One of the most compelling arguments I’ve heard against the classic, particularly (but not limited to) Christian God is the conflict between His three supposed primary characteristics: God can’t be omniscient, omnipotent & benevolent: at least through a logical framework, any combination of two of these aspects prevents the 3rd. Obv I grant that “God” can have quite a few (& perhaps entirely subjective?) definitions, & that logical proofs & faith are inherently antithetical.
@ as I stated, it’s any combination of two of the three traits that prevents the third, not one of the three preventing another of the three. I suggest googling it as I didn’t create the argument, but the basic premise is that an omniscient & omnipotent being cannot also be benevolent as that being would both know of all the suffering/tragedies that occur (by many belief systems, at the design of that being) & be capable of preventing & therefore chooses not to, & therefore cannot be benevolent; likewise, a being who is omniscient & benevolent cannot be omnipotent as that being would know of all the aforementioned tragedies, & desire to prevent them, but obviously cannot because those tragedies still occur. Lastly, a being who is omnipotent & benevolent cannot be omniscient because that being would want to prevent tragedy/suffering & have the power to do so, but because tragedy/suffering occurs, that being obviously isn’t aware of it, therefore, not omniscient.
To say that there is no God and to think that everything was created by chance is extreme naivety. If you cannot see that nothing comes into existence by chance and that everything we see and have exists because of a superhuman power that created it, then I don’t know what to say.
The guest got totally flabbergasted by the question, "Where did it all come from?" His reaction tells it all - he is clueless. Just another thought - how much more benevolent does he want "the God of the Old Testament" to be?
Most believers of religion A are effortlessly atheistic relative to gods of religion B. The same atheistic attitude could be added up across all religions to give a sum of 0. If one religion claims only their god is true, the same can be said by other religion, no? All religions should sort out amongst themselves about which god(s), and then it makes sense to begin to talk about arguments for or against that idea. So, in other words, this is a a first order issue between various religions.
@SandipChitale ...and your focus on their psychology does not make them atheists because they have faith in the existence of God that makes them believers or theists, not atheists.... ..in other words, your post to claim that they are atheists has no value, no coherent basis, therefore irrelevant....
Okay now let’s hear an entire episode where science explains how the universe came to be. Not a word about how religion is wrong. Let’s just hear how science says this all happened.
"...how the universe came to be?" The thing is, science postulates theories based on observations, these theories change as we learn more, whereas religion claims to know for a fact and ignores evidence to the contrary. Science readily admits to "not knowing" or admitting it "got it wrong", religion simply moves the 'line in the sand' it uses to affirm its proclamations.
You can never completely reject the idea of an intelligent designer. But we can absolutely reject the ones we have come up with. The level of cultural egomania involved is just too obvious to ignore. And gods do rise and fall with the civilizations that created them. Even the conscious universe concept has the same logical inconsistencies of our other answers.
Most people only see what they want to see...even those in the scientific community. Only a few people are willing to push their personal filter to expand their understanding. I applaud Robert for digging ever deeper. Someday humans will get to the source code that explains this deeply flawed existence.
...there was no flaw when God created this World perfectly to represent Heaven and Hell in the Spiritual Realm to give as hints to understand the meaning of our existence....
I think we are there now. It’s “someday” apparently: By 2:40 in, I realized that he hasn’t even read the absolute best direct evidence for god. 😂 But actually a lot of people have not. It just happened extremely recently out of nowhere: Every single thing he says is absolutely answered unequivocally in a tiny book that came out in late 2024: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” which dives amazingly deep into the inherent symbolism built into the human eye of cosmic proportions so finely tuned that you can learn things about the universe from the eye!! The whites are the sun, the earth-toned iris with air-envelope cornea is the Earth, and most recently due to science we can understand the pupil as a singularity or black hole. The author actually shows what gravity is-not the functional description from science but what it means. Also, the sun, the Earth, and a singularity are all themselves symbols of something beyond space and time in the present. All symbols require unified consciousness to Make and read them. Humans are symbolic of the creator, and our language use is instructive itself in reference to the higher language of reality. The eye is direct evidence on your own face. This little book is only the beginning-the author decodes much of reality in the same way and it is clearly a symbolic message. A functional message. There is no causal reason why the eye should reflect these larger things in its “orbit” and humans did not know about black holes until quite recently. We did not do this. When you begin to see it, it is like decoding a hieroglyphic language-it fits perfectly together only one way. It’s a language from a higher mind that has clearly waited a long time to speak to us. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
@@evaadam3635perfectly in that it will be engulfed by the sun when the sun becomes a red giant and that 99.9% of life on it has already become extinct?
One of the best arguments that I've heard against the Christian God was the lack of communication. If there is a God that wants us to know that he exists, and he is powerful enough to make that happen, then he is doing a poor job of it. There are atheists in this world who honestly have not felt any connection to God. There are three main branches of the Abrahamic religion. Jewish, Islamic, and Christian. Those three faiths have honest beliefs in God, except they have different versions. If there is a God that wants us to know that he exists and wants to convey a clear message to us, then why are there so many different versions and flavors of these religions? And why am I making this comment right now? If there was a God that wanted us all to know about him, I would know about him. Unless he's playing games, which doesn't seem very godlike.
All arguments for God are arguments from design, by definition. So, to me, it's not so much about God's existence, but about God's necessity. If God isn't necessary (to create some aspect of "existence" or another), God becomes functionally indistinguishable from irrelevant.
He kind of dismissively says, "Laws are effectively summaries of behavior." But that warrants a deeper dive. We may have summarized the Laws in our attempt to understand them, but they exist independently of us. The general consensus among scientists is that Laws of Nature are discovered, not invented. They exist outside of space and time (eternal). They are unseen forces that are everywhere (omnipresent). They help explain the universe (omniscient). What an atheist or an agnostic may call the "Laws of Nature," a religious person may call "God." If one defines "God" as an eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, force, one can argue that there is evidence for "God." Now whether that god (laws of nature) is a personal or impersonal force depends on the nature and origins of consciousness.
Why do theists say that the "laws of nature" are somehow written rules that control the universe, rather than them being simple observations of reality that are consistent every time we check. They do not "exist out of space and time" they are fundamentals of them.
science can only understand what can be located, measured and wheighed, how then can science understand love truth and beauty, the 3 aspects of God that we mere mortals can apprehend. God is a poet ;)
The experiences of love, truth and beauty are generated by our brain! An imaginary God is not involved in those experiences. Humans are an evolved species of animals nothing more, nothing less. The difference between the Homosapiens and the other great apes and other animals is a GRADUAL difference but not a fundamental one! Do you really believe that the Homosapiens are the only species that can survive their own death by going to an imaginary hell or heaven just because they developed a bigger brain and frontal lobe by the unguided evolutionary proces? Seriously? Absurdity squared!
If there's evidence then why is there a need to believe? Doesn't Peter Atkins agree the evidence negates beliefs? He says, no evidence for God to believe, that's nonsensical on his part.
*"If you need evidence, then it's not belief."* ... Any construct, theory, hypothesis, or proposition that isn't *100% complete* (i.e., "no missing data") requires a certain degree of "belief." *Example:* Multiverse has a ton of missing data, yet people still "believe" it exists.
We read books without any empirical evidence that meaning exists between the words. 😂🤷♀️ By 2:40 in, I realized that he hasn’t even read the absolute best direct evidence for god. 😂 But actually a lot of people have not. It just happened extremely recently out of nowhere: Every single thing he says is absolutely answered unequivocally in a tiny book that came out in late 2024: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” which dives amazingly deep into the inherent symbolism built into the human eye of cosmic proportions so finely tuned that you can learn things about the universe from the eye!! The whites are the sun, the earth-toned iris with air-envelope cornea is the Earth, and most recently due to science we can understand the pupil as a singularity or black hole. The author actually shows what gravity is-not the functional description from science but what it means. Also, the sun, the Earth, and a singularity are all themselves symbols of something beyond space and time in the present. All symbols require unified consciousness to Make and read them. Humans are symbolic of the creator, and our language use is instructive itself in reference to the higher language of reality. The eye is direct evidence on your own face. This little book is only the beginning-the author decodes much of reality in the same way and it is clearly a symbolic message. A functional message. There is no causal reason why the eye should reflect these larger things in its “orbit” and humans did not know about black holes until quite recently. We did not do this. When you begin to see it, it is like decoding a hieroglyphic language-it fits perfectly together only one way. It’s a language from a higher mind that has clearly waited a long time to speak to us. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
We're not exactly in heaven, so I understand why he says there's no evidence. No one should be expected to believe anyone's inner experience. But just as an example; Sam Harris, an atheist, now believes in spirituality (spirit) having practiced meditation. He now believes that the self doesn't exist. In ACIM, the evidence for the kingdom isn't found in external observations or physical manifestation, but rather in the inherent nature of your own consciousness (because consciousness is all we have to work with) and that the only real reality is a unified, loving state beyond the illusion of separation; essentially the evidence lies within us, in the potential to experience pure love and unity with all creation. The kingdom of God is within. I would say Peter is correct in saying there is no evidence that anyone can present to anyone else whether internal or external. But I wish the term "God" was explained in the interview before refuting its existence.
Putting forward arguments against God is a naïve exercise. It's like listing arguments against the existence of the Monster of Loch Ness. A waste of everyone's time. The interesting question is: why do people believe in spirits and gods? The answer must come from the psychology of religion, not from philosophy, astronomy or mathematics. God exists in the mental universe, not in the physical universe. Like Nessie!
I completely have the world's highest conceptual understanding but I'm only level 2 so I need more time but it is a power system that controls and manipulates everything and yes, light is very central but light actually turns you know, upside down, not just straight.
I would submit that our understanding of Existence doesn't allow for God: an immaterial being outside of space and time, yet is also omnipotent, omnipresent, perfectly good and the creator of everything, including presumably, God himself. 😮
I used to think things like that until recently… By 2:40 in, I realized that he hasn’t even read the absolute best direct evidence for god. 😂 But actually a lot of people have not. It just happened extremely recently out of nowhere: Every single thing he says is absolutely answered unequivocally in a tiny book that came out in late 2024: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” which dives amazingly deep into the inherent symbolism built into the human eye of cosmic proportions so finely tuned that you can learn things about the universe from the eye!! The whites are the sun, the earth-toned iris with air-envelope cornea is the Earth, and most recently due to science we can understand the pupil as a singularity or black hole. The author actually shows what gravity is-not the functional description from science but what it means. Also, the sun, the Earth, and a singularity are all themselves symbols of something beyond space and time in the present. All symbols require unified consciousness to Make and read them. Humans are symbolic of the creator, and our language use is instructive itself in reference to the higher language of reality. The eye is direct evidence on your own face. This little book is only the beginning-the author decodes much of reality in the same way and it is clearly a symbolic message. A functional message. There is no causal reason why the eye should reflect these larger things in its “orbit” and humans did not know about black holes until quite recently. We did not do this. When you begin to see it, it is like decoding a hieroglyphic language-it fits perfectly together only one way. It’s a language from a higher mind that has clearly waited a long time to speak to us. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
'Faith and revelations are quirks of the brain or the result of family or cultural upbringing' If proof of God's existence is needed to be valid then a proof of this sweeping generalization is also needed to validate its truth. Good philosophy doesn't take a sweeping generalization as the basis of an argument.
We already have proof. People who are raised in different cultures and ubringings will generally adhere to the environment. Also, certain kinds of brain trauma can lead to specific religious delusions.
The god concept and the religion people believe in is in more than 99% of the cases a sheer geographical and temporal coincidence! Indoctrination from childhood on, social pressure and often oppression, a lack of a PROPER scientific education especially about evolution and cosmology, and often a lack of reasoning abilities and critical thinking skills are the keywords here! Even intelligent people put their critical thinking skills on hold as soon as their religion comes into play because of brainwashing at a very vulnerable age! It is a severe form of mental child abuse because when they grow up for many of them it is hard to shake it off!
*"This doesn't make sense."* ... He's saying that it doesn't matter if you are atheist, theist, agnostic _or whatever_ ... if you are emanating "love," then you are emanating God. This wasn't difficult to extrapolate from what he wrote.
Look, professor Atkinson is a fine fellow and a good scientist. Nevertheless, exactly nothing he has to say here either relevant or even very interesting. This doesn’t prove anything except possibly 1) he wasn’t prepared for the question, or 2) there are no good answers to the question. He could’ve stopped after his first sentence re the difficulty of proving the non-existence of a claimed entity, and it would’ve been a more interesting episode.
It doesn't matter if there is a god or not. What matters is whether said god interacts with us and our natural world. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) tells us what we and our natural world are made of (mostly quarks and electrons) and everything that interacts with that stuff in a way that would be meaningful. We know today beyond reasonable doubt that there are no god, devil, soul, ghost or spirit forces, fields or particles (vibrations in a field) that interact with the stuff we're made of, and that renders any immaterial gods that might somehow exist outside space and time, moot.
There would be no suffering if there was a loving God. Meanwhile, Robert Lawrence Kuhn should ponder that if there isn't a God- then, maybe that shouldn't be considered so negative.
@@evaadam3635Sorry, but that argument doesn't make sense and never has. If I'm in a position where I can destroy a million people, which is the worst crime? My act, or god subjugating my free will to commit the act?
Universe can't exist from nothing according to thermodynamics laws. A creator not created must be existing. That represents a self referential paradox. Logic suggests a resolution to this paradox by stating that the uncreated creator must be outside on the whole universe boundaries.
How do you know what a god is since your imaginary god is not detectable in any way since "it" is supposed to "exist" " out of time and out of space"? Whatever that means! The word god is a very loaded word and means thousands of different things to thousands of different people! So, since there is already a word for energy, namely "energy", it is much better to go on using the word " energy"!!!
*"How do you know what a god is since your imaginary god is not detectable in any way"* ... Swap-out "Multiverse" for "god" and you end up with the same result.
God is a lost continent in the human mind. That continent has been rediscovered in a time of great peril for ourselves and our world. Is this coincidence, synchronicity, or a cruelly meaningless juxtaposition of hope and ruin?
What are you talking about? When was it that no one promoted the God idea? What sort of comeback do you think it is making? When in human history have there not been great perils?
@@itheuserfirst3186 Sorry, do you even watch any theistic philosophers? They don't just walk around saying "I believe cause my gut tells me it's true!" Look up Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig, both have been on this channel. Or look up Swinburne's arguments (also on this channel). Stop thinking everyone who disagrees with you is silly.
It is not necessarily limited. He did actually address the issue, and correctly identifies the only evidence for god as, "sentiment". It is you who does not like your beliefs reduced to "sentiment". If there is any other kind of evidence, it is not presented. You accuse him of being attached to materialism , but it may be you who is attached to sentiment.
@@IR17171717 What about William Lane Craig, doee he present as evidence, other than "sentiment"? I haven't seen him present actual evidence, other than stating what might be true, and then affirming that he believes it is true. True there is logic behind the belief, but not evidence beyond sentiment. Or do you say otherwise? What is it I have not considered?
1 predicted gravitational constant gradient according to projective unified field theory = (-1/((putative quantum gravity suggested light time lag per energy and distance)×(2π α Earth mass^2))) God created the heavens and Earth, like a Newtonian cradle, and He had the Physics equations before the light in the beginning.
The human intellect is incapable of comprehending God. Pointless going there. It can't be done. It can only be understood through the experience of liberation from within the human heart.
@@Roshan-q6n God is closer to us than our own arteries. We live in God, God is our own nature, we are part of Him or It. We'll never be able to describe Him or It, because as you say it is beyond our intellect, concepts, beyond this world of phenomena even though it is part of Him/It. With loving kindness 💜 🙏 📿
Your eye on your face is not a figment of your imagination. A book came out recently unlike anything else in history-it’s no joke: By 2:40 in, I realized that he hasn’t even read the absolute best direct evidence for god. 😂 But actually a lot of people have not. It just happened extremely recently out of nowhere: Every single thing he says is absolutely answered unequivocally in a tiny book that came out in late 2024: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” which dives amazingly deep into the inherent symbolism built into the human eye of cosmic proportions so finely tuned that you can learn things about the universe from the eye!! The whites are the sun, the earth-toned iris with air-envelope cornea is the Earth, and most recently due to science we can understand the pupil as a singularity or black hole. The author actually shows what gravity is-not the functional description from science but what it means. Also, the sun, the Earth, and a singularity are all themselves symbols of something beyond space and time in the present. All symbols require unified consciousness to Make and read them. Humans are symbolic of the creator, and our language use is instructive itself in reference to the higher language of reality. The eye is direct evidence on your own face. This little book is only the beginning-the author decodes much of reality in the same way and it is clearly a symbolic message. A functional message. There is no causal reason why the eye should reflect these larger things in its “orbit” and humans did not know about black holes until quite recently. We did not do this. When you begin to see it, it is like decoding a hieroglyphic language-it fits perfectly together only one way. It’s a language from a higher mind that has clearly waited a long time to speak to us. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
Well, though unfalsifiable, I suspect that the god described by religions is nothing more than the projection of the unconscious ego of psychopathic narcissists, as all religions create animosity between different peoples and have motivated many genocides, which is not healthy for anyone/anywhere/anytime. However, the God described by Spinoza is worthy of non-rejection and further contemplation...
1:46 This confession is one of the most tragic and pitiful statements that can ever be uttered by a mortal man. Kuhn should've thrown his arms around him and wept aloud. It indicates a matastising inner blindness that is almost incurable. When one can no longer see things right in front of them we know physical blindness is eminent. When one can observe all the wonders around, both good and bad, and say "I see nothing" a far more dreadful blindness has taken hold. Even more terrifying, it portends the possibility of a divine abandoning to a final and all-consuming darkness. God forbid this fate should overcome any reading this.
This man states that there's no evidence of Source(the Primordial Cause). For great is the error in considering Source as 'other than' anything and everything of phenomena and numena and if such an objective in Source is not found therefore disproves Source - this is fallacy as he designates Source to time and space and hasn't any method to demonstrate such. This is the redundancy of the mind, and Peter atkins can no longer be worthy of the question for his parameters regarding the subject is dualism and arbitrary - his frame of mind is relativity and usually what also follows such is reification. Many arguements there are against God but if you actually research what will be revealed is only the concepts and theories concerning God can be affirmed or denied. Nobody can deny Source that is transcendent to all phenomena time and space - and right here i mention a fallacy, for in truth it is not God who is transcendent to anything, rather man is circumscribed to and delimited by time and space. For me to say God is transcendent is my own fault in making my relative and emphemeral existence as main factor and making God revolved around me. This goes for everything relative and reificatory. Ex. people consider this phenomena here as natural and God must be supernatural for where evennis God? In truth there is no natural phenomena and a questionable supernatural where God abodes. Man made this up. I wouldn't wait for peter atkins or any of his kin.... they're not smart or wise.
The best argument against the existence of God is that the construct violates the *2nd Law of Existence:* _"Anything deemed logically conceivable _*_can be brought into existence_*_ by way of an evolutionary progression of consciousness (information) moving from simplicity to complexity as long as all other laws of existence are obeyed."_ According to this 2nd Law, any proposition that presents a "no origin point" scenario (i.e., "has always existed") cannot exist. Infinity moving into the future is absolutely *conceivable,* but infinity moving into the past is *inconceivable.* Everything observable has an _origin point._ ... To claim an "infinite existence" for anything at all is to ask for *special pleading.*
What stupid talk by the guest, when he says it is just luck, he is basically saying that from nothing the universe emerges with the precise laws and constants based on luck😅😅. Well he just changed the word God to Luck to avoid infinite regression. And as for infinite universes where do those universes come from nothing. Both are scenarios of infinite regression.
The Bible is full of so many contradictions. If God created man, then why did he put other life forms on Earth hundreds of millions of years before man? This fact alone contradicts the entire Biblical story. Noa's Ark didn't include dinosaurs because they didn't know they existed.
First you need to understand why the universe exists and why life exists. The Bible is a human interpretation of the creator, of the meaning of things. But there is a universal message in reality itself: By 2:40 in, I realized that he hasn’t even read the absolute best direct evidence for god. 😂 But actually a lot of people have not. It just happened extremely recently out of nowhere: Every single thing he says is absolutely answered unequivocally in a tiny book that came out in late 2024: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” which dives amazingly deep into the inherent symbolism built into the human eye of cosmic proportions so finely tuned that you can learn things about the universe from the eye!! The whites are the sun, the earth-toned iris with air-envelope cornea is the Earth, and most recently due to science we can understand the pupil as a singularity or black hole. The author actually shows what gravity is-not the functional description from science but what it means. Also, the sun, the Earth, and a singularity are all themselves symbols of something beyond space and time in the present. All symbols require unified consciousness to Make and read them. Humans are symbolic of the creator, and our language use is instructive itself in reference to the higher language of reality. The eye is direct evidence on your own face. This little book is only the beginning-the author decodes much of reality in the same way and it is clearly a symbolic message. A functional message. There is no causal reason why the eye should reflect these larger things in its “orbit” and humans did not know about black holes until quite recently. We did not do this. When you begin to see it, it is like decoding a hieroglyphic language-it fits perfectly together only one way. It’s a language from a higher mind that has clearly waited a long time to speak to us. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
The god concept is made on purpose so that its existence can not be falsified! It is supposed to "exist" "out of space and out of time" so it is not detectable in any way. That's very suspicious isn't it because that is exactly the same characteristic of something that does not exist in reality but only exists as a concept in the minds of very gullible and deeply indoctrinated so-called "believers"! And do the theists even understand themselves what that means to "exist" " out of time and out of space" I wonder because it is an absurd, completely abstract and contradictory concept! Something can not exist for zero seconds because then it does not exist. And neither can something exist "out of space" because something that exists takes space itself! And to quote Bertrand Russell: I can claim that a teapot is orbiting a planet somewhere in a far galaxy. You can not disprove that but that is no reason to believe that it is true! The same applies to the existence of fairies, pixies, unicorns and all the thousands if gid concepts people believed in or still believe in! The moment to believe that something exists in reality is when there is VALID EVIDENCE for its existence and not ONE second earlier! But there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god or Allah or whatever name they gave to their non-existing celestial dictator! And science and especially evolution have already debunked the crux of christianity and the crux of all the other religions I know of AGES ago! So, it's about time to grow up and to leave all that supernatural nonsense of ANY religion and all those bronze age man-made myths, doctrines and rules how to behave to "please " an imaginary celestial dictator behind and to learn to deal with REALITY!
@@itheuserfirst3186 I don't think this person has said that there is no evidence for God. I think they are just quite rightly saying that you also need evidence for atheism if you are an atheist.
God is the magic who adds colours and sounds to our worlds. Consciousness is the proof and evidence of God. Any efforts by atheists to explain consciousness without invoking God will fail. Thoughts and judgements about good and evil are innate. We cannot make a story where evil wins. Goodness always prevails.
..as they say, "all roads lead to Rome".... likewise, all faiths lead to the true GOD that can save lost souls, only imperfect men's understanding differ... GOD understands it is all about HIM..
@@evaadam3635 _" likewise, all faiths lead to the true GOD "_ Faith that was ordained by God is only thing is valid before God and stands before God, the rest of the faiths will take humanity to 🔥, including Christianity will take followers to 🔥.
@IR17171717 sure, and what about people dying and coming back to life? Most Christians that I know claim that literally actually happened. Talking snake, resurrections, a man living in a whale, parting the Red Sea, turning water into wine...
One of the most compelling arguments I’ve heard against the classic, particularly (but not limited to) Christian God is the conflict between His three supposed primary characteristics:
God can’t be omniscient, omnipotent & benevolent: at least through a logical framework, any combination of two of these aspects prevents the 3rd.
Obv I grant that “God” can have quite a few (& perhaps entirely subjective?) definitions, & that logical proofs & faith are inherently antithetical.
And why can't it be omniscient (everywhere) and omnipotent (powerful)?
@@Shakur24434 Because good cannot exist without the bad.
@ as I stated, it’s any combination of two of the three traits that prevents the third, not one of the three preventing another of the three.
I suggest googling it as I didn’t create the argument, but the basic premise is that an omniscient & omnipotent being cannot also be benevolent as that being would both know of all the suffering/tragedies that occur (by many belief systems, at the design of that being) & be capable of preventing & therefore chooses not to, & therefore cannot be benevolent; likewise, a being who is omniscient & benevolent cannot be omnipotent as that being would know of all the aforementioned tragedies, & desire to prevent them, but obviously cannot because those tragedies still occur. Lastly, a being who is omnipotent & benevolent cannot be omniscient because that being would want to prevent tragedy/suffering & have the power to do so, but because tragedy/suffering occurs, that being obviously isn’t aware of it, therefore, not omniscient.
@ omniscient doesn’t mean all-places. It means all-knowing.
Omnipresent is a being that is everywhere, & isn’t part of the argument I described.
@@LuddyVonBeat also, no. “Good without evil” is not the logic behind the argument I described.
To say that there is no God and to think that everything was created by chance is extreme naivety. If you cannot see that nothing comes into existence by chance and that everything we see and have exists because of a superhuman power that created it, then I don’t know what to say.
I believe the word you're looking for is "supernatural" not superhuman. Cheers!
The guest got totally flabbergasted by the question, "Where did it all come from?" His reaction tells it all - he is clueless.
Just another thought - how much more benevolent does he want "the God of the Old Testament" to be?
Anything more benevolent than the murderous psycho god of the old testament would be an improvement.
Most believers of religion A are effortlessly atheistic relative to gods of religion B. The same atheistic attitude could be added up across all religions to give a sum of 0. If one religion claims only their god is true, the same can be said by other religion, no? All religions should sort out amongst themselves about which god(s), and then it makes sense to begin to talk about arguments for or against that idea. So, in other words, this is a a first order issue between various religions.
...it is your sincere faith that matters that can save your soul and not what religion you belong... God understands it is all about Him...
@evaadam3635 looks like you forgot to address the point above.
@@SandipChitale ...what they think of other religions is irrelevant to the salvation of their souls for having sincere faith...
@@evaadam3635 It says about their psychology...does not say anything about existence or non-existence of god(s).
@SandipChitale ...and your focus on their psychology does not make them atheists because they have faith in the existence of God that makes them believers or theists, not atheists....
..in other words, your post to claim that they are atheists has no value, no coherent basis, therefore irrelevant....
The Bible, especially the OT, is a collection of books reflecting a development in their understanding of God and relationship
No supernatural explanation has ever replaced a natural, scientific explanation. The reverse has occurred relentlessly.
Okay now let’s hear an entire episode where science explains how the universe came to be. Not a word about how religion is wrong. Let’s just hear how science says this all happened.
The thing is, science doesn't claim to know how the universe came to be. Religious nutjobs do.
Why? "Science" doesn't necessarily have all the answers, only observations, and also math that can infer some things.
The present universe came out of what existed previously.
"...how the universe came to be?" The thing is, science postulates theories based on observations, these theories change as we learn more, whereas religion claims to know for a fact and ignores evidence to the contrary.
Science readily admits to "not knowing" or admitting it "got it wrong", religion simply moves the 'line in the sand' it uses to affirm its proclamations.
You can never completely reject the idea of an intelligent designer. But we can absolutely reject the ones we have come up with. The level of cultural egomania involved is just too obvious to ignore. And gods do rise and fall with the civilizations that created them.
Even the conscious universe concept has the same logical inconsistencies of our other answers.
Most people only see what they want to see...even those in the scientific community. Only a few people are willing to push their personal filter to expand their understanding. I applaud Robert for digging ever deeper. Someday humans will get to the source code that explains this deeply flawed existence.
Or maybe they never will...
...there was no flaw when God created this World perfectly to represent Heaven and Hell in the Spiritual Realm to give as hints to understand the meaning of our existence....
I think we are there now. It’s “someday” apparently:
By 2:40 in, I realized that he hasn’t even read the absolute best direct evidence for god. 😂 But actually a lot of people have not. It just happened extremely recently out of nowhere:
Every single thing he says is absolutely answered unequivocally in a tiny book that came out in late 2024: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” which dives amazingly deep into the inherent symbolism built into the human eye of cosmic proportions so finely tuned that you can learn things about the universe from the eye!! The whites are the sun, the earth-toned iris with air-envelope cornea is the Earth, and most recently due to science we can understand the pupil as a singularity or black hole. The author actually shows what gravity is-not the functional description from science but what it means. Also, the sun, the Earth, and a singularity are all themselves symbols of something beyond space and time in the present. All symbols require unified consciousness to
Make and read them. Humans are symbolic of the creator, and our language use is instructive itself in reference to the higher language of reality. The eye is direct evidence on your own face. This little book is only the beginning-the author decodes much of reality in the same way and it is clearly a symbolic message. A functional message. There is no causal reason why the eye should reflect these larger things in its “orbit” and humans did not know about black holes until quite recently. We did not do this. When you begin to see it, it is like decoding a hieroglyphic language-it fits perfectly together only one way. It’s a language from a higher mind that has clearly waited a long time to speak to us. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
Your parents failed you.
@@evaadam3635perfectly in that it will be engulfed by the sun when the sun becomes a red giant and that 99.9% of life on it has already become extinct?
One of the best arguments that I've heard against the Christian God was the lack of communication. If there is a God that wants us to know that he exists, and he is powerful enough to make that happen, then he is doing a poor job of it. There are atheists in this world who honestly have not felt any connection to God. There are three main branches of the Abrahamic religion. Jewish, Islamic, and Christian. Those three faiths have honest beliefs in God, except they have different versions. If there is a God that wants us to know that he exists and wants to convey a clear message to us, then why are there so many different versions and flavors of these religions? And why am I making this comment right now? If there was a God that wanted us all to know about him, I would know about him. Unless he's playing games, which doesn't seem very godlike.
Psychopathic narcissists view themselves like that of the god described by religions...
Quantum Field Theory tells us beyond reasonable doubt, that if there is a god it does not interact with us, rendering it moot.
All arguments for God are arguments from design, by definition. So, to me, it's not so much about God's existence, but about God's necessity. If God isn't necessary (to create some aspect of "existence" or another), God becomes functionally indistinguishable from irrelevant.
How can matter, creation come to understand itself?
I listened to Atkins for the first 5 minutes, and 'know' I dumber for it.
He kind of dismissively says, "Laws are effectively summaries of behavior." But that warrants a deeper dive. We may have summarized the Laws in our attempt to understand them, but they exist independently of us. The general consensus among scientists is that Laws of Nature are discovered, not invented. They exist outside of space and time (eternal). They are unseen forces that are everywhere (omnipresent). They help explain the universe (omniscient). What an atheist or an agnostic may call the "Laws of Nature," a religious person may call "God." If one defines "God" as an eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, force, one can argue that there is evidence for "God." Now whether that god (laws of nature) is a personal or impersonal force depends on the nature and origins of consciousness.
Why do theists say that the "laws of nature" are somehow written rules that control the universe, rather than them being simple observations of reality that are consistent every time we check. They do not "exist out of space and time" they are fundamentals of them.
science can only understand what can be located, measured and wheighed, how then can science understand love truth and beauty, the 3 aspects of God that we mere mortals can apprehend. God is a poet ;)
The experiences of love, truth and beauty are generated by our brain! An imaginary God is not involved in those experiences. Humans are an evolved species of animals nothing more, nothing less. The difference between the Homosapiens and the other great apes and other animals is a GRADUAL difference but not a fundamental one! Do you really believe that the Homosapiens are the only species that can survive their own death by going to an imaginary hell or heaven just because they developed a bigger brain and frontal lobe by the unguided evolutionary proces? Seriously? Absurdity squared!
If I put your brain in a blender, where is your sense of love, truth and beauty?
If there's evidence then why is there a need to believe? Doesn't Peter Atkins agree the evidence negates beliefs? He says, no evidence for God to believe, that's nonsensical on his part.
If you need evidence, then it's not belief.
Do you mean it's not faith? Beliefs are usually based on evidence or reasons.
@9Ballr if you have evidence it's knowledge.
*"If you need evidence, then it's not belief."*
... Any construct, theory, hypothesis, or proposition that isn't *100% complete* (i.e., "no missing data") requires a certain degree of "belief." *Example:* Multiverse has a ton of missing data, yet people still "believe" it exists.
😅😂😂😂😂😂
We read books without any empirical evidence that meaning exists between the words. 😂🤷♀️
By 2:40 in, I realized that he hasn’t even read the absolute best direct evidence for god. 😂 But actually a lot of people have not. It just happened extremely recently out of nowhere:
Every single thing he says is absolutely answered unequivocally in a tiny book that came out in late 2024: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” which dives amazingly deep into the inherent symbolism built into the human eye of cosmic proportions so finely tuned that you can learn things about the universe from the eye!! The whites are the sun, the earth-toned iris with air-envelope cornea is the Earth, and most recently due to science we can understand the pupil as a singularity or black hole. The author actually shows what gravity is-not the functional description from science but what it means. Also, the sun, the Earth, and a singularity are all themselves symbols of something beyond space and time in the present. All symbols require unified consciousness to
Make and read them. Humans are symbolic of the creator, and our language use is instructive itself in reference to the higher language of reality. The eye is direct evidence on your own face. This little book is only the beginning-the author decodes much of reality in the same way and it is clearly a symbolic message. A functional message. There is no causal reason why the eye should reflect these larger things in its “orbit” and humans did not know about black holes until quite recently. We did not do this. When you begin to see it, it is like decoding a hieroglyphic language-it fits perfectly together only one way. It’s a language from a higher mind that has clearly waited a long time to speak to us. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
We're not exactly in heaven, so I understand why he says there's no evidence. No one should be expected to believe anyone's inner experience. But just as an example; Sam Harris, an atheist, now believes in spirituality (spirit) having practiced meditation. He now believes that the self doesn't exist.
In ACIM, the evidence for the kingdom isn't found in external observations or physical manifestation, but rather in the inherent nature of your own consciousness (because consciousness is all we have to work with) and that the only real reality is a unified, loving state beyond the illusion of separation; essentially the evidence lies within us, in the potential to experience pure love and unity with all creation. The kingdom of God is within. I would say Peter is correct in saying there is no evidence that anyone can present to anyone else whether internal or external. But I wish the term "God" was explained in the interview before refuting its existence.
Putting forward arguments against God is a naïve exercise. It's like listing arguments against the existence of the Monster of Loch Ness. A waste of everyone's time. The interesting question is: why do people believe in spirits and gods? The answer must come from the psychology of religion, not from philosophy, astronomy or mathematics. God exists in the mental universe, not in the physical universe. Like Nessie!
One can argue that philosophy talks about the nature of God...
I completely have the world's highest conceptual understanding but I'm only level 2 so I need more time but it is a power system that controls and manipulates everything and yes, light is very central but light actually turns you know, upside down, not just straight.
I would submit that our understanding of Existence doesn't allow for God: an immaterial being outside of space and time, yet is also omnipotent, omnipresent, perfectly good and the creator of everything, including presumably, God himself. 😮
What is God?
There’s as much evidence for multiple universes as there is for God.
I used to think things like that until recently…
By 2:40 in, I realized that he hasn’t even read the absolute best direct evidence for god. 😂 But actually a lot of people have not. It just happened extremely recently out of nowhere:
Every single thing he says is absolutely answered unequivocally in a tiny book that came out in late 2024: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” which dives amazingly deep into the inherent symbolism built into the human eye of cosmic proportions so finely tuned that you can learn things about the universe from the eye!! The whites are the sun, the earth-toned iris with air-envelope cornea is the Earth, and most recently due to science we can understand the pupil as a singularity or black hole. The author actually shows what gravity is-not the functional description from science but what it means. Also, the sun, the Earth, and a singularity are all themselves symbols of something beyond space and time in the present. All symbols require unified consciousness to
Make and read them. Humans are symbolic of the creator, and our language use is instructive itself in reference to the higher language of reality. The eye is direct evidence on your own face. This little book is only the beginning-the author decodes much of reality in the same way and it is clearly a symbolic message. A functional message. There is no causal reason why the eye should reflect these larger things in its “orbit” and humans did not know about black holes until quite recently. We did not do this. When you begin to see it, it is like decoding a hieroglyphic language-it fits perfectly together only one way. It’s a language from a higher mind that has clearly waited a long time to speak to us. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
Evidence for one god out of many. 😂
'Faith and revelations are quirks of the brain or the result of family or cultural upbringing'
If proof of God's existence is needed to be valid then a proof of this sweeping generalization is also needed to validate its truth.
Good philosophy doesn't take a sweeping generalization as the basis of an argument.
We already have proof. People who are raised in different cultures and ubringings will generally adhere to the environment. Also, certain kinds of brain trauma can lead to specific religious delusions.
The god concept and the religion people believe in is in more than 99% of the cases a sheer geographical and temporal coincidence! Indoctrination from childhood on, social pressure and often oppression, a lack of a PROPER scientific education especially about evolution and cosmology, and often a lack of reasoning abilities and critical thinking skills are the keywords here! Even intelligent people put their critical thinking skills on hold as soon as their religion comes into play because of brainwashing at a very vulnerable age! It is a severe form of mental child abuse because when they grow up for many of them it is hard to shake it off!
A lot rambling about God make sure he shows his proposition in God evidence are fraud conclusions. Wortheless rethoric.
God is the love that eminates from the heart of all beings, including athiests.
This doesn't make sense.
@itheuserfirst3186 You're not supposed to understand it with your intellect, but by observing your own heart and the love that resides within it.
*"This doesn't make sense."*
... He's saying that it doesn't matter if you are atheist, theist, agnostic _or whatever_ ... if you are emanating "love," then you are emanating God. This wasn't difficult to extrapolate from what he wrote.
Look, professor Atkinson is a fine fellow and a good scientist. Nevertheless, exactly nothing he has to say here either relevant or even very interesting. This doesn’t prove anything except possibly 1) he wasn’t prepared for the question, or 2) there are no good answers to the question. He could’ve stopped after his first sentence re the difficulty of proving the non-existence of a claimed entity, and it would’ve been a more interesting episode.
It doesn't matter if there is a god or not. What matters is whether said god interacts with us and our natural world. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) tells us what we and our natural world are made of (mostly quarks and electrons) and everything that interacts with that stuff in a way that would be meaningful. We know today beyond reasonable doubt that there are no god, devil, soul, ghost or spirit forces, fields or particles (vibrations in a field) that interact with the stuff we're made of, and that renders any immaterial gods that might somehow exist outside space and time, moot.
There would be no suffering if there was a loving God. Meanwhile, Robert Lawrence Kuhn should ponder that if there isn't a God- then, maybe that shouldn't be considered so negative.
... not interferring your free will to choose to do evil or to do good shows God loves you so not to treat you as His slave or robot..
" _There would be no suffering if there was a loving God._
Why do you say that?
@@evaadam3635Sorry, but that argument doesn't make sense and never has. If I'm in a position where I can destroy a million people, which is the worst crime? My act, or god subjugating my free will to commit the act?
Universe can't exist from nothing according to thermodynamics laws. A creator not created must be existing. That represents a self referential paradox. Logic suggests a resolution to this paradox by stating that the uncreated creator must be outside on the whole universe boundaries.
Is the earth mirror of universe rather then center of universe?
God is not a person,but the personification of the mystical energy of the universe.
Lol I'll take God as a person anytime over this babble
- That's a very nice way of describing God !
How do you know what a god is since your imaginary god is not detectable in any way since "it" is supposed to "exist" " out of time and out of space"? Whatever that means! The word god is a very loaded word and means thousands of different things to thousands of different people! So, since there is already a word for energy, namely "energy", it is much better to go on using the word " energy"!!!
@@rudysimoens570 there is also a word for babble I'd rather use it instead of energy
*"How do you know what a god is since your imaginary god is not detectable in any way"*
... Swap-out "Multiverse" for "god" and you end up with the same result.
Why death in first place rather then god's entry in life ?
God is a lost continent in the human mind. That continent has been rediscovered in a time of great peril for ourselves and our world. Is this coincidence, synchronicity, or a cruelly meaningless juxtaposition of hope and ruin?
What are you talking about? When was it that no one promoted the God idea? What sort of comeback do you think it is making? When in human history have there not been great perils?
How could God argue against Himself?
Quantum Ai is getting so close
in finding the evidence on how God was created before he created us.
haha
There’s no evidence for the existence of god. Next question, please.
That's not the subject of this video. He was asked for evidence against the contention that God exists.
I do like Peter Atkins but he's doesnt present a convincing argument here. Very limited to classic mechanical thinking.
And what convincing argument is there for God? Claiming it's a matter of instinct is not an argument. People's instincts are wrong all the time.😊
@itheuserfirst3186 Have you read Frank Tiplers work? A very compelling account of the far future including the required maths
@@itheuserfirst3186 Sorry, do you even watch any theistic philosophers? They don't just walk around saying "I believe cause my gut tells me it's true!" Look up Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig, both have been on this channel. Or look up Swinburne's arguments (also on this channel). Stop thinking everyone who disagrees with you is silly.
It is not necessarily limited. He did actually address the issue, and correctly identifies the only evidence for god as, "sentiment". It is you who does not like your beliefs reduced to "sentiment". If there is any other kind of evidence, it is not presented. You accuse him of being attached to materialism , but it may be you who is attached to sentiment.
@@IR17171717 What about William Lane Craig, doee he present as evidence, other than "sentiment"? I haven't seen him present actual evidence, other than stating what might be true, and then affirming that he believes it is true. True there is logic behind the belief, but not evidence beyond sentiment. Or do you say otherwise? What is it I have not considered?
1 predicted gravitational constant gradient according to projective unified field theory = (-1/((putative quantum gravity suggested light time lag per energy and distance)×(2π α Earth mass^2))) God created the heavens and Earth, like a Newtonian cradle, and He had the Physics equations before the light in the beginning.
The human intellect is incapable of comprehending God. Pointless going there. It can't be done. It can only be understood through the experience of liberation from within the human heart.
@@Roshan-q6n God is closer to us than our own arteries. We live in God, God is our own nature, we are part of Him or It.
We'll never be able to describe Him or It, because as you say it is beyond our intellect, concepts, beyond this world of phenomena even though it is part of Him/It. With loving kindness 💜 🙏 📿
@@LuuLuong-bn8iy I like people who are having a good time in this tumultuous world.
Good on you, I'm envious 😊
@LuuLuong-bn8iy Glad you enjoy them and see the funny side of things. With loving kindness 💜
You just admitted to holding irrational beliefs. You hold a belief in something you can’t comprehend.
@timterrell8678 It's not a belief. It is an experience an experience of love. Love is not something that logic can explain nor comprehend.
Existence is evidence
God is obviously a figment of people's imagination. What more do you need to know about the actual existence of god?
What lies within the hearts of men is real and is not a figment of the imagination.
@@Roshan-q6n Yeah, my neighbor truly believes that bigfoot is real as well. Must be true.
@wthomas5697 Clearly, you have no clue about what drives the mind and intellect. When you find what that is, then I'll listen.
Your eye on your face is not a figment of your imagination. A book came out recently unlike anything else in history-it’s no joke:
By 2:40 in, I realized that he hasn’t even read the absolute best direct evidence for god. 😂 But actually a lot of people have not. It just happened extremely recently out of nowhere:
Every single thing he says is absolutely answered unequivocally in a tiny book that came out in late 2024: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” which dives amazingly deep into the inherent symbolism built into the human eye of cosmic proportions so finely tuned that you can learn things about the universe from the eye!! The whites are the sun, the earth-toned iris with air-envelope cornea is the Earth, and most recently due to science we can understand the pupil as a singularity or black hole. The author actually shows what gravity is-not the functional description from science but what it means. Also, the sun, the Earth, and a singularity are all themselves symbols of something beyond space and time in the present. All symbols require unified consciousness to
Make and read them. Humans are symbolic of the creator, and our language use is instructive itself in reference to the higher language of reality. The eye is direct evidence on your own face. This little book is only the beginning-the author decodes much of reality in the same way and it is clearly a symbolic message. A functional message. There is no causal reason why the eye should reflect these larger things in its “orbit” and humans did not know about black holes until quite recently. We did not do this. When you begin to see it, it is like decoding a hieroglyphic language-it fits perfectly together only one way. It’s a language from a higher mind that has clearly waited a long time to speak to us. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
@@spiralsun1 You're delusional.
There is no evidence against God. God is unfalsifiable. Only a fool would argue otherwise.
Only if you strip god down to a vague concept. The biblical god is a different matter.
Well, though unfalsifiable, I suspect that the god described by religions is nothing more than the projection of the unconscious ego of psychopathic narcissists, as all religions create animosity between different peoples and have motivated many genocides, which is not healthy for anyone/anywhere/anytime. However, the God described by Spinoza is worthy of non-rejection and further contemplation...
1:46 This confession is one of the most tragic and pitiful statements that can ever be uttered by a mortal man. Kuhn should've thrown his arms around him and wept aloud. It indicates a matastising inner blindness that is almost incurable. When one can no longer see things right in front of them we know physical blindness is eminent. When one can observe all the wonders around, both good and bad, and say "I see nothing" a far more dreadful blindness has taken hold. Even more terrifying, it portends the possibility of a divine abandoning to a final and all-consuming darkness.
God forbid this fate should overcome any reading this.
You, the lady, doth protest too much.
Just his opinion no evidence
This man states that there's no evidence of Source(the Primordial Cause). For great is the error in considering Source as 'other than' anything and everything of phenomena and numena and if such an objective in Source is not found therefore disproves Source - this is fallacy as he designates Source to time and space and hasn't any method to demonstrate such. This is the redundancy of the mind, and Peter atkins can no longer be worthy of the question for his parameters regarding the subject is dualism and arbitrary - his frame of mind is relativity and usually what also follows such is reification.
Many arguements there are against God but if you actually research what will be revealed is only the concepts and theories concerning God can be affirmed or denied. Nobody can deny Source that is transcendent to all phenomena time and space - and right here i mention a fallacy, for in truth it is not God who is transcendent to anything, rather man is circumscribed to and delimited by time and space. For me to say God is transcendent is my own fault in making my relative and emphemeral existence as main factor and making God revolved around me. This goes for everything relative and reificatory. Ex. people consider this phenomena here as natural and God must be supernatural for where evennis God? In truth there is no natural phenomena and a questionable supernatural where God abodes. Man made this up.
I wouldn't wait for peter atkins or any of his kin.... they're not smart or wise.
The best argument against the existence of God is that the construct violates the *2nd Law of Existence:* _"Anything deemed logically conceivable _*_can be brought into existence_*_ by way of an evolutionary progression of consciousness (information) moving from simplicity to complexity as long as all other laws of existence are obeyed."_
According to this 2nd Law, any proposition that presents a "no origin point" scenario (i.e., "has always existed") cannot exist. Infinity moving into the future is absolutely *conceivable,* but infinity moving into the past is *inconceivable.* Everything observable has an _origin point._
... To claim an "infinite existence" for anything at all is to ask for *special pleading.*
Why pick an argument with God? Just accept God is a myth and move on .
What stupid talk by the guest, when he says it is just luck, he is basically saying that from nothing the universe emerges with the precise laws and constants based on luck😅😅. Well he just changed the word God to Luck to avoid infinite regression. And as for infinite universes where do those universes come from nothing. Both are scenarios of infinite regression.
Its just luck???
What evidence do you have to the contrary, other than humanmade fairy tales.
He's too materialistic. Experience, love, self sacrifice what of these?
Very lazy answer in the begening, I was actually suprised. Seems he doesn't take any of the theist positions seriously. Good scientist, bad philospher
What theistic position should be taken seriously.
@@Paine137 If no other, at the very least the cosmological argument
@@Paine137 The Cosmological argument
The Bible is full of so many contradictions. If God created man, then why did he put other life forms on Earth hundreds of millions of years before man? This fact alone contradicts the entire Biblical story. Noa's Ark didn't include dinosaurs because they didn't know they existed.
First you need to understand why the universe exists and why life exists. The Bible is a human interpretation of the creator, of the meaning of things. But there is a universal message in reality itself:
By 2:40 in, I realized that he hasn’t even read the absolute best direct evidence for god. 😂 But actually a lot of people have not. It just happened extremely recently out of nowhere:
Every single thing he says is absolutely answered unequivocally in a tiny book that came out in late 2024: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind” which dives amazingly deep into the inherent symbolism built into the human eye of cosmic proportions so finely tuned that you can learn things about the universe from the eye!! The whites are the sun, the earth-toned iris with air-envelope cornea is the Earth, and most recently due to science we can understand the pupil as a singularity or black hole. The author actually shows what gravity is-not the functional description from science but what it means. Also, the sun, the Earth, and a singularity are all themselves symbols of something beyond space and time in the present. All symbols require unified consciousness to
Make and read them. Humans are symbolic of the creator, and our language use is instructive itself in reference to the higher language of reality. The eye is direct evidence on your own face. This little book is only the beginning-the author decodes much of reality in the same way and it is clearly a symbolic message. A functional message. There is no causal reason why the eye should reflect these larger things in its “orbit” and humans did not know about black holes until quite recently. We did not do this. When you begin to see it, it is like decoding a hieroglyphic language-it fits perfectly together only one way. It’s a language from a higher mind that has clearly waited a long time to speak to us. ❤️🔥👁️❤️🔥
@@spiralsun1 Take care of yourself.
In other words, he has no evidence against God. All he has is his strong faith in materialistic explanations.
In other words, you have no evidence for god. Just your ridiculous beliefs.
Show us your evidence. Why doesn't God require evidence, but everything else does? It makes no sense. Your spirtual instincts have betrayed you.
The god concept is made on purpose so that its existence can not be falsified! It is supposed to "exist" "out of space and out of time" so it is not detectable in any way. That's very suspicious isn't it because that is exactly the same characteristic of something that does not exist in reality but only exists as a concept in the minds of very gullible and deeply indoctrinated so-called "believers"!
And do the theists even understand themselves what that means to "exist" " out of time and out of space" I wonder because it is an absurd, completely abstract and contradictory concept! Something can not exist for zero seconds because then it does not exist. And neither can something exist "out of space" because something that exists takes space itself!
And to quote Bertrand Russell: I can claim that a teapot is orbiting a planet somewhere in a far galaxy. You can not disprove that but that is no reason to believe that it is true! The same applies to the existence of fairies, pixies, unicorns and all the thousands if gid concepts people believed in or still believe in!
The moment to believe that something exists in reality is when there is VALID EVIDENCE for its existence and not ONE second earlier!
But there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god or Allah or whatever name they gave to their non-existing celestial dictator! And science and especially evolution have already debunked the crux of christianity and the crux of all the other religions I know of AGES ago!
So, it's about time to grow up and to leave all that supernatural nonsense of ANY religion and all those bronze age man-made myths, doctrines and rules how to behave to "please " an imaginary celestial dictator behind and to learn to deal with REALITY!
@@itheuserfirst3186 I don't think this person has said that there is no evidence for God. I think they are just quite rightly saying that you also need evidence for atheism if you are an atheist.
@@itheuserfirst3186 If your instinct is really spiritual it cannot betray you.
Poof!! No real evidence just emotion and opinion.
God is the magic who adds colours and sounds to our worlds. Consciousness is the proof and evidence of God. Any efforts by atheists to explain consciousness without invoking God will fail. Thoughts and judgements about good and evil are innate. We cannot make a story where evil wins. Goodness always prevails.
If there is a God, that God isn't the God of NT or God of Christianity.
..as they say, "all roads lead to Rome".... likewise, all faiths lead to the true GOD that can save lost souls, only imperfect men's understanding differ... GOD understands it is all about HIM..
@@evaadam3635 _" likewise, all faiths lead to the true GOD "_
Faith that was ordained by God is only thing is valid before God and stands before God, the rest of the faiths will take humanity to 🔥, including Christianity will take followers to 🔥.
I think the talking serpent throws the whole account into question
No serious religious thinker claims that to be more than allegory.
@IR17171717 sure, and what about people dying and coming back to life? Most Christians that I know claim that literally actually happened. Talking snake, resurrections, a man living in a whale, parting the Red Sea, turning water into wine...