Atheist Debates - What would change your mind
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
An important question - what would change your mind? I'll look at my current answer, former answers, respond to some objections from detractors - and explain why my current answer should be preferred.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | นางเอกหมอลำเงินล้าน "อุ๋งอิ๋ง เพชรบ้านแพง" & ไฮโซสาวสุดฮอต "ลิลลี่ เหงียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jPxQS_EgrJ4/mqdefault.jpg)
Q: "What would change your mind?"
Ken Ham: "Nothing."
Bill Nye: "Evidence."
that my friend tells it all
no it doesn't......I wont youtube war why it doesn't tell it all...it was actually coved in this video why it doesn't tell it all.....god dammit.....why even watch the video if you come away with only pieces of it...
If nothing in reality would change your belief, then your belief is based on nothing in reality.
because ken doesn't have a mind.
Evidence would help.
I'm going to start saying "works like a charm" whenever something goes wrong
Better yet: "Works like a prayer!"
I enjoy listening to Harris and Dawkins. I love Neil deGrasse Tyson's enthusiasm. I could listed to Hitchens endlessly. But Matt, you have a level of rationality that I think is unmatched. Your brain is a logic machine and you cut to the heart of an issue and dissect it in a way I've not seen others do. I would love to see you in a debate with William Lane Craig. No moderator, just two folks talking. The takedown would be awesome to witness.
I'd love to see that too. Sadly, WLC won't debate anybody who is not really famous and doesn't have at least a PhD in philosophy or theology (apparently he thinks anybody else is just lowly scum who doesn't know anything), and people who qualify are usually not skilled debaters, so he's basically rigging the game, making sure he can win.
Also see www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2016/10/22/william-lane-craig-refuses-to-debate-matt-dillahunty-for-spurious-reasons/ - apparently Matt returned the favor and refuses to debate him too.
Margaret Becker sounds like g man if you get that reference Satan bless you
WLC is perfectly fine with lying when he's cornered. And when one of his claims is debunked, he just ignores it and makes the same claim in the next debate anyway. He doesn't actually do any thinking, just recites what he thinks are his greatest hits. I don't see any point in bothering to debate him.
Spencerwalker21 Yep, except WLG is better dressed and more gentlemanly.
"What would change your mind about the queeg?"
"What is the queeg?"
"I can't define it. So, what would change your mind about it?"
Trying to be a stronger Christian led me to being an atheist.
This
Same :(
I thought that if I was lukewarm in my internal faith I should convince myself of Christianity more so I might "really" believe. So while I was digging for apologetics as a Christian I realized I believed only because i was brought up within the Church and I did not count "religious" experiences as evidence because I figured there was a sufficient materealist explanation for my brain states. This happened in an evening with me scarcely holding on to my religion for the rest of the night. The next day I was a deist for 2-3 more months holding onto the Kalam, and then an agnostic atheist as I am now.
That evening was the last of my 60-70 daily rosary (I was a latin-if-possible Catholic). However I still prayed, if that made sense. I did not want to leave even though I disliked praying the rosary; I only did it because I felt compeled to be most devout if this creed is genuine. This happened 4 months ago. I am still sympathetic to deism.
For my money, this idea of "god would know" is Matt's single best contribution to the Great Debate.
The same thing that changed my mind from being a devout Mormon to an atheist. Evidence...
Genuine question: What evidence convinced you?
What changes my mind is when an insane theist preaches at me online all while completely refusing to have any sort of real discussion.
This...
Was very deep and uplifting. It's intriguing to hear your thought process on such a big question.
Unrelated:
I want to make a universal atheist catchphrase. Something like: *"I don't know, and neither do you, so let's find out together."*
Finally another vid! I love your lecture style videos matt
Thank you. I am surrounded by "believers" and I don't argue with them but they do drive me crazy because of the concepts they believe (ghosts, demonic occurrences). It's refreshing to hear you speak. When I am asked why I don't accept the god concept, I usually tell them it's because I want to be sane, therefore I trust my own judgement.
I do not believe there are 52 cards in that box do to the evidence that one of the cards is folded in half and laying on the dresser behind you.
@Jamie That's fair. He's likely to have quite a few packs handy, as a magician.
The default assumption should be that there are _54_ cards in the box, anyway...
Hope is with those who not only listen, but also think about it.
Thank you Matt for your tireless striving to bring people away from faith and to allow them the possibilities of unrestricted thinking!
Very articulate and nicely put. I guess the real way to interpret the question is: "What would change my mind to not use critical reasoning and logic to explain the things I see or to make future decisions?" - the answer is NOTHING.
Not even then. Show me something that consistently has better results (and/or convince me that the results it brings are preferable), and I'll be willing to switch. Of course, I'll still use the old way to evaluate the new way - evaluating comes before the switch.
What would change your mind? *EVIDENCE!* oh my god, why is this such a hard thing for people to understand?
Oh? What about the trees and stars show that they were created by a god? what about them shows that it was YOUR God? What about a sunset shows that it is due to a god? What about the human eye suggests design by a god? Is it because the human eye is so poorly designed? What about morality suggests a god is responsible?
yolanda jerginson what you have done is make a bunch of claims, empty claims at that... look, I can do it too. The trees and stars are evidence of the trees and stars. Trees are also evidence for evolution and stars are evidence of astronomy. The sunset is evidence of the sun's existence and of the earth's rotation. The human eye is excellent evidence for biological evolution. Morality is evidence of evolution and culture shaping behavior.
+Tim3shark
Ease up a little bit. I believe what Yolanda is saying is that if you say "evidence" to a theist, that is the usual nonsensical answer you get.
The problem is not *evidence*. The problem is understanding what counts as sufficient, reasonable evidence. And this is the part theists have trouble with.
Tim3shark You are in denial. God is the creator of the universe. You know that the universe with all of its intricacies did NOT happen by chance. It's clear that YOUR eyes aren't fully evolved if you can't see it. It's like me saying look at that airplane over there, I bet a bunch of particles bunched together and exploded and now this thing can fly passengers to different destinations. All creations have a creator. Stop with the nonsense.
Exactly what a theist would say. Good example.
yolanda
*Can you please demonstrate that the universe, with all its complexity, CAN NOT happen by chance*
That's a stupid question. Of course not. I'm not God. Wow, atheists are so desperate...They'll never convince me that there is no God with nonsensical questions. Show me a universe created by man. Show me non living matter become living matter and I'll give Up my delusion otherwise THEY look delusional.
Holy uploads, Batman!
Holy shit 6 videos?Christmas has come early
Bond, Chemical Bond so true!
Are these brand new videos, or are they re-uploads ?
I would rather these had been staggered out to one per day.
You're welcome to watch them that way, one per day.
nice..more than 2 hours of content uploaded in one day....i did not expect this at all, but i like it
"What would change your mind?"
Skeptic: Evidence. Confirmation of the supernatural. Expectation: supernatural behavior from a supernatural source. Verdict: reasonable.
Most believers: No clear answer. Responses range from 'nothing can change my mind', to evidence only obtainable through the supernatural, to existing, available evidence they remain ignorant of. Expectation: supernatural behavior from a non-supernatural source. Verdict: unreasonable.
This is a serious problem.
I've come to the somewhat disturbing realization that I'm not sure anything could change my mind at this point. Not because I don't wish to follow the evidence where it goes, but because I reject the premise of the supernatural so even if I had a supernatural experience that I felt could not be disproven it would seem to me to be more reasonable to be a hallucination than a real supernatural event. And even if it truly wasn't simply a hallucination (or I didn't think it was) than it is a natural event by definition that it happens in nature (like quantum effects are very strange but still natural) so there can be no supernatural explanation.
I like the term "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" It needs to be really substantial or I would remain skeptical even if It was an amazing feat of magic like healing lepers or walking on water. We know much more these days we have more questions than they did in biblical times.
I like the term too, and if someone asks for an example I give them this example:
Here are three claims.
1) I own 2 pet cats as pets.
2) I own 2 Bengals as pets
3) I own 2 Bengals and an invisible sabetoothed tiger named Cuddles.
1 - Basic claim, people are known to fairly own cats (or cats owning people depending on how you look at the relationship). Most people would have zero problem accepting this claim with just the statement. If they are skeptical, they can check my facebook, ask questions, etc.
2 - Basic claim again, but Bengals aren't as common as a breed. So they may ask additional questions, what does their fur like (Bengal fur is generally much softer, almost pelt like), ask for photos, etc.
3 - Extraordinary claim - What would it take for someone to believe this claim? I've literally had ten people come in and confirm that they have experienced Cuddles (which is more than we have with the claims of Jesus).
@@shanewilson7994 I take a different example when someone says the "Extraordinary Evidence" requirement is untrue.
1) Last week a neighbor of mine went to the airport, boarded a plane and flew to Los Angeles. Evidence? Even if I'm lying it's fairly certain that if we canvass the neighborhood we'll find someone who did just that. This means that you can't even prove I was lying, because that event is so common.
2. Last week a neighbor of mine walked out his front door, leapt into the air and flew to Los Angeles, just like Superman. Evidence? Why do you ask?
@@sebradfield I like yours.
Ive loved this answer the day I heard you say it. Its changed my previous answer: " If Christopher Hitchens rose from hell in a fire and played a concert in Georgia challenging Johnny to reclaim his golden fiddle.... AND WON!"
"Twenty-Fold Baptist Levitation" would be a wicked ska-metal band.
I think this is my favorite video I've seen of yours so far. Thanks Matt.
Thanks for the content matt
Off the subject; What I believe was the key to me becoming an atheist was when at about fourteen I was told by my mother that the older kid (by a few years?) I had become friends with, passed away during his closed heart surgery. I was the next patient, having my surgery (8 / 6-16-64) done by the same staff, but for open heart surgery.
Even before being told this I wondered why I had survived a far more complicated and experimental surgery, it wasn't for any kind of "plan", I'm like the majority of humans, unremarkable.
The answer I have for myself is the surgical staff put even more effort and time into my making it through (I was also told that I was the youngest to survive open heart surgery at that hospital).
My favorite resoonse to give it "I don't know, but I know a few places to start", but I like Matt's answer a little better
What you said around 6:00-7:00 is probably the most important key here in that there is always another variable to consider that could completely warp our understanding of the purported claim.
My answer to this reflects my reasons for eventually rejecting Christian theism. If I can be presented with a good reason why the realm of religious belief deserves special pleading. But even then, this would only get me as far as "religious belief is not an unreasonable position," and no indication of which faith should be followed, beyond personal preference.
What can I do when I am a victim of conformation bias ( an immediately reaction to an approach of someone doing this )? And how can I limit my own conformation biases?
What is the point of debating WLC? Logic has no meaning for him.
thank you Matt!
"Your spectacular imagination and fanciful dreams are good evidence that you have a spectacular imagination and fanciful dreams." ;)
I have known people to have believed just about every religion out there. Multiple christian denominations. I did the same while a Christian. Each time I thought I had the truth. Now I am pretty much Atheist. A little on the agnostic side. I think people in general believe what they want to believe. They tend to find a church that suits them. Of course I am not immune to this also. Some people I think just play pascals wager.
You keep your peanut butter in playing card boxes too? Welcome to the club.
“Spiritual Butler” will be my next band name. Thanks, Matt.
I like your work Matt. With your experience "in the thick" (my ignorance is showing) of the religiosity of your upbringing, you bring to bear a perspective I could say I wish I had - so I could argue like you - but I'm probably (hopefully perhaps) a better person for not having had it as it might have been (I often hear anecdote that it appears to be) too costly to break free.
Writing in the sky is a great answer. "Witness of the Stars" by EW Bullinger maybe?
Apparently I have jumped in, in the middle of series. This is a wonderful video and I found it very informative.
But I really love that you have CubeLibre behind you and love performing that routine. It's a real monster, but a lot of fun!
I think "the butler did it" is not a great analogy to the uncaused cause, because nothing about "uncaused cause" indicates "thinking agent"... In that example the butler is actually likely.
I think a better analogy might be something like: "We know that it wasn't a suicide, so it must have been the Demogorgon".
Acts' "Damascus Road Experience" was a literary invention intended to commandeer Paul's essentially Jewish Christianity (Messianism) into Luke's predominantly Gentile Church hierarchy. The same was done with the Baptist's sect simply by claiming John as Jesus' cousin.
My disbelief is based on a (tentative) conclusion that all supernatural claims are make-believe and therefore dismissible. So I think the answer for me to "what would change your mind?" is to convince me of ANY supernatural claim. That wouldn't necessarily lead straight-away to a belief in gods, but it would force me to acknowledge that the realm of the supernatural is at least plausible.
Of course, this gets back to the same problem as Matt was describing: what would convince me of ANY supernatural claim? Arguments and evidence.
The minute something "supernatural" is demonstrated, it becomes subject to empirical examination, therefor "natural." "The supernatural" doesn't exist because the word is meaningless.
The question sounds so much like a car salesman's question (The California sales approach): What would it take for you to buy this car today?
Sometimes these evangelicals come off like a used car salesman.
There is a lot of fine print in accepting a religion. It isn't enough to accept Jesus Christ (whatever that is: patting your head, rubbing you stomach, while jumping up and down on one foot and saying I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior.)
No, no, no. You need to go to church and Sunday school. Then go to church on Wednesday. Then on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Witnessing (cold calling friends and strangers). Giving money (tithing). Going on missions. Reading books.
They are demanding a pretty big investment in time, money and work. That takes a lot of convincing.
A useful question I’ve heard theists asked is “What would you accept as evidence that your god doesn’t exist?”
Their answer is useful when deciding whether a conversation is even worth having.
I tend to get even more specific. When a theist puts forward an argument or some talking point in furtherance of their claims, I ask "If I could show that to be false, would you doubt your beliefs?" The answer has ALWAYS been "no," which reduces the usefulness of the discussion.
I listened to this out of curiosity to understand the reasons that different atheists don't believe. I found this to be one of the most honest and well thought out arguments. For me this really shed light on John 6:63-66. I would say Matt here understands this concept better than most Christians. Too many of us Christians think we can argue someone into belief. You can't. Dawkins basically says that; nothing, even Jesus riding in from the sky would convince him.
It really isn't about arguments or evidence is it? You can say that all you want but let's be honest we just want to be our own gods and do what we want with no repercussions or guilt. Like a little kid discovering their will against their parents. " NO! "
Our duty is not to convince people of Gods existence but just to tell them He does exist, the consequences of that and that He has made the way free and clear through belief in Jesus Christ. God has to do the rest and its all in His control. If He exists He will sort it all out in the end and each will be accountable only for his or her life. If He doesn't exist then its all meaningless anyway. "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die".
I think if anyone ever tells me that nothing would change their mind about God I'm going to be like "So now that you've said that, and felt good about it, can I get an honest answer?"
What would convince me? I call it *Dullahunty's Razor.* "I don't know, but a God would"
More than likely, if the deck had less than 52 cards in it, it wouldn't be very useful and would probably be thrown away, and replaced. Altho, it COULD have just lost a card or two quite recently, number of cards unknown at this point. Very unlikely.
I remember my senior year of high school, I was going to church so I could be with my best friend who I was in love with. Our youth pastor said that if the resurrection was disproved, he would walk away from Christianity. It wasn't but a year or two later that I remembered him saying this and realized how ridiculous it was.
I have a problem with a word 'supernatural'. If smth happens how can it be supernatural? If it defies our understanding of natural? well, In my opinion things that happen in nature are natural.
What would change my mind? A large body of incontrovertible of evidence that outweighs everything else that I understand to be true.
If you took a 2 way radio back 250 years, set it on the dais in a church and started reading the bible through it and then answer questions, would the people in the church believe this was god communicating with them or would they think it was witchcraft? If you did the same thing except put the radio in the town square and just greet people passing by, what would be the result? I think we know the answer.
The mere fact that anything exists, how it exists, where it exists, a creator or creators had to have made it so...I believe this narrative.
This video is now 5yr old. In that time, whatever happened to asking theists what would change their mind? I'm assuming the practice was discontinued because of something like ppl being offended.
idk, if 20 Southern Baptists could reliably make me levitate through prayer, and no 20 Buddhists or Muslims were able to do the same, it might convince me. I wouldn't have absolute certainty but it would certainly be a pretty decent piece of evidence.
It would be evidence that those 20 people praying makes you levitate but given your example it would not be evident that god exists
"I would be forced, by reason, to accept the conclusion"
Well. If a handful of chemicals, with almost no chance to make it, did come together and formed a human being with Consciousness. Then, the whole universal Matter has an almost more than 100% chance to become a Universal Consciousness.(provided you understand what Consciousness is)
It may sound like a cop-out, but I would argue in the case of an all powerful god argument that that god would know what it takes to convince me. Because aside from proof, *I* don't know what it takes to convince me. That god -- if it existed, would get it right. PS: Wow. I hadn't seen more than 2 minutes of the video, and then you present exactly what I was thinking. Nice. Good to know. I am taking this stance on it for a number of years, and I think it's the most honest approach to it. I just DON'T KNOW either way. Thanks for reaffirming for me that it's really not a cop-out, or as much. Because that's the one weakness I saw in it for all this time. Yes, no one can rebuke that argument, but they sure did groan a little.
thanks.... more videos... big brother will just have to wait.
the whole time I thought the bent, yet stoic, red playing card lounging on the desk was part of the point. Maybe it was. Touche Dillahunty...Touche.
Awesome vids, great project! But I keep hearing one detail that throws me off track somewhat.
8:38 - "You can't show a causal connection between prayer and somebody got better."
If I understand correctly, you are not talking about demonstrating a causal *mechanism*, but just the connection itself: If A, then B, irrespective of intermediate steps. So we're talking on the level of "smoking causes lung cancer", and not the molecular nuts and bolts of the process.
In that case, we could indeed show a causal connection with the help of experimental (not observational!) studies. We could conduct large randomized, double-blind studies with a control group (and all that other good stuff) where, say, patients were being prayed for. If these stuides would consistently show that the patients being prayed improved significantly faster/better, then that would be a very measureable causal connection. Just because we don't know the exact mechanism behind something, we can still infer from data whether or not some particular event causes another one.
It would be awesome to hear from you good sir.
Why is it important to change anyone's mind as long as one's 'belief' does not impact the rights of others?
It's like when people say they heard Bigfoot yell in a forest , how would they know that it was a bigfoot? If we have no live specimen ,aka a mechanism to study the behavior of the creature and learn it's mannerisms , why would we say hey that sounds like bigfoot ? That's blatantly dishonest. It'd be neat of we ever caught one of these supposed ape like hairy beings and studied it and then studied it's vocal projections and built a profile of that animal so as to better understand it, instead of there being TV shows where guys go out in the woods at night and knock on trees saying their communicating with bigfoot. If you don't have any way of studying the animal or being that you say you are attempting to communicate with and have no way of actually knowing that the being is in fact a bigfoot or not, why do you think it's honest to say yep that scream I heard in the woods was him, or those tree knocks told me how far away he is, all the while you can't see him or know if it's truly him.or just some random animal screeching. There has to be a mechanism for us to be able to build a profile and study the animal that way we can understand it and see where it fits in reality. We can't just say hey that scream you heard is bigfoot and then someone asks how do you know? We can't see anything or tell what is making the sound, the person replies well I just know cuz that's the sound they make. That's very similar , if not the same, of how people say that God is real. They say hey my mom got healed of cancer, it's a miracle and they never think of any other reason that the cancer is gone, such as misdiagnosis, or spontaneous remission carried out by the body , as Seth Andrews says , Christianity puts up an ever - moving goal post.
I do give an answer when asked this, the retort being "no it wouldn't."
So why ask, if whatever I answer you're going to rebuff?
(The answer "nothing" is far, FAR more common to theists than atheists, IME.)
What would change my mind...well there are many undiscovered things in the universe ...forces, powers, energy's. we have much to learn. But all religions are so man made always have been always will be .
Everyone is born as a non-believer. Belief is taught. But theists claim that belief is the default position. Why?
...presuppositionalism...
For a claim like God, evidence isn't really even necessary, and at this point, I don't think any _person_ could convince me to believe.
But if a God (as it tends to be defined, with all the omnipotence and everything) _wanted_ me to believe in it, I would _already_ believe in it. Since I don't, either it doesn't exist, or it doesn't want me to believe.
Whenever someone says they know that I know a god exists, or that my heart is closed off to a god, I'm going to call it the straw-mind or straw-heart fallacy. It's even worse because it goes a step further than falsely misrepresenting my position, which at least they can try to understand - it falsely presumes to know what I feel or think, which they cannot possibly understand.
7:11 can someone give me a link to this please?
I second the positive comments! :-)
I've heard you say it and you're right. God knows what it would take for you to know God. Until then you're perfectly justified in your disbelief. The only thing is, you might want to be a little less invested in being the big atheist in the little pond, so you'll recognize God when you have an encounter.
Truth.
Wrong about prayer; if a pattern emerges it's real, but prayers require intent that promotes/pleases god
Writing this before going all the way through the video, so pardon if you cover it, but I want to jot this down while it's fresh in my mind.
Every single time I have been asked what would change my mind, and my answer has been evidence, I get some form of 'God has nothing to prove to you' and/or it being hubris on my part to demand it and/or faith being better than knowledge somehow.
...The Atheist Debates:Who Are You to Question god?...
A god is so beyond our experiential reality that it defies even definition, let alone falsification.
The logical side of the brain just can handle this fantasy without what they call faith so it makes people crazy.
As the saying goes, "You don't know what you don't know." I'd know the evidence when I saw it.
If there was a God, wouldn't it behoove God to actually change Matt's mind, given the cascading benefit of converting him and anyone who will listen?
I can refute your god to precisely the extent you can define it. But you can't define it. So there's nothing for me to refute, and nothing for you to believe in.
So the question becomes: What exactly _do_ you believe in? Most likely: The church.
Stefan Travis I'm glad you asked. I believe that God is a creative, intelligent energy that created the universe. Not to be confused with biblegod. God gave its animal creations the ability to create as well. Therefore we can create new life i.e children. However, we can create other things as well like cars, aircrafts, boats, etc. we are godlike because we come from God. We are not lowly sinners, we are mini gods. God continues to create as the need arises. Science calls it evolution, it's really God. They cannot explain why or how evolution takes place, they can only report that it's happening. They can't recreate it.
Atheists are disillusioned because they've found out the Bible is a farce so they take it to the extreme and deny the evidence they see before their eyes and believe that particles slammed together to make the universe...like that makes sense.
How
I literally happened to be eating a big spoonful of peanut butter at the exact moment you said peanut butter around the 3:40 mark. Checkmate.
Whenever I am asked this question, I must ask the person posing the question, do you mean a god, a particular god, or would I worship such a god.
Because those are 3 completely different answers, to 3 completely different questions.
I always ask them to define what they mean by god clearly. So far, no believer has been able to define god clearly.
I'd first need a claim that I can understand, that can be corroborated, and that could be falsified.
If a claim doesn't meet this criteria, I cannot possibly tell it apart from bullshit.
I might go with:
- me personally (because if it's someone else, them lying is always more likely than God existing)
- directly and clearly hearing God's voice (so no assuming some bright light or warm and fuzzy feeling is God)
- while I'm perfectly awake (so no dreams)
- having him explicitly confirm and specify which god exactly he is (because humans don't worship just one) and what exactly he wants from me
- him appearing on multiple occasions (to reduce the probability of a one-time delusion or some trickery)
- him providing some irrefutable words of knowledge (irrefutable in the sense that no-one could conceivably have had that knowledge of what would happen at the time that it was provided)
- him (or anyone else) sufficiently (in my opinion) addressing e.g. the problems I see with the Bible, the problem of evil and where creationism fits in given our scientific knowledge of the origin of life and the universe (this is partly about convincing me that he really exists, and partly about convincing me that he really has the traits that he's claimed to have, such as being all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful)
- no (other) signs of any problems with my sanity or my perception of reality.
I may indeed not be able to conclusively distinguish this from delusion, some sort of telepathic ability or advanced technology, but I may find this to make the God proposition sufficiently likely to warrant my belief.
You similarly can't, with absolute certainty, know that your wife isn't just a delusion, but the evidence to the contrary is presumably strong enough for you to not believe this to be the case.
I would, of course, realise that me having such a personal experience wouldn't be rational justification for anyone else's belief.
Words in the sky, things spontaneously appearing or Jesus literally descending from the sky may also work, with potentially a lot of caveats.
Of course God would know what would convince me, but to think I know as well isn't putting myself on a god-like level, it's just implying that I know myself well enough to know what my standards of evidence are.
Failing to know what evidence you'd require seems more problematic, because you're not defining your standards of evidence. In theory, it prevents anyone from actually providing said evidence if it exists, and it allows you to move the goalposts if any good evidence is presented. You can keep claiming to have good standards of evidence even while there exists completely overwhelming evidence contradicting your beliefs, so in general I may file that under things that may be signs to oneself that one is being irrational (much like I'd consider theists to be irrational if they either say nothing would convince them or they don't know what would convince them).
"God would know" seems especially problematic if God _doesn't_ exist, because then God _wouldn't_ know, and you can't tell a theist "this is the bar you're supposed to reach to warrant belief" (in your opinion) and justify said bar, and show how spectacularly god claims have failed to meet that bar, in order to help convince them.
I suppose proving a specific God is like proving your pen pal in St. Kitts and Nevis is the one you have written correspondence with.
@@josephpostma1787 At least you can be fairly sure that your pen pal is an actual person who exists right off the bat (whether or not they are who they say they are), as opposed to likely being just a figment of your imagination.
A very minuscule portion of the population would hallucinate an interaction with another person while awake, whereas most people can randomly e.g. dream about things or get a warm and fuzzy feeling (that some people would attribute to God).
you did not exsist and now you do so you have a creator.
So my parents are my creator, and god. Got it.
@@tiedeman39 your parents are not your creator because they themselves were not created at some point in time. Your parents had no say in what sex, mental ability or personality you were.
@magic10801 So what if they were created? Does that mean you don't think cars are created, using your logic? And so what if my parents didn't decide my sex or attributes? They still had sex, and the egg and sperm cell joined and became a zygote, which eventually became me. Therefore, they created me.
Looks serious, blocks of wood and a hammer lying on the desk in the background.
Another home run, Matt.
I'm going for the optimistic view. I believe there are 54 cards in the box. 😏
The issue is that you want 'empirical' evidence, and the transcendent does not offer that. You can't determine a deity's existence from using humanistic materials. Whilst this is a cop-out, it's a good argument.
It's an equally valid argument for the existence of Odin, Zeus, Anubis, Shiva, and any other deity anyone would care to name. So it isn't a good argument.
@@cnault3244 Said deities don't have scripture, nor do they have historical validity such does the Quran.
@@TheEternalOuroboros There is no evidence for any of the miracles described in the Quran. There is no evidence being presented to prove Allah exists.
There is no reason to think the Quran is ( like the Bible) a poorly written collection of fables and myths.
@@cnault3244 Have to agree with you there for the most part. The Quran is much more sophisticated than the bible however, as it is the "final word of God", offering valid predictions that have seemingly come true.
@@TheEternalOuroboros "as it is the "final word of God"
Not according to the Mormons. You will have to prove the Quran is the final word of god.
" offering valid predictions that have seemingly come true."
Really? List a couple predictions that the Quran makes. Just post the predictions as they appear in the Quran, don't include any interpretation or claim for how it was fulfilled.
Some people could have been created that nothing could change their mind, although why they would have been allowed is mysterious.
If there is no evidence in the world that convinces you that Cookie Monster is real, does that mean you were "created" so that nothing can ever change your mind? Is that "mysterious"?
Maybe there's just no Cookie Monster, and that's why there's no evidence, and that's why you're not convinced.
I'm going to start blaming the spiritual butler! That's awesome.
Well done
If a god is all knowing and all loving... why do ppl Say it respond like humans would to injustice?
It understands what genetics and environment created hitler or bad ppl... wouldn't it act in a way of confusion to us... rather than how we would want injustice to be punished?
I think it understanding our minds triggered this thought.
Being taken to heaven and existing there for the rest of eternity would change my mind
Watch out before Sye Ten clips "I'm not reasonable" out of context
Totally agree!!
Why do you call your hypothetical intelligent God, "it"?
For me, I'd find it really convincing if instead of getting one holy book from a prophet, we got several holy books in areas of the world with 0 contact with each other. Like if the exact word for word quran showed up in Peru and new Zealand at the same time as Mohammed received his, that would go a long way for me since right now the entirety of Islam relies on Mohammeds credibility. Sure it still wouldn't be definitive but it would be way more convincing than what we have and I'd probably believe it at that point
I have been through enough trauma that I have clinically diagnosed PTSD, and I believe in a multiverse because it's the only way I can adequately explain the fact that I am alive and because I find it comforting to consider the other versions of me that are dead and the idea that this version will die without another version taking notice of that even having happened. I recognize that that isn't evidence, but it's still an idea that I find comforting and I think that the ability that the idea gives me to move on and not dwell on the past, all the reasons I should be dead, and wishing I was dead is a utilitarian argument for why I should believe it. I care about whether my beliefs are true; but I care slightly more about preserving some level of sanity and quality of life. I'm interested in other people's thoughts.
Safiya Mukhamadova
Multiverse concept is physics, that wouldn't give us parallel universe with humans with different life paths, as far as I know...
I'm sorry about what you're going through, and if that line of thinking helps, and you're keeping it from doing harm to you or others (not starting a cult/religion, indoctrinating children etc :)) you can keep the belief.
I had anxiety with elements of ptsd and I'm past that now thanks to good therapist doing rebt. If you haven't heard/tried it already, look into it. l like rationality of that aproach, and given that you're here I think you might too. ( www.rebtnetwork.org/library/ideas.html) All the best.
Fireballs!