackling the supernatural claim, but by finding inconsistencies with reality in the natural framework where the supernatural claim is made(not all claims are made in this vaccuum), by way of modus tollens f.e. For example p1)if godmodel A created man in Adam and Eve by way of special creation 6000 years ago, this would appear in genetics p2)genetics shows we evolved from earlier apes instead of special creation c) godmodel A can be rejected.
+AdamWho Nobody ever can confirm or disprove anything. You can only make assumptions from the information available. For example, nobody can disprove that Caesar didn't know about the iPhone; however, from the information we have about that era, we can say that he didn't know about it. It applies to anything.
Amazing work making this impossible topic interesting. At first I thought that the only sensible advice would be to not debate this question. But you presented some pretty good angles.
Excellent video Matt. This also seems a good method for considering other supernatural claims, where you can pretty much substitute the term 'god' with the supernatural ''.
René Descartes described the scientific method in the following terms: "I will accept nothing that cannot be proven." (I am paraphrasing, of course, because he wrote that in French.) This implies that doing science you can accept gods IF they can be proven. Disproving things is not the province of science.
at 12:55 I was looking at the movies behind Matt there thinking that he may watch some weird philosophical pieces for entertainment but he seems to be your regular scifi watcher
The argument that God reveals Himself to those who humbly and sincerely seek Him is astoundingly flawed. The first obvious problem is that belief must already be in place beforehand; how else can your request be sincere? But the issues are only just beginning. If God is real and if He makes Himself known to those who seek Him, then the only possible conclusion is that God has compelling evidence that He only reveals to those who need it least. And despite the fact that it was God's choice to withhold this information, He will punish non-believers mercilessly for never having uncovered it. This is the problem with religious apologetics. Every attempt to protect one claim sacrifices another, yet they are comfortable returning to the latter pretending it is as robust as ever.
I think science shows more and more there is no requirement for a god, as we learn more and correct mistakes its consistant, its not perfect, but it is self correcting, because its constantly being tested somewhere. Religion tends to try to creep into our ignorance, which i personally find offensive, just because i do not know something does not mean im going to accept a substitute nonsense as the answer "i dont know" and "santa did it" are to me identical phrases in respect to science.
Awesome! Matt I'd love to transcribe and translate this into Portuguese in my channel to spread this reflection in Brazil. Do I have your approval for this? Thanks for all the amazing work you've been doing during all these years! Cheers!
I think Victor Stenger may have approached this topic in a different manner, hence his book God: The Failed Hypothesis. Define the god, describe what we should observe if this god is real, and check if these observations adhere to reality. He does an excellent job of taking down the idea of any god with any of the three "O's": omnipresent, omnipowerful and omnibenevolent. Matt here excels, as usual, by taking a more accessible approach, however. Great job, man!
"I think I'm going to hell if I don't bow my knee to a creator, because I'm a sinner". Beyond the fact that there is not evidence or proof of a creator, nor specifically Christian God, let's analyze that as if it were fact. I am a sinner, because God made me a sinner. I sin because I am imperfect, as God made me. I give my life to worship at the foot of the creator, because he made me so imperfect that if I don't, I will burn forever in a torture chamber of his design and designation. But don't worry, he loves me. God cares for me and loves me, just enough to let me live with him for eternity. However, since he has not provided any method of proof beyond a 2000+ year old book, his existence is not clear to me, so because of that shortcoming brought on by his negligence I am damned to an eternity in hell. But don't worry, he loves me. I look around at a world that has disease, famine, natural disasters, suffering brought on by nature and by man, and there supposedly exists an all powerful being of which this world is his design, and who could stop this suffering and pain with a snap of his fingers, yet he does nothing about any of it. Instead he chooses to give us a "way out" by worshipping his existence for the mere fact he brought us into this world, to offer us salvation from the "fallen world that we created" even though he technically created it as an all seeing entity who created us with the knowledge that we would mess it up. As long as we give all of our being to him and devote our lives to his "greatness" we don't have to suffer an unjust eternity in hell. But don't worry, he loves us. These are but a few of the issues I have with the Christian God. Beyond the fact that I see no evidence for his existence beyond testimony and a book, if he was real I would see him as a moral and sadistic monster. So separation from him for eternity sounds just fine to me.
Matt Dillahunty Amazing commentary. Just brilliant. I'm wondering Matt, what you thought of Sean Carroll's scientific refutation of the afterlife (or at least concsciousness after death). He seemed to be making a positive refutation, albeit within the boundaries of naturalism.
Most times in my conversations with folks, in person and here on YT, I like to bring up that every single fact, backed by irrefutable evidence, points away from supernatural causation or explanation of phenomena. Seems pretty simple to me. A better question to debate, would be 'What is the evidence for god(s)?' The debate would be absolutely dead silence from the side of no evidence. One way conversation, as in talking to said god(s).
I really enjoy how Matt often reminds us that theists are not idiots, and that we atheists can ourselves act silly when, for example, reading the Bible, or debating.
I have in mind an alternative way, although it would take nimble debating skills to carry it off. Suppose we let our opponent first define their God. - Is it the God of the bible? - Can we rely on how the bible defines God? - Parameter check: The God of the whole bible, or the God of the bits you like? The God of the New Testament or of the Old? God the Father or God the Son? - Did God raise Lazarus from the dead? Does God answer prayers? Is it right what's written about God returning? If there's equivocation, raise the question with the audience about what kind of person is arguing on their behalf: what diluted kind of God is he representing? Or if they follow the equivocation, explain the deal: you're willing to prove the existence of their God, but first they have to agree about the God they profess to believe in. Any way the coin lands, there are big opportunities to shift the level of confidence in their God, and explain a bit about how science works: how you can offer proof if only they'll agree on the evidence they'll accept. :: God answering prayers? Show the research against. :: "Some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”? Produce such a man and we'll test him. Explain the tests and fascinate people about what science can do. If the opponent doesn't accept any point on which they will allow proof to be based, ask them to choose a point. If they choose a point that cannot be proven, ask them to define how science can prove it (turn the question, because you offered already various proofs where they denied their God. If there's an impasse, pick another God and explain how science can disprove that. Invite opponent/audience to have a go at disproving their God. The benefit of all this, is that it's getting people to review what they believe and why they believe it; and to understand a bit about how science works, and the nature of testing and proof. Of course, the concept is a piece of poo, but I think it could make for a very worthwhile debate.
I admire your efforts to provide some strategies to difficult questions Matt. I heard his one recently and it stumped me: 'Let me axe you a question, how many times does the Bible say that slavery isn't a voluntary exchange of labour for some sort of compensation, yes or no?'
***** That is funny as hell. The only thing worse than a right-wing fundamentalist Christian dipshit is a right-wing libertarian fundamentalist Christian dipshit.
***** Now, I haven't researched this, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that words predate the Bible. So, whether the amount of times is 0 or 1,000 has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Usually terribly worded questions that don't make sense tend to work themselves out when the person who poised the question explains what the answer of that question is intended to imply. So a random number guess or simply asking why they're asking would reveal that.
Using knowledge theory, I can disprove both life-after-death and the idea that an intelligent agent created the material universe. This wouldn't disprove all gods but it would seem to disallow most of the major ones.
Hey Matt, this is unshareable on sites like Facebook because of the tinyurl link in the description section. Could you change that so I can share it? Thanks!
It is completely unreasonable to ask an atheist to disprove every possible god concept, but I find that as soon as you have a specific and concrete definition of what "god" is and as soon as you have an actual claim about how that god interacts with the world, you are in a great position to start disproving it. Unfortunately that starting point is almost impossible to come by. Theists like to keep the claims really vague, often only because they themselves aren't sure what they mean or what they believe. If I had to take this position in a debate, I would limit it to the god that is portrayed in the Bible. You may not be able to disprove all gods, but we know scientifically that many of the things the biblical god is reported to have done did not happen. This means that we can scientifically demonstrate that a god who created the universe in 7 days and who later flooded the whole earth with the exception of a floating zoo, etc, never existed. You might get the response that "just because he didn't do those things as described doesn't mean he doesn't exist." I would say that we are not talking about the biblical, Christian god in that case and we've moved outside of the scope of the debate. The fact that this could seem like a trick to win shows just how vacuous the god-claim really is and how ubiquitously vague the definitions of a god are.
I have to second what Durakken has said in the comments below: Science, as I've come to understand ( and if my memory was a bit better, could probably cite a few authors who have said this, Dawkins/Krauss are probably two of them), is all about proving each other wrong. You are in fact disproving models, or testing their validity and getting increased confidence when they succeed, or discarding and adjusting them when they fail. So it can only really disprove a theory, not really prove it to be true. You did say it's probabilistic, and implied the confidence we get from the models as time goes by, but saying it doesn't disprove anything goes against what I've read and heard from scientists along the years.
I am all for falsification, especially with unusual findings; when one should be applying even more rigorous testing/scrutiny. I agree that ideas can never be completely proved or disproved. In a nut shell, it all comes down to supporting/or refuting evidence...and provisionally accepting what you are left with, what seems to be evidently true. There will, however, and more than likely, be new evidence and perspective around the corner. To add: Of course, there are those rejected ideas/claims put forth that , so far, are unfalsifiable or untestable. Not that that stops them...and they shouldn't be stopped either; just start over and bring back evidence/data that supports your claim. Some will purchase their own journal, though. :)
Science can disproofe all the so called "proof" of god.Leaving no reason to belive in a god. If one is willing to belive in things that there is no reason to belive (other than wishfull thinking) one has given up on reality.
You touched on one of my favorite questions for which I have yet to recieve a (legitimate) answer: What is the religious method? Science has its methodology to arrive at truth, why has no religion offered the same? After all they are supposedly both the search for truth, why does only one side have a system?
I am with you 100%. Epistemology is all about method. Faith and revelation, the primary engines of religious belief, don't have one. Faith is good-doubt is bad. Good luck with that.
@ Matt, re 13:40 Technically, it's incorrect to say "Science doesn't 'disprove' anything." Any time a hypothesis is accepted it's because it has "disproven" the null hypothesis. It's a minor technicality, but if you/ they are being pedantic, it's a sticking point.
The last point from 32:06 is actually the most interesting to me. I'm an areligious theist and I do believe that the only proof a person can obtain for themselves is a direct feeling from God. If a person truly desires a feeling of love to come from God, he will get that. We can fool ourselves and say the words of prayer, without having the actual feeling of desire, longing, thirst for that love. I know it must sound painful to hear someone say, well you mustn't have been sincere then! I've gone through periods of months, trying to develop that feeling of desire, all the while /thinking the words/ "God give me love", and not receiving any for a long time. I gradually developed the capacity to desire for such overwhelming feelings to a point where I can allow the actual feeling for a short moment. A person saying "it's your fault" sounds very condemnatory and blaming, but for someone who has experienced feeling-based communication with God, it has to be the conclusion that for example, the desire and search may have been truthful, but based on desiring intellectual proof, rather than feeling based proof. So while it's not "your fault", the problem does lie at the end of the person not receiving. There could be all sorts of impediments to this process of reception of love, such as desiring intellectual proof and desiring conditionally (for example under the condition of it not triggering our grief of having searched for so long, etc.). I do understand this is like a 'win-win-situation' for the theist, something non-falsifiable, because the most important quality in longing for Gods love, sincerity, while God measures it objectively, is still subjective to the person praying. Anyway, I really like that you seem to have a lot more compassion and understanding for religious people, coming from a religious background yourself, than a lot of other atheists. I come from an atheist background myself, and have been taught how to experiment with this longing from the soul. Kind regards, your friend, Johan
Johan van den Berg, the basic problem with this is that if you ask people from different religions why they believe, they tend to come up with the same sort of direct feeling. So you had a direct feeling from something you interpret as God. Someone else has a direct feeling they interpret as Allah, or Brahma, or Buddhist enlightenment, etc. This sort of feeling is a human trait; as far as I know, it tells nothing about anything outside of the person doing the feeling. If a thousand people try your method and get a thousand different answers, how does this get us anywhere closer to finding out the right answer? If this sort of confusion is really what God intends for us, why should I bother with God?
If the qualities of a thing are mutually exclusive that disproves it . So even though we don't have the burden of proof, technically we can disprove it.
Hmm... how about: "They say that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But that isn't strictly true, is it? All of us are perfectly fine accepting the lack of evidence as evidence of absence. All the time. Take us, here in this room. There might be a tiger in here. And if there were, we should all run for the exits. But we don't, because we take the distinct lack of evidence for a tiger in the room as actual evidence that there isn't one."
"I'm not sure if your proposition even has a prayer" Maybe think about the non-idiomatic meaning of this. "Even if I wanted it to be[come] true, there is not a prayer I could say for this proposition."
Yesterday a colleague told me during an informal debate that he can't prove god to me, I have to accept the bible first. I responded that he can actually convince me with evidence and asked him for the reason why he believed, he was unable to give me that reason. God did it and apparently he didn't want to convince me. I found that very odd but he was okay with that. How could I have continued?
ahouyearno You could start by asking, as Matt does in the video, on what authority he rejects the verse 1st Peter 3:15. Though he more than likely will have no actual answers, as most believers actually don't know why they indeed do believe what they believe. It's simply been drummed into them from an early age. Most have never questioned it. For crying out loud, a large percentage have never even read the book they supposedly revere. Something I always found remarkable. If they do indeed believe the stories.
rationalmartian This person was actually an atheist until some years into his marriage. Fun fact, he had to marry because his then-girlfriend-now-wife was pregnant. He also admitted to adultery and extreme jealousy. Personally I think his sexual shame led him to christianity and one of my angles is to be proud and open about my monogamishamy. I'm not trying to convert him but when he repeatedly tries to convert me, I won't back off easily :D I'll remember 1Peter 3:15 when it comes up again.
ahouyearno "he can't prove god to me, I have to accept the bible first." That's probably the textbook example of question begging. "How could I have continued?" I don't think there is anything to continue to. He admits he lacks any sort of rational justification, then there is nothing ratio can do. "This person was actually an atheist until some years into his marriage. " I'm very skeptical about people making the 'I used to be an atheist'-this claim. Usually it's a political tactic called planting, which originates from CS Lewis. Often it just means "I wasn't as batshit fanatical about religion like I'm now".
***** Still, his sexual shame is probably what pushed him into extremism. I'm not ashamed for the things he also enjoyed. Do you think that's a good angle?
ahouyearno the notion that one must be willing to consider Biblical authority is a very common, dare I say, argument. One approach to that is by asking why would they appeal to the very thing being scrutinized in order to draw their conclusion? We cannot, meaningfully, refer to the very thing being scrutinized in order to assess the truth values of its own claims, especially given that the Bible already presupposes a god exists. Doing so will invariably lead to the conclusion that its own claims are true. It's nothing more than circular reasoning - a hallmark of intellectual laziness. I would also suggest that someone who is not willing to make any further effort to substantiate their claims, is not really worth debating at all. In doing so, your colleague suggests that he has no rationale for his beliefs aside from the Bible.
Before listening my initial reaction is: Usually. One on one, informal debate is reactive. For the JW at my door I ask, "Are you willing to change your religious position based on what I say today?" "No," says one. Smiling, "Me neither." For a friend or acquaintance, "I can tell the story of how I lost my faith. Your mileage may vary." ===============My version of my opening statement in a formal debate Can Science Disprove [some particular] God(s)? Usually Can Science Disprove [all] God(s)? No. Can Theists Prove God(s)? No, and they admit it; it takes faith. Can Theists Disprove [all other] God(s)? No. Nevertheless we can say that the Bayesian prior probability of having the one right sect with the truth (assuming such a sect exists) is remote indeed. Would you agree that over 1,000,000 sects have ever claimed or now do claim to being the right sect? The evidence must overcome at least 1/1,000,000 probabilities against randomly getting the right one. (I) What is your evidence. Not that one sect could be right, but that you have the right one. Shall we investigate the probability that one and only one sect could be right? Given all the false claims of being that one and only one that sect must have some real world evidence. Strong real world evidence. (2) Prove to me that magic words have power. Words do have power to affect the minds of listeners. There are people who make a living doing so. But, prove to me that anyone, anywhere, at any time, did magic. Invoking the name of a supernatural being optional. Many cases of "Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but no jam today." Miracles, in case you missed it are the jam. What was once thought to be Miracle, on the other hand, is commonplace. Those scientists are claiming (if I got it right) that _something-from-nothing_ goes on all the time in empty space. A natural miracle, if you will. Each mind a natural miracle, too. Each mind a unique self-concept. A denizen of concept space where all concepts reside. (Some religions claim no erasures.) Concept space is a member of itself. Being a human being being human is quite a concept. The two questions briefly, then: (1) What is your evidence? (2) Demonstrate that words have power over nature in any way you like. And if you must remain theist, may I suggest adopting Mother Nature as your goddess? She is mindless, unthinking, uncaring, neither malevolent nor benign, all powerful, and acts by choosing which of all available probabilities become reality at each here-and-now in spacetime.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Science is not interested in disproving god. "Science" is far too busy to delve into this question formally. We spend our time working to figure out how the universe actually works (and exists).
But it would make your work as a scientist much easier if you could answer every question with "god did it". I mean, just imagine how easy scientific research would become. Everybody in the world could get a degree in any science they want instantly. We all could be scientists.
This is something I've often used myself, "If you can't use science to prove god, or that science isn't the only other way to prove things, then explain a method that wouldn't ultimatly be science. I think you've often put it as, "Someone could get a scientific truth by accident and later be proven right, but doesn't mean they were right to believe it untill they have the reason." Believing the earth revolves around the sun because there is a invisible string attached to the earth and the sun keeping it there while correct that the earth goes around the sun was wrong in the reasoning. ANd ultimatly it would be science and evidence that proved part of the idea, even if it was claimed to be reached by another method." Maybe God and jesus exist and are out there doing stuff and one could arrive at this knowledge and truth through special revelation and other methods, but it will still be a form of science that Ultimatly PROVES it.
You can't disprove a negative. Especially with religion. People who believe have a deep seated need to believe that there is some higher power protecting them and providing rules to live their life by. No amount of debate will ever change that for oh, 99% of them. All we can do is distance civil laws from religious beliefs. It's going to take time. Religions had there place, they DID provide some basic principles that got us this far. But that's it; now they are impeding advancement. And so we must let them go and make science the way towards the future.
I like this approach; it's not that I as an atheist am trying to prove that God(s) do not exist, I just do not accept your ideas and/or theories for why God DOES exist. If you can show why the ideas are flawed, that's all you have to do.
One big mistake, the old gods were not ruled out because of science, Thor was forgotten long before we understood lighting . Thor was replaced with another God, all gods were. It is only in the last few decades we have had enough science to begin disproving gods. But you are right, this topic is a waste of time. Since can't disprove big foot either, it can't disprove anything. The only way to disprove god is to use their own gods against them, once you have them tell you why they don't believe in the hundred other gods, they have lost.
-"Can science disprove gods?" -Well, let me see what falsifiable hypothesis there was supporting gods, and start investigating if it verifies in nature. What do you have? -The universe exists, therefore who created it? -...Hard Facepalm.
Well. Any proposition, if it's worthy of examination and discussion or debate, can and should be flipped, I'm thinking. So let's do it now. Let's flip THIS one. "Can Religion prove God(s)?" If those who propose the first idea start to squirm when you suggest the "flip," then you know they might not be interested in honest discussion.
1⃣(The first 5-10 times I saw/heard Matt Dillahunty) ➡ "I will pray for your soul, Matt. Please remember that God loves you and has not forgotten you. The Bible clearly proves that our Creator is real and he does exist" 2⃣(After watching/listening to Matt Dillahunty for about 3-6 months) ➡ "I don't know Matt, I can't exactly give you what you need to believe in God, but I strongly feel as though he exists" 3⃣ (Around 9-11 months, and after watching and listening to almost every single Matt Dillahunty video and lecture) ➡ "Okay Matt....I was wrong. I am clearly an atheist and I'm not even sure when it happened, but you definitely changed my mind. But if I'm next to a hot chick, I'm for sure telling her that I taught you everything you know."
what religious and atheist people alike forget, is that the defense of religion is based on the need to reafirm the religious scheme of the universe as something that contains reward and punishment beyond any doubt. reward in heaven and punishment in hell. many religions were formulated in the ancient world when life was short and brutal, and people's minds could'nt accept the sum total of that meanness of existence. even today, with considerably improved living conditions, our frustrations and mortality are altogether too unjust to be accepted without some hope for comfort. by creating a more just and compassionate society here on earth there will be no need to defend the unproven claims of religion.
If i were stuck with this topic, i'd go the rout of looking to define a "god" as a Made up explanation to explain natural phonomena" and just by "doing science" itself disproves this version of a god redefining a concept is not a bad thing when the concept itself is vague, there are a number of used definitions of god and all you have to really do is point out that they are bad definitions... even if your opponent wants to use a definition that's in common use and in all the dictionaries; that does not mean its a good definition. in-order to win this one i think a god has to be thought of as a "man made explanation". doing so is not a strawman for the simple reason that the definition is not something you have to agree to. just don't equivocate the word.
i can't agree that science "doesn't disprove anything, ever". science _works_ by disproving things. it's the things that you can't disprove that become "models of reality". of course, in order for that to work, the thing being disproven needs to be _disprovable_ . that's where falsifiability comes in.
Asking science to disprove god is putting the cart before the horse regarding the subject of a claim that a god exists, so yes, it's just another example of shifting the burden of proof. I'm very tired of this type of dishonesty and I think that addressing dishonesty, is just as important in an atheist debate as addressing the facts. It may offend during a debate to suggest a person is not showing their proof before demanding it from the opposing view, but I don't care. Hypocrisy deserves no respect.
@@SNORKYMEDIA Appeal to dictionary fallacy. (You even left out the second half of that definition, to make matters worse) Look into more complete, fuller descriptions of what scientism is. It's too complex of a concept to understand from a one sentence definition Look into credible, reference / academic Encyclopedias and how they describe it, rather than descriptive dictionaries like that.
@7inrain Another issue, beyond that it's a guilt by association fallacy is that it doesn't even make sense. Scientism is associated with people who tend to blindly believe the current consensus of mainstream academia over competing options, just because they "trust the experts" Flat Earthers are not a group associated with that kind of thinking. They're a group warning about it.
I will sometimes hear, "Well, you can't disprove god exists." I always go with, "True. I also can't prove there isn't a tennis match being played on the dark side of the moon." I will occasionally continue with something like, "The evidence for such a tennis match is about equal to the existence of god. So, do you believe that tennis match is being played? You probably don't. Ask yourself; why."
Katie Anderson I'd say the tennis match is actually more probable. We actually know we have the technology to reach the moon and build a structure there.
Katie Anderson A Tennis match taking place on the dark side of the moon is confirmable and provable. Whether or not you have the ability or evidence to convince anybody is not bearing on whether it can be proven. You're actually presenting a tu quoque fallacy argument on their behalf. If I were to argue against your statement, I would point out that I could build a space shuttle with a large flashlight on it and rocket you and myself up there and we can take 3D 4k video of what we find there. Maybe we don't see a tennis match being played. That doesn't prove it's not there. You might just need to take a better look at whats right in front of you. I know building a shuttle with an enormous flashlight and getting enough money to afford a 3D 4K camera are similar to the amount of faith it takes to see god playing tennis on the dark side of the moon. But he'll give you the space shuttle and the camera for free. Or something along those lines if they're half competent. There are assumptions within that argument but that's irrelevant.
The proper way to state your analogy would be to say you CAN prove there is a tennis match. You can in the sense that it is feasible/possible to do so. You would need to provide the images of people holding tennis rackets with a tennis ball and net in the vicinity. The synergy of the claims that there are 2 people, using tennis rackets, their position being on the dark side of the moon and the presence of a tennis ball and net would be needed to prove that there is a tennis match being held on the dark side of the moon. In order to disprove that there are people playing tennis on the darkside of the moon, only one of these statements would need to be debunked. It wouldn't contract from the rest of the claims but any of them being untrue would contract from the claim that there is a tennis match being playing on the dark side of the moon.
This reminds me of something that Aron Ra said which is that science may not know everything, but religion doesn't know anything.
That's a very silly statement. For instance, there's a lot to learn from the Bible, even if you are an atheist. Listen to Robert M. Price's great podcast, the Bible geek - or read some of the very many books he mentions in his programme.
Piero della Francesca Only thing I learned from the bible is nonsense. If you like nonsense, its a good read.
Your ignorance is the problem, not the Bible - if you really believe that it contains ONLY nonsense. Listen to a few episodes of Robert M. Price's The Bible Geek and hopefully you'll realize that.
Piero della Francesca I didn't say the bible is ALL nonsense, but the extraordinary claims of the bible don't stand up to critical inquiry and scientific discourse. There are some truths in the bible just like there are some truths to ANY holy text such as the Koran and vedas. But the things that are true in the bible are NOT true because its in the bible, its true because later we found them out to be true.
Thor DOES control the lightning. I am in charge of the beer.
whynottalklikeapirat "I am in charge of the beer."
Sorry, but Ninkasi already beat you to it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninkasi
Vlad Tepes Preposterous! What she does is a cheap knock-off of my original recipe, produced under unethical working conditions in a foreign country, using produce that would be illegal anywhere else due to the content of pure plutonium and neurotoxins.
I'm having fun looking at the DVDs in the background: "I have that...I have that...I have that..."
Believer: Your Relationship with god is simply a profound and dynamic relationship with the self, with your ego. This is why god can seem so very real to you. In a sense he is real. He is you. This is why god's opinions are so very often your opinions. This is why two believers of the same religion can both claim to agree with god's opinion but not with each others. When you pray and god gives you answers you are the source of those intuitions. You are simply having a conversation with yourself and don't even realize it. This is why god can always assuage any doubts of the believer. You see, "God" knows exactly how you think because he is you. He knows your tastes, your biases and all the gaps in your logic. Therefore it follows that "he" knows what arguments you will find compelling and what mental gymnastics you are capable of to ignore any arguments to the contrary. Ironically I probably can't convince you of anything I stated above because of the very fact that it is in fact true. You are "god".
The next time you hear someone preaching or waxing poetic about god, Jesus, Mohamed or Joseph Smith, change all the names and pronouns you hear them say, in your mind, so that they refer to the person speaking and trust me you will get a whole new perspective on life.
This is why believers have such a strong emotional reaction whenever they encounter a non-believer. They simply misperceive the non-believers rational skepticism about the supernatural and occult as an assault on their "god" which is to say their own personal identity.
There are a vast multitude of religions and superstitious beliefs in the world that espouse many mutually contradicting doctrines. Therefore they cannot all be true. but they can certainly all be false. Even if one were actually proven to be true it would still follow that human beings have a rather remarkable propensity for making up entire religions from whole cloth. I think that all religions and other supernatural beliefs are cultural phenomena of purely human making. Much of this impulse in human culture is driven by peoples existential angst, their innate and instinctive fear of death. Their own death and the death of the people they love. It can seem easier to deal with death by convincing ourselves that it is not real. "My loved one is not dead they are in the afterlife", we tell ourselves. And "Of course I will never die! that's absurd!". You all need to grow up. Embrace the suck! And make the most of the time you actually do have.
You are mortal. Death is real...... Get over it.
I sincerely and earnestly do not believe that gods exist. But you have each other. Perhaps that alone could bring meaning to your lives.
However if you insist on believing in supernatural claims at a minimum please do us all a big favor and don't give your hard earned money to religions pimps and hucksters.
I loved, LOVED the bit in the opening statement about your opponent having to prove your position because they don't believe in other gods. that was brilliant.
I've watched this twice already today and shared it on one of my Atheist fb group pages. Matt, this video is really fantastic.
Matt Dillahunty thank you for posting this. Over the past few weeks I have been engaged in debates (on the internet) with theists who simply don't understand how burden of proof works.
I suspect that many theists believe that because an idea is old and generally accepted, that burden of proof lies with the atheist, and reveals an important assumption: that atheism is an opinion, belief, or a world view. Although many theists I've spoken with voice this assumption outright, I think it is important to point it out in the event that they do not.
I had a conversation with several theists, at length, on Dan Arel's recent Patheos post, "10 Myths About Atheists That Won't Go Away," who maintained just such a position. Atheism is the logical rejection of the proposition that a god exists - nothing more. In other words atheism, by definition, makes no claims and - in and of itself - therefore has nothing to prove. That isn't to say that atheists don't make claims, nor does it mean that atheists are exempt from providing a rationale for those claims. The burden of proof is _always_ on the claimant no matter who it is.
***** I don't disagree with you given that you repeated what I just said. A negation in the belief that a god exists, which is the definition of atheism, is not the same as saying a god does not exist.
Beyond agreeing with me that burden of proof is on claimants, I have no idea what you're talking about.
***** nowhere have I said that I believe that god does not exist. Atheism is the negation of the _claim_ that god does exist. Atheism does not negate the existence of god, nor the possibility. As it happens, I can justify my negation in light of the fact that no empirical evidence for the existence of god is available; I haven't been provided with a reason to believe that god exists.
You're making a lot of assumptions here, and also proving my original point. You have every right to believe what you do, and I am in no position to rob you of that. It is not my goal to get you to stop believing in god. No one is saying you cannot believe in god, but doing so implies a truth positive claim. You are saying that you have a reason to believe that it does exist. That makes you the _claimant_, and therefore the burden of proof is yours. It is not my responsibility to tell you why you're wrong, but it is _your_ responsibility to provide a reason why others should accept your claim.
You don't _have_ to do anything. You are not required to explain yourself at all, unless your goal is to convince people of your claim, then the onus is on you. That's just how logic works.
Would it be reasonable for me to make it your responsibility to prove that my pet unicorn, Larry, does not exist? Or is it more reasonable for me to show you a photo, or bring you to my home to substantiate my claim about Larry? Do you believe in Thor? Shiva? why or why not?
***** classic example of someone arguing from definition, but neglects or omits the part of the definition that is inconvenient.
_or _*_lacks belief_*_ in the existence of God or gods_. There, now we get a full picture. That "or" is a disjunction and is not there for decoration - it's there for a reason. It signifies either "a" *or* "b." To say that one "lacks belief" is another way of saying, "I don't have a reason to believe what I'm being told." You are coming to me saying "god exists, " and I'm telling you that "I don't believe you."
With that out of the way, _atheism_ is the _negation_ of the *_claim_* that a god exists, which is what the definition you provided means. You're operating under the assumption that atheism _makes the claim that god does not exist_, or that it means that _one believes that a god does not exist_ and neither of those statements are true. As a theist, your claim is you believe in a god or group of gods. As an atheist, I'm telling you "_I don't believe you, and I don't have a reason for believing there is a god or gods."_ Saying "I don't believe in a god or group of gods" isn't the same thing as saying "I believe there are no gods."
Here's an example, and tell me if you see the difference.
Let's say you tell me to grab three oranges from the kitchen, however, I am unable to find them. I might reply with one of two statements:
1. I don't see any oranges.
2. There are no oranges.
In the first statement, I am asserting that I am not able to find any oranges. The first statement demonstrates a negation of the _appearance_ of, or _evidence for_, the oranges. I'm not saying there aren't any oranges in the kitchen, I just don't see them and have no reason to believe that they are there.
In the second, I am claiming that there are _no_ oranges; I am negating the *existence* of said oranges. I'm telling you that there are absolutely no oranges in the kitchen.
Do you see a difference between these two statements? If you don't, then I don't think you and I have anything further to discuss.
***** this conversation is over. Your inability to learn, or unwillingness to grasp basic propositional logic, or to adhere to the basic rules of making a claim indicates that this exchange is going nowhere. But let me leave you with a few things to ponder:
1. Burden of Proof
wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Burden_of_proof
www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm
thelawdictionary.org/burden-of-proof/
2. You say:
_"also
if I ask you to disprove god just say I cant don't be a child and say its not my job"_
But you haven't asked me to disprove god, and if you had I would tell you that you're being intellectually disingenuous because, again, you want to shift the burden of proof to me. The same way that, again, if I tell you that I have a pet unicorn named Larry I wouldn't make it your job to prove me wrong. It is clear that you have no concept of what having the burden of proof actually means.
3. With respect to what you believe about the word "belief," the door does not swing both ways for "belief" and "lack of belief." If you believe something to be true, you are making the claim - you are taking the position- that something is true. If I say "I don't believe you," or that I "lack the belief" in what you've told me, I am _dismissing_ your claim on the basis that you haven't provided me with a good reason to accept what you say as true. The negation of the phrase "believe in" isn't "believe in nothing," it is "I don't believe."
I would also add that atheism is a "belief" to the same extent that "bald" is a hair color.
4. You focused on the section of a definition for atheism that, you deem, is the best-suited to make your case but have conveniently omitted the rest of the definition itself. Do you find this to be an honest gesture?
5. You get to believe whatever you want, and no one is going to stop you. But when you come knocking on our doors trying to sell us an invisible product, don't be surprised to find those doors closing when you've got nothing to sell. And no amount of definition neglect, or term distortion is going to make it past me.
Let me be perfectly clear; I don't want what you have - I'm not buying what you're selling. I find you to be intellectually dishonest and have absolutely no desire to continue this conversation with you.
***** you love definitions so much, yet you don't seem to understand me when I say "this conversation is over."
Go to your school's principle and suggest that your teachers be fired because they have failed - miserably.
Good bye.
The fact that you have a "Penn&Teller Bullshit!" DVD collection in the background makes me love you more and more Matt.
Matt knocks it out of the park again, well done. The only thing that might have made it better would have been to give (more?) examples of other theoretical debates that show the problem with the debate topic. Perhaps such as "Can sewing machines disprove knitting?" or "Can the fork disprove chopsticks?" Maybe these aren't the best analogies but I'm curious if there are better ones because it might cut through some of the fog on this.
what I would like to see is a debate being refereed by a small set of philosophy judges who could stop the debate occasionally if one debater has committed a logical fallacy. They hit a buzzer when there's a foul, stop the discussion and illustrate the fallacy and let the offending party adjust their point. Maybe 3 or 5 random Ph.Ds in philosophy who are agreed upon by both debaters. WLC, where are you now?
the first apologist round would take hours
+Matt Dillahunty True. Or they would have to abandon each point quickly and their first round would be over quickly. Or more likely you would get no takers on the concept. Keep up the great work. Will be getting involved in Patreon soon.
+elibeth1211 - please tell us what lies he told
WLC would need subtitles since he would be drowned out by the noise of the buzzers.
@@SansDeity would take hours, yes, and so it should. That exactly should be the point. Lawyers are not allowed to introduce . . yanno . . bullshit whenever they want. I know, I know, debates should be civil and respectful and blah blah blah but given the pattern of apologists' . . yanno . . . *bullshit*, it is time for the respect to end and simply demonstrate, repeatedly, for hours, their . . .yanno . . .bullshit.
Excellent... Just what I needed, thanks Matt.
I like how progressive you are about furthering the discussion, Matt.
While many are so closed about it, like shut the door, your wrong and that is it, your refined argument is continuing to evolve in such a way as to show your genuine caring for these people.
I like these tools and how you shared them here. Thanks.
I wish I needed (and could afford) a speech writer. That was outstanding.
splendid video as per always matt, thanks so much for your efforts in sharing these, they are exceedingly informative and quite interesting. take care.
I thought it was up to them to prove their god.
thebatmanover9000 it is, but they will often flip the script and expect you to disprove their god, and one has to know how to deal with it.
James Powers
*"Yeah, dismiss me, but you can't dismiss my irrefutable facts"*
how about you even present some instead of preaching...
*"LOL. So much for "knowing how to deal w/ it" :) We both know you can't "deal" w/ me."*
Im "dealing" with you like a pigeon on a chessboard knocking over the pices and shitting on the board while its thinking its winning the game
i just need to sweep you aside and wait for a real challenger...
*Getting serious for a sec*.
Preaching at me is not even playing the game of "rational discourse" why would i indulge you?
James Powers
*">>> No problem: I can easily prove God: Look at your hand. It's muscles, nerves, bones, blood vessels with a high complexity meticulous design for an obvious task of high functional ability - all hooked up to the rest of the body right up to the brain and the rest of the body - a BRILLIANT DESIGN."*
NON SEQUITUR.
*" Could you make it? No"*
YES, i just need to have a kid ....duh....=/
*"How about the universe. Could you create the universe?"*
just because i cant doesn't mean a god did.
*"Clearly, both your hand and the universe & all things in it, are designed and didn't just"*
no, they are natural occurrences. from the starting conditions left over from the Big bang.
*" I called you on it every time. My irrefutable detailed facts are to be refuted in detail or you default."*
claims are not facts in of-themselves.
*">>> Big talk for someone that I have consistently proved has no bullets for battle, LOL!!"*
because your not worth even the air the bullets displace.
*">>> You count yourself special while you're just another # destined for hell. You know where the door is. Atheists have lost against truth before we even start."*
Preaching at me is not even playing the game of "rational discourse" why would i indulge you?
Ziliath Hahaahahhahahahahah nice. Yeah James Powers is one of those ultra butt hutt Christian trolls who thinks too greatly of himself. Basically his attitude is to make a big deal about how amazingly intelligent and unbeatable his arguments are as he preaches and babbles on with utter nonsense making fallacy after fallacy.
The guy lives his life with his head buried up his own arse as he tries to emulate smart people. It's just a shame the guy doesn't seem to realize that smart people don't think making claims is the same as point out a fact and the point of intelligent conversation is not to dig his heels in and refuse to ever be willing to admit error ever arguing his point constantly, no matter how obvious it becomes that his position is illogical, but is actually to discuss things in and adult, honest manner and to enlighten people or become more enlightened if it's demonstrated that you're the one in the wrong.
He seems to have this pathetic, high school jock attitude, rambling on about how crushed his puny enemies, and owned every last one of them. He's a pretentious windbag and a sad excuse for a human being who's here trolling Matt Dillahunty's channel because the existence of atheism along is enough to send him flying into a rage storm of hissy fits, insults and empty hell threats. I wouldn't bother taking him too seriously. It's obvious he has nothing better to do with his time chucking a tantrum and acting smug on atheist videos so he can pretend he's smarter then everyone in order to compensate for the fact that he's a moron.
What a sad, small, weak individual. Small man syndrome is a bitch and one doesn't need to be short in stature to suffer from it. Apparently it's common among intellectual midgets who stand next to intellectual giants. I mean the guy thinks that this is how you refute something- "NUHHHHHHHHHH UHHHHHHHHHHH!". Clearly low on the intellectual ladder wouldn't you say?
Demogorgon47
I concur whole-heatedly.
This is my second conversation with him, the first time i actually took him seriously and actually indulged him in rational discourse...
That, was a mistake. And i didn't want to repeat that for this conversation; of which he completely ignored the topic and wanted to get back to our old conversation...
So i basically told him that he wasn't worth my time... and being a Butt hurt troll he tried to snag me anyway,
He still has yet to tell me why i ought to indulge him in rational discourse.. all he could think to do was insult me and preach at me...
When will people like him realize that doing so; DOES NOT WORK!
lol...
I'm really nitpicking, but I get all twitchy when someone uses "prove" in a non-deductive reasoning mathematical sense instead of "demonstrate". I know people use them interchangeably and I don't want to be a language prescriptivist, but it still bugs me a bit.
I debated this issue once in a big forum at my school I'll give you my approach its very similar to his method.
1) nail down the definition of God and establish that you are not required to disprove God as you are not making am epistemological claim.
2) I was debating a fundamentalist so he equated God as the biblical Jesus
3) I got my opponent to cede certain things and properties about his God which I had come up before hand that we're directly contrary to science.
4) nail him on these points, and don't let him redefine God whatsoever.
5) I recognize that it is not always this cut and dry as most savvy theological types tend to have a nebulous definition of God. However, if you can get them to nail down a definitive God with properties that run contrary to science you pretty much have them
6) I won't do this topic again as it really plays into the theistic hand.
Thanks for the video Matt i love this project I have started a secular student alliance at my school and these videos have helped all of us hone our ability to engage theist at our catholic conservative school.
Excellent video. I also like the use of Bayes theorem to show the low probability of unlikely propositions.
Brilliant opening, Matt!
Yes science/logic can rule-out some types of god. There are a couple of levels.
1. Gods which even are not coherently defined. In this case, there is nothing meaningful to start with.
2. Gods that are logically inconsistent. This type of god doesn't exist by its own contradictory definitions. The god of the bible is in this category.
3. Gods that have attributes that contradict fundamental physical laws. Violations of speed of light, conservation laws for example.
4. Gods that might not contradict physical law but whose attributes would be inconsistent with the world as we know it..
Of course the response will always be that any such god ruled-out by such a method is "outside of the laws of the universe" or some variation of "magic".
But this automatically redefines the god into category 1 because a god outside of the universe cannot possibly act within the universe without being subject to those laws. It also makes the whole argument circular.
AdamWho
1. Science can't disprove this. Philosophy already did.
2. Theists can just say that their invisible friend is magic, therefore the physical laws don't apply.
3. Again: magic.
If you want a view of theism from the scientific point of view, may I recommend God: The Failed Hypothesis by Stenger?
Paul T Sjordal I was going to post this, fully agree.
1 is disproved by the laws of logic, not science. 2 and 3 ignore the nature of supernaturalism: anything goes, it's unfalsifiable.
Science can deal with certain supernatural models, not by tackling the supernatural claim, but by finding inconsistencies with reality in the natural framework where the supernatural claim is made(not all claims are made in this vaccuum), by way of modus tollens f.e.
For example
p1)if godmodel A created man in Adam and Eve by way of special creation 6000 years ago, this would appear in genetics
p2)genetics shows we evolved from earlier apes instead of special creation
c) godmodel A can be rejected.
taledarkside
The book by Stenger (also a physicist) is also worth your time.
+AdamWho Nobody ever can confirm or disprove anything. You can only make assumptions from the information available. For example, nobody can disprove that Caesar didn't know about the iPhone; however, from the information we have about that era, we can say that he didn't know about it. It applies to anything.
Amazing work making this impossible topic interesting. At first I thought that the only sensible advice would be to not debate this question. But you presented some pretty good angles.
Excellent video Matt. This also seems a good method for considering other supernatural claims, where you can pretty much substitute the term 'god' with the supernatural ''.
been watching these to prep for holidays with the family.
How did you fare?
avoided them completely.
I also like James Randi's take on this argument with his "can you prove reindeer can't fly?" question.
Thanks for the video's Matt, I've learned so much from your them.
René Descartes described the scientific method in the following terms: "I will accept nothing that cannot be proven." (I am paraphrasing, of course, because he wrote that in French.) This implies that doing science you can accept gods IF they can be proven. Disproving things is not the province of science.
I do not do science studies with those that believe in invisible people.
at 12:55 I was looking at the movies behind Matt there thinking that he may watch some weird philosophical pieces for entertainment but he seems to be your regular scifi watcher
Thanks Matt, another excellent video.
The argument that God reveals Himself to those who humbly and sincerely seek Him is astoundingly flawed. The first obvious problem is that belief must already be in place beforehand; how else can your request be sincere?
But the issues are only just beginning. If God is real and if He makes Himself known to those who seek Him, then the only possible conclusion is that God has compelling evidence that He only reveals to those who need it least. And despite the fact that it was God's choice to withhold this information, He will punish non-believers mercilessly for never having uncovered it.
This is the problem with religious apologetics. Every attempt to protect one claim sacrifices another, yet they are comfortable returning to the latter pretending it is as robust as ever.
Damn that was interesting and impressive- well done Matt.
I think science shows more and more there is no requirement for a god, as we learn more and correct mistakes its consistant, its not perfect, but it is self correcting, because its constantly being tested somewhere.
Religion tends to try to creep into our ignorance, which i personally find offensive, just because i do not know something does not mean im going to accept a substitute nonsense as the answer "i dont know" and "santa did it" are to me identical phrases in respect to science.
That is a fantastic opening.
Awesome! Matt I'd love to transcribe and translate this into Portuguese in my channel to spread this reflection in Brazil. Do I have your approval for this?
Thanks for all the amazing work you've been doing during all these years!
Cheers!
Who here thinks Dillahunty should fill Hitchens' spot in the Four Horsemen?
Johnn,
He's already apart of the Unholy Trinity though, and I find that group more dynamic then the four horsemen.
I don't know. I find Matt way more respectable than Sam Harris.
I don't know if I'd say Sam isn't respectable. I feel like they feel different niche's
John 'Who here thinks Dillahunty should fill Hitchens' spot in the Four Horsemen?"
Would that be Pestilence or Famine?
Yep
This is one of your best imo
ffairlane57 Maybe they get better every time :o
I think Victor Stenger may have approached this topic in a different manner, hence his book God: The Failed Hypothesis. Define the god, describe what we should observe if this god is real, and check if these observations adhere to reality. He does an excellent job of taking down the idea of any god with any of the three "O's": omnipresent, omnipowerful and omnibenevolent.
Matt here excels, as usual, by taking a more accessible approach, however. Great job, man!
"I think I'm going to hell if I don't bow my knee to a creator, because I'm a sinner". Beyond the fact that there is not evidence or proof of a creator, nor specifically Christian God, let's analyze that as if it were fact. I am a sinner, because God made me a sinner. I sin because I am imperfect, as God made me. I give my life to worship at the foot of the creator, because he made me so imperfect that if I don't, I will burn forever in a torture chamber of his design and designation. But don't worry, he loves me. God cares for me and loves me, just enough to let me live with him for eternity. However, since he has not provided any method of proof beyond a 2000+ year old book, his existence is not clear to me, so because of that shortcoming brought on by his negligence I am damned to an eternity in hell. But don't worry, he loves me. I look around at a world that has disease, famine, natural disasters, suffering brought on by nature and by man, and there supposedly exists an all powerful being of which this world is his design, and who could stop this suffering and pain with a snap of his fingers, yet he does nothing about any of it. Instead he chooses to give us a "way out" by worshipping his existence for the mere fact he brought us into this world, to offer us salvation from the "fallen world that we created" even though he technically created it as an all seeing entity who created us with the knowledge that we would mess it up. As long as we give all of our being to him and devote our lives to his "greatness" we don't have to suffer an unjust eternity in hell. But don't worry, he loves us. These are but a few of the issues I have with the Christian God. Beyond the fact that I see no evidence for his existence beyond testimony and a book, if he was real I would see him as a moral and sadistic monster. So separation from him for eternity sounds just fine to me.
Fantastic once again.
I really like this opening statement.
Matt Dillahunty Amazing commentary. Just brilliant. I'm wondering Matt, what you thought of Sean Carroll's scientific refutation of the afterlife (or at least concsciousness after death). He seemed to be making a positive refutation, albeit within the boundaries of naturalism.
Good job Matt..I love these videos keep up the good work.
I see God as no more than a concept or an idea, that people create in their own minds.
Most times in my conversations with folks, in person and here on YT, I like to bring up that every single fact, backed by irrefutable evidence, points away from supernatural causation or explanation of phenomena. Seems pretty simple to me. A better question to debate, would be 'What is the evidence for god(s)?' The debate would be absolutely dead silence from the side of no evidence. One way conversation, as in talking to said god(s).
I really enjoy how Matt often reminds us that theists are not idiots, and that we atheists can ourselves act silly when, for example, reading the Bible, or debating.
It's a very nice talk. :-) Much enjoyed it,
science cannot disprove god but it can disprove the bible.
I have in mind an alternative way, although it would take nimble debating skills to carry it off.
Suppose we let our opponent first define their God.
- Is it the God of the bible?
- Can we rely on how the bible defines God?
- Parameter check: The God of the whole bible, or the God of the bits you like? The God of the New Testament or of the Old? God the Father or God the Son?
- Did God raise Lazarus from the dead? Does God answer prayers? Is it right what's written about God returning?
If there's equivocation, raise the question with the audience about what kind of person is arguing on their behalf: what diluted kind of God is he representing? Or if they follow the equivocation, explain the deal: you're willing to prove the existence of their God, but first they have to agree about the God they profess to believe in. Any way the coin lands, there are big opportunities to shift the level of confidence in their God, and explain a bit about how science works: how you can offer proof if only they'll agree on the evidence they'll accept.
:: God answering prayers? Show the research against.
:: "Some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”? Produce such a man and we'll test him. Explain the tests and fascinate people about what science can do.
If the opponent doesn't accept any point on which they will allow proof to be based, ask them to choose a point. If they choose a point that cannot be proven, ask them to define how science can prove it (turn the question, because you offered already various proofs where they denied their God.
If there's an impasse, pick another God and explain how science can disprove that. Invite opponent/audience to have a go at disproving their God.
The benefit of all this, is that it's getting people to review what they believe and why they believe it; and to understand a bit about how science works, and the nature of testing and proof.
Of course, the concept is a piece of poo, but I think it could make for a very worthwhile debate.
I admire your efforts to provide some strategies to difficult questions Matt. I heard his one recently and it stumped me:
'Let me axe you a question, how many times does the Bible say that slavery isn't a voluntary exchange of labour for some sort of compensation, yes or no?'
*****
Yes.
***** That is funny as hell. The only thing worse than a right-wing fundamentalist Christian dipshit is a right-wing libertarian fundamentalist Christian dipshit.
***** Now, I haven't researched this, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that words predate the Bible. So, whether the amount of times is 0 or 1,000 has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Usually terribly worded questions that don't make sense tend to work themselves out when the person who poised the question explains what the answer of that question is intended to imply. So a random number guess or simply asking why they're asking would reveal that.
Using knowledge theory, I can disprove both life-after-death and the idea that an intelligent agent created the material universe. This wouldn't disprove all gods but it would seem to disallow most of the major ones.
Hey Matt, this is unshareable on sites like Facebook because of the tinyurl link in the description section. Could you change that so I can share it? Thanks!
It is completely unreasonable to ask an atheist to disprove every possible god concept, but I find that as soon as you have a specific and concrete definition of what "god" is and as soon as you have an actual claim about how that god interacts with the world, you are in a great position to start disproving it. Unfortunately that starting point is almost impossible to come by. Theists like to keep the claims really vague, often only because they themselves aren't sure what they mean or what they believe.
If I had to take this position in a debate, I would limit it to the god that is portrayed in the Bible. You may not be able to disprove all gods, but we know scientifically that many of the things the biblical god is reported to have done did not happen. This means that we can scientifically demonstrate that a god who created the universe in 7 days and who later flooded the whole earth with the exception of a floating zoo, etc, never existed. You might get the response that "just because he didn't do those things as described doesn't mean he doesn't exist." I would say that we are not talking about the biblical, Christian god in that case and we've moved outside of the scope of the debate.
The fact that this could seem like a trick to win shows just how vacuous the god-claim really is and how ubiquitously vague the definitions of a god are.
Thankfully you will be able to add to that X-Files collection soon...
I have to second what Durakken has said in the comments below: Science, as I've come to understand ( and if my memory was a bit better, could probably cite a few authors who have said this, Dawkins/Krauss are probably two of them), is all about proving each other wrong. You are in fact disproving models, or testing their validity and getting increased confidence when they succeed, or discarding and adjusting them when they fail. So it can only really disprove a theory, not really prove it to be true. You did say it's probabilistic, and implied the confidence we get from the models as time goes by, but saying it doesn't disprove anything goes against what I've read and heard from scientists along the years.
Could we see something about the Socratic method sometime, as it pertains to debating?
I am all for falsification, especially with unusual findings; when one should be applying even more rigorous testing/scrutiny.
I agree that ideas can never be completely proved or disproved. In a nut shell, it all comes down to supporting/or refuting evidence...and provisionally accepting what you are left with, what seems to be evidently true. There will, however, and more than likely, be new evidence and perspective around the corner.
To add: Of course, there are those rejected ideas/claims put forth that , so far, are unfalsifiable or untestable. Not that that stops them...and they shouldn't be stopped either; just start over and bring back evidence/data that supports your claim.
Some will purchase their own journal, though. :)
Science can disproofe all the so called "proof" of god.Leaving no reason to belive in a god. If one is willing to belive in things that there is no reason to belive (other than wishfull thinking) one has given up on reality.
You touched on one of my favorite questions for which I have yet to recieve a (legitimate) answer:
What is the religious method?
Science has its methodology to arrive at truth, why has no religion offered the same? After all they are supposedly both the search for truth, why does only one side have a system?
I am with you 100%. Epistemology is all about method. Faith and revelation, the primary engines of religious belief, don't have one. Faith is good-doubt is bad.
Good luck with that.
Yes with the Large Hadron Collider
@ Matt, re 13:40
Technically, it's incorrect to say "Science doesn't 'disprove' anything." Any time a hypothesis is accepted it's because it has "disproven" the null hypothesis.
It's a minor technicality, but if you/ they are being pedantic, it's a sticking point.
Valuable information!
The last point from 32:06 is actually the most interesting to me. I'm an areligious theist and I do believe that the only proof a person can obtain for themselves is a direct feeling from God. If a person truly desires a feeling of love to come from God, he will get that. We can fool ourselves and say the words of prayer, without having the actual feeling of desire, longing, thirst for that love. I know it must sound painful to hear someone say, well you mustn't have been sincere then! I've gone through periods of months, trying to develop that feeling of desire, all the while /thinking the words/ "God give me love", and not receiving any for a long time. I gradually developed the capacity to desire for such overwhelming feelings to a point where I can allow the actual feeling for a short moment. A person saying "it's your fault" sounds very condemnatory and blaming, but for someone who has experienced feeling-based communication with God, it has to be the conclusion that for example, the desire and search may have been truthful, but based on desiring intellectual proof, rather than feeling based proof. So while it's not "your fault", the problem does lie at the end of the person not receiving. There could be all sorts of impediments to this process of reception of love, such as desiring intellectual proof and desiring conditionally (for example under the condition of it not triggering our grief of having searched for so long, etc.).
I do understand this is like a 'win-win-situation' for the theist, something non-falsifiable, because the most important quality in longing for Gods love, sincerity, while God measures it objectively, is still subjective to the person praying.
Anyway, I really like that you seem to have a lot more compassion and understanding for religious people, coming from a religious background yourself, than a lot of other atheists. I come from an atheist background myself, and have been taught how to experiment with this longing from the soul.
Kind regards,
your friend,
Johan
Johan van den Berg, the basic problem with this is that if you ask people from different religions why they believe, they tend to come up with the same sort of direct feeling. So you had a direct feeling from something you interpret as God. Someone else has a direct feeling they interpret as Allah, or Brahma, or Buddhist enlightenment, etc. This sort of feeling is a human trait; as far as I know, it tells nothing about anything outside of the person doing the feeling. If a thousand people try your method and get a thousand different answers, how does this get us anywhere closer to finding out the right answer? If this sort of confusion is really what God intends for us, why should I bother with God?
If the qualities of a thing are mutually exclusive that disproves it . So even though we don't have the burden of proof, technically we can disprove it.
It’s like trying to solve a murder but everybody still alive
Hmm... how about:
"They say that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But that isn't strictly true, is it? All of us are perfectly fine accepting the lack of evidence as evidence of absence. All the time. Take us, here in this room. There might be a tiger in here. And if there were, we should all run for the exits. But we don't, because we take the distinct lack of evidence for a tiger in the room as actual evidence that there isn't one."
"I'm not sure if your proposition even has a prayer"
Maybe think about the non-idiomatic meaning of this. "Even if I wanted it to be[come] true, there is not a prayer I could say for this proposition."
Yesterday a colleague told me during an informal debate that he can't prove god to me, I have to accept the bible first.
I responded that he can actually convince me with evidence and asked him for the reason why he believed, he was unable to give me that reason. God did it and apparently he didn't want to convince me. I found that very odd but he was okay with that. How could I have continued?
ahouyearno You could start by asking, as Matt does in the video, on what authority he rejects the verse 1st Peter 3:15.
Though he more than likely will have no actual answers, as most believers actually don't know why they indeed do believe what they believe. It's simply been drummed into them from an early age. Most have never questioned it. For crying out loud, a large percentage have never even read the book they supposedly revere. Something I always found remarkable. If they do indeed believe the stories.
rationalmartian This person was actually an atheist until some years into his marriage. Fun fact, he had to marry because his then-girlfriend-now-wife was pregnant. He also admitted to adultery and extreme jealousy.
Personally I think his sexual shame led him to christianity and one of my angles is to be proud and open about my monogamishamy.
I'm not trying to convert him but when he repeatedly tries to convert me, I won't back off easily :D I'll remember 1Peter 3:15 when it comes up again.
ahouyearno "he can't prove god to me, I have to accept the bible first."
That's probably the textbook example of question begging.
"How could I have continued?"
I don't think there is anything to continue to. He admits he lacks any sort of rational justification, then there is nothing ratio can do.
"This person was actually an atheist until some years into his marriage. "
I'm very skeptical about people making the 'I used to be an atheist'-this claim. Usually it's a political tactic called planting, which originates from CS Lewis. Often it just means "I wasn't as batshit fanatical about religion like I'm now".
***** Still, his sexual shame is probably what pushed him into extremism. I'm not ashamed for the things he also enjoyed. Do you think that's a good angle?
ahouyearno the notion that one must be willing to consider Biblical authority is a very common, dare I say, argument. One approach to that is by asking why would they appeal to the very thing being scrutinized in order to draw their conclusion? We cannot, meaningfully, refer to the very thing being scrutinized in order to assess the truth values of its own claims, especially given that the Bible already presupposes a god exists. Doing so will invariably lead to the conclusion that its own claims are true. It's nothing more than circular reasoning - a hallmark of intellectual laziness.
I would also suggest that someone who is not willing to make any further effort to substantiate their claims, is not really worth debating at all. In doing so, your colleague suggests that he has no rationale for his beliefs aside from the Bible.
Before listening my initial reaction is: Usually.
One on one, informal debate is reactive.
For the JW at my door I ask, "Are you willing to change your religious position based on what I say today?"
"No," says one.
Smiling, "Me neither."
For a friend or acquaintance, "I can tell the story of how I lost my faith. Your mileage may vary."
===============My version of my opening statement in a formal debate
Can Science Disprove [some particular] God(s)? Usually
Can Science Disprove [all] God(s)? No.
Can Theists Prove God(s)? No, and they admit it; it takes faith.
Can Theists Disprove [all other] God(s)? No.
Nevertheless we can say that the Bayesian prior probability of having the one right sect with the truth (assuming such a sect exists) is remote indeed. Would you agree that over 1,000,000 sects have ever claimed or now do claim to being the right sect? The evidence must overcome at least 1/1,000,000 probabilities against randomly getting the right one.
(I) What is your evidence. Not that one sect could be right, but that you have the right one.
Shall we investigate the probability that one and only one sect could be right?
Given all the false claims of being that one and only one that sect must have some real world evidence. Strong real world evidence.
(2) Prove to me that magic words have power. Words do have power to affect the minds of listeners. There are people who make a living doing so. But, prove to me that anyone, anywhere, at any time, did magic. Invoking the name of a supernatural being optional. Many cases of "Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but no jam today." Miracles, in case you missed it are the jam.
What was once thought to be Miracle, on the other hand, is commonplace. Those scientists are claiming (if I got it right) that _something-from-nothing_ goes on all the time in empty space. A natural miracle, if you will.
Each mind a natural miracle, too. Each mind a unique self-concept. A denizen of concept space where all concepts reside. (Some religions claim no erasures.) Concept space is a member of itself. Being a human being being human is quite a concept.
The two questions briefly, then:
(1) What is your evidence?
(2) Demonstrate that words have power over nature in any way you like.
And if you must remain theist, may I suggest adopting Mother Nature as your goddess? She is mindless, unthinking, uncaring, neither malevolent nor benign, all powerful, and acts by choosing which of all available probabilities become reality at each here-and-now in spacetime.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Science is not interested in disproving god. "Science" is far too busy to delve into this question formally. We spend our time working to figure out how the universe actually works (and exists).
But it would make your work as a scientist much easier if you could answer every question with "god did it".
I mean, just imagine how easy scientific research would become. Everybody in the world could get a degree in any science they want instantly.
We all could be scientists.
This is something I've often used myself, "If you can't use science to prove god, or that science isn't the only other way to prove things, then explain a method that wouldn't ultimatly be science.
I think you've often put it as, "Someone could get a scientific truth by accident and later be proven right, but doesn't mean they were right to believe it untill they have the reason."
Believing the earth revolves around the sun because there is a invisible string attached to the earth and the sun keeping it there while correct that the earth goes around the sun was wrong in the reasoning. ANd ultimatly it would be science and evidence that proved part of the idea, even if it was claimed to be reached by another method."
Maybe God and jesus exist and are out there doing stuff and one could arrive at this knowledge and truth through special revelation and other methods, but it will still be a form of science that Ultimatly PROVES it.
If we find all the laws and forces of the universe and the what, why, how, and when we can disprove Gods.
You can't disprove a negative. Especially with religion. People who believe have a deep seated need to believe that there is some higher power protecting them and providing rules to live their life by. No amount of debate will ever change that for oh, 99% of them. All we can do is distance civil laws from religious beliefs. It's going to take time. Religions had there place, they DID provide some basic principles that got us this far. But that's it; now they are impeding advancement. And so we must let them go and make science the way towards the future.
I like this approach; it's not that I as an atheist am trying to prove that God(s) do not exist, I just do not accept your ideas and/or theories for why God DOES exist. If you can show why the ideas are flawed, that's all you have to do.
One big mistake, the old gods were not ruled out because of science, Thor was forgotten long before we understood lighting .
Thor was replaced with another God, all gods were. It is only in the last few decades we have had enough science to begin disproving gods.
But you are right, this topic is a waste of time. Since can't disprove big foot either, it can't disprove anything.
The only way to disprove god is to use their own gods against them, once you have them tell you why they don't believe in the hundred other gods, they have lost.
-"Can science disprove gods?"
-Well, let me see what falsifiable hypothesis there was supporting gods, and start investigating if it verifies in nature. What do you have?
-The universe exists, therefore who created it?
-...Hard Facepalm.
I suspect there is a flaw in philosophical thinking, but I haven't put my finger on it yet.
Wow! Well done!
Great dissection. (I suppose is the appropriate term)
Well. Any proposition, if it's worthy of examination and discussion or debate, can and should be flipped, I'm thinking. So let's do it now. Let's flip THIS one. "Can Religion prove God(s)?" If those who propose the first idea start to squirm when you suggest the "flip," then you know they might not be interested in honest discussion.
1⃣(The first 5-10 times I
saw/heard Matt Dillahunty) ➡ "I will pray for your soul, Matt. Please remember that God loves you and has not forgotten you. The Bible clearly proves that our Creator is real and he does exist"
2⃣(After watching/listening to Matt Dillahunty for about 3-6 months) ➡ "I don't know Matt, I can't exactly give you what you need to believe in God, but I strongly feel as though he exists"
3⃣ (Around 9-11 months, and after watching and listening to almost every single Matt Dillahunty video and lecture) ➡ "Okay Matt....I was wrong. I am clearly an atheist and I'm not even sure when it happened, but you definitely changed my mind. But if I'm next to a hot chick, I'm for sure telling her that I taught you everything you know."
great job matty ...
Is it telling that Matt keeps his dvds of Penn&Teller's "Bullshit" higher on the shelf than his copies of "The X Files" ?
what religious and atheist people alike forget, is that the defense of religion is based on the need to reafirm the religious scheme of the universe as something that contains reward and punishment beyond any doubt. reward in heaven and punishment in hell. many religions were formulated in the ancient world when life was short and brutal, and people's minds could'nt accept the sum total of that meanness of existence. even today, with considerably improved living conditions, our frustrations and mortality are altogether too unjust to be accepted without some hope for comfort. by creating a more just and compassionate society here on earth there will be no need to defend the unproven claims of religion.
Although I'm not 100% sure, I'm pretty confident that science is also about disproving things. That's called falsification.
Franky Jones But science cannot disprove unfalsifiable things. ;)
I was talking about something specific he said in the beginning.
Imagine feeling all smug about cornering an atheist in a rigged debate and they show up with an opening from Matt Dillahunty.
I have met the porcelain God first hand.
Good video.
If i were stuck with this topic, i'd go the rout of looking to define a "god" as a Made up explanation to explain natural phonomena" and just by "doing science" itself disproves this version of a god
redefining a concept is not a bad thing when the concept itself is vague, there are a number of used definitions of god and all you have to really do is point out that they are bad definitions...
even if your opponent wants to use a definition that's in common use and in all the dictionaries; that does not mean its a good definition.
in-order to win this one i think a god has to be thought of as a "man made explanation".
doing so is not a strawman for the simple reason that the definition is not something you have to agree to. just don't equivocate the word.
Theists: the Bible is all literal.
Science disproves it.
Theists: the Bible is all metaphor, didn't you know? Yeah, that's what we've always said.
"Either you believe everything until it's been dis-proven or you believe no thing until it's been proven" Why is this not a false dichotomy?
i can't agree that science "doesn't disprove anything, ever". science _works_ by disproving things. it's the things that you can't disprove that become "models of reality". of course, in order for that to work, the thing being disproven needs to be _disprovable_ . that's where falsifiability comes in.
Sean Carroll showed how different universes can be without God so yes.
I think think that the models that science creates can be used to disprove things.
You can not disprove existence. There is what there is. You can only prove existence.
Will you make a video on definitions ?
Asking science to disprove god is putting the cart before the horse regarding the subject of a claim that a god exists, so yes, it's just another example of shifting the burden of proof. I'm very tired of this type of dishonesty and I think that addressing dishonesty, is just as important in an atheist debate as addressing the facts. It may offend during a debate to suggest a person is not showing their proof before demanding it from the opposing view, but I don't care. Hypocrisy deserves no respect.
EXCELLENT!!!!
All you Atheists just need to learn what Scientism is. It's that simple
sci·en·tism
[ˈsʌɪəntɪz(ə)m]
NOUN
rare
thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
@@SNORKYMEDIA Appeal to dictionary fallacy.
(You even left out the second half of that definition, to make matters worse)
Look into more complete, fuller descriptions of what scientism is. It's too complex of a concept to understand from a one sentence definition
Look into credible, reference / academic Encyclopedias and how they describe it, rather than descriptive dictionaries like that.
A flat earther wants to lecture atheists on scientism. Oh, the irony. It burns so hot.
@@7inrain Textbook guilt by association fallacy.
@7inrain Another issue, beyond that it's a guilt by association fallacy is that it doesn't even make sense. Scientism is associated with people who tend to blindly believe the current consensus of mainstream academia over competing options, just because they "trust the experts"
Flat Earthers are not a group associated with that kind of thinking. They're a group warning about it.
In order to disprove something you have to have something to work with. In the God case there's nothing to work with.