Bertrand Russell’s Flawed Argument against the Existence of God
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 พ.ย. 2021
- As a teenager, Bertrand Russell became an agnostic based on the assumption that everything requires a cause-even God. In this brief clip, R.C. Sproul shows where Russell made a critical mistake in his thinking, one he failed to see throughout his life.
Watch the full message: www.ligonier.org/learn/series...
![24 ชั่วโมง ซื้อของสีเดียว!! [Ver.2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TNPgzIMr_w8/mqdefault.jpg)
![R.C. Sproul [ How To Deal With Anger ]](/img/n.gif)
Russell's statement that, _"None of the stock arguments for God are logically valid"_ stands unrefuted.
I love it. This guy criticizes Russell for not sticking to the "defining God into existence using my favorite definitions of words" - this guy's version of the cosmological argument. But he can't see himself making a simple, bald-faced assertion "God has no cause because I don't think it could be any other way". Or, the more likely explanation is this guy is simply a dishonest apologist, and will obfuscate whatever he needs to in order to convince his audience.
Russell was simply, as a teenager, becoming convinced the "first cause" argument was silly, which it is. It is simply an assertion that there must have been a first cause. And then believers go on to say "the first cause must have been the particular God I'm interested in, which had no cause, by the way", then they give no basis for believing that is true. That's a worse argument than a naturalist saying "universe is the first cause because it has always existed and didn't have a cause". We don't know if it's true, but it certainly is a bad argument. But it's a better argument than the first cause being a god, because we can demonstrate a universe exists. So why not just keep it simple and say "the universe always existed"?
And then, of course, Russell went on to dispatch all of the common and not so common arguments for the belief that a God exists. This guy pretends he's unaware of all that.
I'm shocked how no one there burst out laughing!! This man miserably failed to show how god isn't an effect and the universe is and why a cause doesn't need a cause to exist? his only argument was "in Christianity we believe..."😂😂 this was his method to falsify Russell😂 again, good job to everyone there who didn't bust out laughing lol.
You don't understand - by definition "God" is self-existent. If you don't believe there is a God, then it makes no difference.
I hear atheists say "I miss Hitchens"; as a believer, I say "I miss Sproul" - glad we have these videos !!
Agreed ! It's a wonderful to see a man of God stand so strong in philosophy.
I agree with you. Thank God for these videos of Sproul.
Alistair Begg misses hitchens ) he had a heart for the unsaved as we all should.
The fool has said in his heart “there is no God”. God is the uncaused Cause.
Well I'm a Christian and I can honestly say I miss Hitchens too - and it troubles me to this day that he more than likely went to his death and unsaved man.
All this is to again assert that god doesn’t need a cause? That’s very convenient of course, but until we have confirmation that god exists, we have no reason to accept this as true. It is simply a possible explanation.
TLDR: Everything that exists doesn't need a cause. principle of causality is not violated in the case of God, only things that come to be i.e change requires a cause(explanation).
This seems like a logical critique, but it still hinges on an assumed being.
As far as I know, humans have never encountered an uncaused Being or a thing that has no origin/has always been. But We examine the world around and conclude that all this is an effect of a particular cause. And in the theist's POV, that cause then has to jump particular hurdles to become the God of the particular belief we belong to.
“ because although they knew God
They did not glorify Him as God nor were
Thankful but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened. “ Romans 1:31
THE CAUSAL ARGUMENT
The fool has said in his HEART “there is no God”. God is the first uncaused Cause.
Okay, now prove it scientifically, without appealing to the Bible.
@@tekbarrier just got here. What are you doubting and why? 2 questions 2answers.
almighty God will speak to you, shine his face on you, let you be a testimony to only bring Him more honor and glory. in the mighty name of Jesus... amen
@@pastorvensharddobbins3563 And do let it be in Jesus name
Amen
We also now know that there are events that (by most interpretations) have no cause in quantum mechanics. The radioactive decay of an atom, for example, is a purely probabilistic event. No particle moves, nothing othrwise changes and nothing "causes" an atom to decay at a quantum level. If things within the universe and within time can happen without a cause, then that creates a strong reason to doubt whether our understaning of cause and effect would or could have any application to the birth of the cosmos, as that would involve some occurrence outside of space and time. Our intuitions have to doubted in such alien circumstances.
The radioactive decay of an atom is a purely probabalistic event because we have no way of predicting such an event by measurement. The act of measuring a thing using physical matter changes the very thing we are attempting to measure. Measuring the current flowing through a wire using a current meter changes the flow of current very slightly. We can know very closely the actual current flowing through a wire, but never precisely.
We can only make a probabilistic prediction that an atom may or may not decay within a specfied time, but make no mistake, something happens that causes atoms to decay, it's just that they're such tiny events we have no way of analysing them directly.
@@samuellowekey9271no, the violation of Bell's inequality proves that Quantum mechanics is indeed probabilistic so all these strange phenomena where things can happen without a cause do indeed happen without a cause, you are falling on the same trap that Einstein felt on when debating on the nature of quantum mechanics with Niels Bohr
@@GabrielMirandaLima-hv7oe It's only because our understanding of nature is itself incomplete. Quantaum Mechanics is a mathamatical tool used to understand nature, but it's an incomplete tool.
Everything happens with a cause.
@@samuellowekey9271 everything happens with a reason behind it but not always due to a cause, the creation of pairs of virtual particle-antiparticle, for example, happens because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but there is no physical thing causing the field to create these fluctuations, or when we consider objects moving in the abscence of forces, they keep an uniform rectilinear motion, not because there is something causing it to keep moving but simply because that is its natural state due to the conservation of angular momentum
It is simply the case that there is a set of irreducible laws which govern all that exists, laws which are eternal by definition and that must be discovered through scientific, mathematical and philosophical investigations
Sproul is really saying that you pre-suppose an eternal god who is then an exception to the principle that everything else that exists must have a cause (i.e. the god). This cosmological argument for a god is no better than the ontological and teleological arguments. If people feel they need to believe through faith (John 20:29) that is fine, but the balance of evidence just isn't there to support it.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
Roman's 1:22
How exactly does this modify the argument against the existence of God? It is an argument of skepticism in first place. If not everything that exists requires a cause, then the universe does not require a God to cause it. By adding God to the equation, you're multiplying factors beyond evidence and necessity.
Exactly right. Same logic, just with an extra hurdle placed in the middle to justify theism
But it shows that casuality cannot be used as an argument against God. Whether it proves God is another thing.
@@shaun9847 Maybe not against a God, but it seems perfectly reasonable to reject a creator through our understanding of causality as well as how physics are largely inflexible and see no external intervention. Especially when you consider that there are no other know instances of generations of whole universes.
@@UN-Seki seems that your conclusion is based on an empiristic view.
The thing is that we are finite beings, so an empiristic view can only get us to finite conclusions.
Don't get me wrong, it seems very rational to have an empiristic view, but it deals with things only we can experience.
I haven't read too much about this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but using inductive reasoning to extend assertions beyond our experience runs into Hume's problem of induction. This isn't to say that empiricism does not provide a good basis of our understanding, but it seems that knowledge gained from such reasoning is not necessarily absolutely true.
@@shaun9847 I agree. As they say, in a set of truths, it's possible for every truth to justify the other truths, but the set cannot justify itself. The internal logic of the universe is not sufficient to explain "why" the universe. But neither is it sufficient to draw divine conclusions or assume metaphysical truths that transcend it. Those are also inductions. It's fine to have a belief (or lack thereof), but ultimately, we ought to accept our limitation as agnostics.
I think Bertrand Russell understood cause and effect. He also said theres no reason to suppose there was a start to the universe. We dont really know. Thats the truth.
Well the concept that the universe had no beginning is fallacious, and an infinite regress is impossible and paradoxical. Take for example William Lane Craigs example of a library with an infinite number of black and red books. How many total books is in the set? Well that is infinite. Take all the red books out the set the number of books is infinite and therefore the same in substance. Therefore it is paradoxical as how can there be the same amount of red and black books but also the same amount if we were to take either all red or black books out of the collection?
@killiancullen6430 the problem here is that Lame Craig doesn't understand how counting and how cardinality work with infinite sets, maybe if he knew the works of David Hilbert and Georg Cantor then that simpleton would understand that there are the same number of both red and black books no matter what because even if you remove all red books out the cardinality is still the same therefore there are still the same amount
One example being, take all the natural numbers, that is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,... Then remove all the even numbers, you will be left with just odd numbers, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, ... Now I aks, do both sets have the same amount of elements? And the answer is yes, both are infinite sets and even if you remove an infinite number of elements, you did it in a way which preserves the cardinality, therefore both sets have the same size, the formal proof is given by Georg Cantor, but Craig is an apologist so of course he would never be able to comprehend it
In the end of these intellectual discussions, the simplistic reality
of the existence of---not only organic material, but how it managed
to assemble itself, complete with all the proper organs, located in
all the right places...all by itSELF!
The "Stuff of life," just spinning around in space, where there is no
Oxygen---no chance, no sign of life whatsoever, and yet..."BOOM--
LIFE!"
Absurd---absolutely absurd.
Not by "itself" but by laws of physics and chemistry. And fwiw, oxygen _exists_ in space, just not in any remarkably noticeable proportion.
PS What's the "right place" for a nerve that connects the brain (within the skull) with the larynx (in the throat)? ;-)
Well this is bamboozled me with science, but we should only go by facts, we should never go or get lost in assumption, God tell us in his word the Bible , "I am the Alpha and Omega" very clearly said in God's word
How do you know it was God's word?
And furthermore, what's so "clearly said" there? WHAT is Alpha, or Omega, and how can something be BOTH?
Why did Russell get it wrong? Because he failed to realize that he was a finite created being, and that God is beyond our limited human understanding. There's one thing for sure; he most certainly understands it now.
Exactly. God is not subject to time and space since he made those things. God is not limited as we are, and that is all the more reason why he is Devine and Holy.
Why did he get it wrong? Because he didn't want to get it right. That would mean bending the knee to the sovereign LORD.
Why did he get it wrong? Romans 1:21-23
So basically you're saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you must not really want to know the truth. That is logically flawed reasoning.
@@douglasmcnay644 All the "deep thinking" of philosophy aside,... what you wrote is the simple truth.
As a teenager
from a theist
To an agnostic
The effectual argument
And then the entire rest of his life, Russell made his arguments against believing in gods. Really good arguments.
It's just like me at the age of 48 or 49 when I finally realized how 99+% of the population of the Earth came to believe in their particular god. They were taught to believe and then to validate their belief with others from the time they were young children. That's why there aren't so many Christians in India, for instance, because it was Indian families who believed in the pantheon of Hindu gods, so they didn't have a Christian belief to pass on to their children.
But that realization of mine was not sufficient all by itself for someone else to withhold their belief in any God or even to prove there's no God. It was the logical straw that broke the camel's back for me, along with everything else I was already suspicious of.
And then after that, I started seeing all the other really good arguments, like Russell's, for withholding belief. It became obvious no one could demonstrate any god ever existed, including the ones that are supposed to be active today.
you can be both a theist and an agnostic
@@littleredpony6868
Repent and accept Christ
What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul
What can a man give in exchange for his soul
Stop the nonsense
BE SAVED
@@jessyjonas4988 there’s unsubstantiated claims in your comment. can you provide evidence for the following?
#1: that we have a soul
#2: that said soul needs saving
#3: that Jesus is real, alive and can do anything
#4: that Jesus can save aforementioned soul
@@littleredpony6868
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”
John 14:6
The answer to all
the statement that every cause must have an effect can avoid infinite regression 2 ways:
1. at least 1 circular relationship sequence
2. there exists at least 1 thing that is not an effect and is a cause
Now, nothing here guarantees a personal being.
Nothing guarantees a prime cause. (even if 2 is the case, there can be more than 1 causes that are not effects)
1: circular sequences make the 2 things dependent on each other, rather than being necessities of reality, meaning they're contingent, which makes them invalid as necessary causes. The problem with infinite regression and an infinitude of metric time is that no matter what explanation you give the explanation remains contingent, it always depends on something else, meaning the entire chain is contingent and needs an explanation in itself. The problem with a contingent process such as a sequential circular one, or an infinite chain of causes, is that the chain itself remains unexplained, it's not an explanation.
Even with circular sequence you have time going infinitely into the past, and therefore an infinite chain of causes, even if they're based on that relationship, so you still have the problem of infinite regression. What I've noticed is that people always bring up an infinite chain of causes, or something that implies an infinite chain of causes, not because it's a good explanation, but it's a good way of trying to avoid God as an explanation. It's a motivated explanation, not a logical one.
All the paradoxes and problems that add to the complexity of causality on naturalism are still there even in circular relationships. The problem of infinite regression is still there... you still have a bunch of manifestations infinitly into the past.
On circular sequences, you still have METRIC TIME, contingent time, where every point in time is dependent on the prior, so again, still infinite regression.
2: "there exists at least 1 thing that is not an effect and is a cause" what thing? Are we talking just one random thing? like anything? That doesn't fix the causal problem which is the debate.
"Now, nothing here guarantees a personal being." nothing here gurantees anything.
It seems to me that the phrase, “infinite regress of finite causes” is a nonsense statement; for each of those “finite causes” would then be a fraction of the “infinite regress,” and any fraction of infinity is equal to infinity. You can’t mix finite numbers with infinity. If you want to use the term infinity and be able to use finite numbers, then you use the term “a number approaching infinity,” which is a number as big as you like, but is still a finite number, so you can use terms like “finite causes” in that series. But then if it is a number as big as you like, but finite, then you still have to have a beginning, and original cause. The only way you can have finite number of effects, is if you have an infinite cause outside of the system.
If my reasoning is incorrect, I would be happy to be corrected.
Let's say you have premise A, and premise A is dependent on premise B to be justified. What justifies premise B then? Well premise C of course. Ok what justified Premise C? Silly Premise D of course and this goes on into the infinite. Would premise A ever be justified? Nope, you can't justify any premise into the infinite. There must be a self evident truth that stands on its own that is not dependent on any other premise. Therefore in causeality, there can be no infinite sequence of causeality, there would have to be an uncaused cause.
I believe your reasoning is incorrect. A set of things with finite properties does not need to have identical properties to each thing within the set. Within the set of whole numbers, every number has a value (1, 2, 3, 4...), but the set itself does not have any of these values - it doesn't equal to 1, or to 2, or to 3, or to 4, but rather contains all of these values (infinity). In other words, a set of finite causes does not need to be finite.
Hey @Ligonier ministries under what series is these teachings under? Can i find this on your website?
Hello, John. Thank you for your comment. This lecture is part of the series "The Consequences of Ideas" and can be found on Ligonier.org here: www.ligonier.org/learn/series/consequences-of-ideas/russell
@@ligonier thank you!
Russell: denies that causation exists
Sproul: says (i) that it's an analytic truth that an effect follows a cause and (ii) that cosmological arguments are based on *observations* of the cosmos.
Bizarre how Sproul took that to be a criticism of Russell.
But as Russell states if you believe god is the start of cause? Then why not the earth???
Sounds pretty simply, to believe you just need to apply causation in only a certain way?
This of course is deeply flawed.
Dear Reader:
Do you ever struggle with lying, gossiping, arguing, cheating, spite, or pride?
Did you know Jesus Christ paid it all?
We all broke God’s law (the Ten Commandments), Jesus paid our fine.
Repentance = turning back to God/returning to Him.
The work is done. The debt has been paid.
Turn to Him in earnest prayer- He will do the rest!
***
“The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. Instead He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9
“”Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts: “Return to Me,” says the LORD of hosts, “and I will return to you,” says the LORD of hosts.”” Zechariah 1:3
“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” John 3:17
“And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” 1 John 2:2
Well if it's ALL already paid for, fill up my plate, i would rather have fun than not! :p
I miss your intelligent digested philosophical, theological and eschatology lectures. My only condolences is that you have been fast to paradice with our lord jesus christ. Now you rest there in peace. Pray for us there.
Pretty sure the intercession of Jesus is always answered and always enough, as the Bible says. Bible don't say no nothing about needed the prayers of people in heaven.
It'a nice philosophical argument , but still miss one thing, Evidence.
Consider yourself Exhibit A. Your existence is demonstrated by your parents. Their existence by their parents. Walk it backwards.
@@rodneyleej Lack of vision and lack of knowledge. Philosophy of this men look at, let say, 100 generation back and from that, assumed 500 generation. All the same, all similar. I see the world 3 to 4 billion years ago as a big soup of all the chemical needed to form the first RNA, the first DNA. Billion of chemical, ocean with only water mix with chemical, out of them, all you need is one reaction. Then Time is just what you need. Evolution start. Not randomly, but according to the environment those cell live in. Time scale of earth is alway the one thing that so different from our every day life, lots of individual just can't visualise it.
@@rodneyleej backwards to god's existence being demonstrated by his parents?
You are sufficient evidence to believe God, that you are self-aware.
@@timothykeith1367 Nothing will change your mind, it make you feel good. Good for you. I just need fact.
bow your hearts and bend your knees man
How many hearts do you have, man? o.O
You are not a God created by human hands
You are not a God dependent on any mortal man
You are not a God in need of anything we can give
BY YOUR PLAN THAT’s JUST THE WAY IT IS
I clearly know what you mean but I do believe God “needs” our love.… Love always needs and as always needed
@@neilmcc2552 you could be onto something with that reasoning
Love needs an expression
I believe He created us as an expression of His love
God is love and so we came from love
God also loves unconditionally
Humans outside of the love of God cannot love unconditionally
We still struggle to love unconditionally
Even with the love of God
God is already love so in that sense
Would He need love
I get your reasoning though
@@neilmcc2552 @jessy jonas God is self sufficient in His being. Perfect and needing nothing Acts 17:24-25 as Brad shared. The Father objectively sees the love of the Son and the Holy Spirit loving subjectively and knows it to be good. The Son objectively sees the Father and Holy Spirit loving subjectively and knows it to be good. The Holy Spirit objectively sees the Father and Son express love subjectively and knows it to be good.
Brad, absolutely love Paul’s interaction with the Athenians… But it’s a different context than what I’m referring to. I understand totally it’s hard to think God needs anything from us… Need is a somewhat subjective thought… I’ll stick with my premise though.
Adams, totally hear where you’re coming from and up until a month ago when I listen to a brilliant pastor on God needing our love I would’ve totally agreed… If the Trinity was perfectly fulfilling to God why did he make us. We are made in his image… Right? Do you need love?
Thank you for this video, I was just chatting about this in another video's comments a day ago. If one understands that God is the beginning of all it's not hard to see how He not effect or caused, but He causes.
If he causes what’s his cause?
@@Koleoscopy It's the caused that needs a cause. He's not caused.
@@AdamsTaiwan how do you decide what is caused and what isn't?
Like all the reprobate, Russell didn't want to believe, because believing that you are a sinner is the antithesis to man's pride. Russell found a hook to hang his atheism on, and it would not have behooved him to work too hard to find the hole in it.
have you ever talked to an atheist honestly? based on your comment i doubt it
@@littleredpony6868 Hard to avoid talking to atheists, since they are everywhere. I stand by my comment. People who sincerely seek Jesus find him.
The definition of "cause" given here, is problematic. There are "uncaused effects" eg. where a radioactive atom releases a neutron spontaneously, without a cause.
Also, if we accept the idea that there is an eternal being, why can there not be eternal existence (the universe)?
The cosmological proof has many controversies. If you find this video compelling, I recommend searching for debates on the topic. It's the honest thing to do.
God is infinite. God always was,is and shall be. He stands above and apart from the creation.
And you know this... how, exactly? :-B
The reality and truth of the argument is caused by the existence of Logic.
The "reality and truth" is that that wasn't Russell's argument... The point was that either *_everything_* must have a cause (in this case, god too), or there are *_some_* things that don't (in which case, there's no need for god, as long as the WORLD can just be uncaused).
Also, nothing in "Logic" requires that the cause of an effect be "antecedent" to it.
Excellent!
It appears the justification for God at one time was the primal cause, ie God created man, for something had to of created the first man. Bertrand realised that using that rational the same logic had then to be applied to God.
It’s very simple there are over 1000 religions out there and they can’t all be right. You may not believe in 999 of them, I merely go one further.
I could be wrong but I have yet to see any evidence. I really don’t want to offend anyone, it’s just to give you an alternative viewpoint.
PEOPLE LIKE THIS, BEHIND CLOSE DOORS ARE WHAT THEY PREACH AGAINST..
There are only 6 people listening to him. He should have called more friends for the video.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding any acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
Hmm, with your reasoning then George Washington is a myth. You may want to reconsider your terms, it's unreasonable.
@@souzajustin19d Why would I consider GW to be a myth? The is a plethora of evidence establishing his existence. I haven't encountered any evidence that suggests the existence of a god.
@@theoskeptomai2535 And you have this evidence of GW from witnesses? why would you believe them?
@@souzajustin19d We have firsthand eyewitness accounts of GW. It is reasonable to trust them.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Because they claimed to have seen a person, we ought to believe them. Is that your justification?
Sovereign GOD
THAT’S JUST THE WAY IT IS
Allah is god, the lord of all worlds. He created the universe.
Well done, I disagree and there are good arguments aginst the point being made. But this was a good discussion. I liked it.
This argument is deeply flawed?
Brilliant analysis. I never realized this until now. Every effect has a cause is a logical tautology. But this is different from the statement that everything must have a cause. This is a hypothesis.
No it’s not, if your applying causation, you cannot pick & choose where to apply it, this man makes no sense at all??
If even if accept this argument, it still does not show that the creator of the universe is a god who is a Christian; had a son who died for my sins, etc.
Quran 52:35 were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
Quran 52:36 Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
Quran 52:41 Or have they [knowledge of] the unseen, so they write [it] down?
Quran 41:53 We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?
Quran 41:51 And when We bestow favor upon man, he turns away and distances himself; but when evil touches him, then he is full of extensive supplication.
Quran 41:54 Unquestionably, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Unquestionably He is, of all things, encompassing.
Quran 30:8 Do they not contemplate within themselves? Allah has not created the heavens and the earth and what is between them except in truth and for a specified term. And indeed, many of the people, in [the matter of] the meeting with their Lord, are disbelievers.
Quran 8:22 Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason.
The speaker is stating the existence of G-d on his belief in G-ds existence. His argument is that G-d doesn’t need to be caused by anything. Just that G-d simply exists . Fine, but Not very convincing.
Thanks
More than 2/3rds of the earth is covered by oceans. If there is a god he obviously loves fish more than non-fish. Look at the animals on the earth. Half of them are predators and the other half are prey. If there is a god he obviously loves to watch animals tear each other apart.
Am not his follower but u mistake the facts.the best u could do is give evidence of which of the gods in the world is God .what does it mean for god to exist or not exist?what is existence of god.?
God would say to Russell: I AM.
And Russel would say "You're not, I am. Prove me wrong."
How can you prove that the existence of matter and energy is an effect?
What else could it be?
You can choose to believe in eternal matter and energy if you like. A mindless, unconcious eternal matter that somehow created or caused birth to a concious being (human)? Rediculous
Someone or something has always been, in one form or another. Either that or something came out of nothing, for absolutely no reason, because there was literally nothing.
Both concepts are beyond our finite minds to grasp, but one of them is true.
Even if someone were to try to argue that this could all be a dream, even a dream is not nothing, and a dream in relation to what? Something is, and so it either came out of something that has always been, or it came out of nothing, it's inescapable.
I believe someone has always been, and always will be.
Nice statesman fallacy
@@justinpfrunder5951 @Samuel Lowekey read quantum physics and evolution bro 😉
You were a great teacher. I could perceive things that were obscure to me despite my depth knowledge of theolgy. There is no end for knowing on earth. For knowledg is as much as watet and ether.
If he espoused belief in an invisible, contrary, jealous, vicious, unfair and quite imaginary god, he was a dolt who wasted his time.
Just because you don't know a cause does not mean it's effect doesn't exist.
Deut. 29:29
I love it.
Unbelief will always find wiggle room and survive our best attempts to make faith reasonable. Faith itself is the evidence we need to believe that God is an uncaused self-contained Deity. Jesus taught that the Kingdom of heaven belongs to those with childlike faith. We make a mistake whenever we try to convince heady “intellectuals” that faith has to earn their approval. Face it, God is ineffable and believing that accords with reason.
I believe that faith is an unreliable way to find truth. faith is not evidence that god exists, it’s just evidence that you believe that god exists. faith not has led people to different beliefs about god, it has led people to believe in different gods. for example faith has led people to believe that the Hindu gods exist and I suspect that they believe that their gods exist every bit as much as you believe that your god exists. the only sure way to truth is by testing various claims and hypothesis and seeing if the hold up to scrutiny. would you be able to provide any evidence that god exists without using the bible or faith that will hold up to scrutiny?
@@littleredpony6868 How dare you exclude the Bible from being an evidence source? You are locked into a world unscientific and narrow.
END OF CONVERSATION.
@@rev.stephena.cakouros948 i must have hit a nerve. here’s the thing, if god is real you will be able to the evidence that he exists without ever once opening a bible. the bible makes plenty of mythological claims that we can safely say that isn’t true or likely isn’t true. i can give you a few examples, the bible describes the earth as being a flat circle, with a crystal dome covering the earth, with 4 pillars (or legs depending on point of view) holding it up floating in water. the bible also mentions a talking snake and a talking donkey. then you have the audacity to call my world unscientific and narrow, how rich. the reason i asked you if you’re able to provide any evidence that god exists without using the bible is because it has several mythological elements in it. as far as i can tell, the only evidence that i have found that your god exists is the bible says so. A book containing mythology isn’t a reliable way to get evidence something actually exists; since mythology isn’t about showing whether something is literally, physically true.
if you feel like you get something from your mythology, good for you. as for me i much rather live in the world that i actually live in, not projecting my own fantasies onto the world and telling people that it’s the Truth spoken by the Almighty
@@littleredpony6868 You hit nothing close to a nerve. I just realized you are unwilling to apply reason and evidence to the question at hand. Now have a nice day in your very small world.
Romans 1:21-23
Haters gonna hate.
Cool, now actually prove that the god of the Bible was uncaused. Don't just assert it, prove it.
Not sure what you mean by prove the God of the Bible is uncaused. It states He is, and this deductiving reasoning says that the uncaused cause is the Prime mover of all things. Well thats what the Bible says as well. So it appears the God of the Bible does logically make sense to what He claims about himself.
@@souzajustin19d even if i were to grant that genesis could be seen as reliable, it still only says that yahweh (or was it el/elohim?) was the prime mover of heavens, of earth, of light, of luminaries, of plants, of animals, etc... Doesn't say of ALL things.
But that's in fact moot, since we have no record of ANY claims made by any god. It's all just hearsay, "trust me bro" and "or else"s... nothing proven, and even more so, some of the claims within the ancient texts are opposed to our current/improved understanding of reality.
GOD ALMIGHTY IS A HOLY HOLY HOLY KING,……..PRAISE HIS HOLY PRECIOUS PERFECT NAME,……….ALWAYS TRUST GODS RIGHTEOUSNESS,………AMEN
Without lies, yhwh dies.
Shalom
This Fool isn't even in the same class as Russell..more Fallacies from Theists
I bet u, debunk him 😅
Bertrand Russell was pretty straightforward. I detect no lie. Christians however… the end justifies their means.