Yesterday on Good Friday, I attended Good Friday mass celebration at my Catholic Church in West Hartford and when the Deacon began the prayer intercessions and mentioned for the conversion of people who don’t believe in God and that’s when I mentioned Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Because these two men are militants atheists and they need help.
What do theists mean when they say “Militant Atheists”, anyway? Richard Dawkins has probably never touched a gun in his life. If “Militant” Christians blow up abortion clinics, “Militant” Muslims crash planes into buildings, and “Militant” Atheists argue on the internet like this, is Atheism the most peaceful belief system in the universe, is the word “militant” completely meaningless, or are you guys liars?
I’d ask them who they think God is. Judging from what you’ve stated, I’d say they think God is love. I’d explain that God is a person, yes God loves you, and this is how much he loves you (insert Jesus life, death, resurrection, and Church). Then I’d ask them if they believe God deserves worship.
@@CHAZER-sp5cm Well, the things he says may sound good but when you start thinking about it they don’t make much sense... Nobody cares about failed arguments - they are either forgotten completely or left as an example of how not to build an argument. Nobody cares which of the failed ones was “the best”. What’s the point if it still failed? Also you have to first establish what “god” is in order to say “God doesn’t exist” so the burden of proof is still on the theists side no mater how this guy or anyone else spins it!
@@Noname-w7f1e Aquinas did, the 5 ways are to prove a timeless immaterial all powerful and necessary God, the Other attributes are discussed after this
@@CHAZER-sp5cm Well clearly his arguments were not enough as if they were - the majority of scholars (not common folk mind you) would have belived in the same god as Aquinas. His arguments were all refuted long time ago(and some even by other belivers mind you)! But if you so insist - the "unmoved mover" - is the only one I remember out of my mind. And it doesn't prove god, it just presupposes that there shoud have been "the first cause" that started everything. You still have a long way to get to "God" from ""the first cause". Unless you are a deist and you don't think your god has any consciousness...
Christianity is not anti-science. It is anything but. Men became Scientific because they expected law in nature and because they believed in a law giver. Creation declares the glory of God. The law nature dictates / allows life. An atheist may say “I don’t need God to know what’s right and wrong”. I would agree. As we are made in God’s image, He has also given us a conscience - the faculty of knowing what’s right and wrong. If you get to decide yourself what’s right/wrong, there is no ultimate truth, truth is simply subjective. Scientists will profess energy cannot be created or destroyed - it can only be transferred from one type to the other. My conviction that Jesus IS the Son of God is based on evidence. His resurrection from the dead is enough evidence that what Christ did was enough. His resurrection proves, that death is not the end and Atheism is false. The most intelligent Scientist on the planet cannot create a grain of sand from ‘nothing’. To think we came/evolved from ‘nothing’ is foolishness in the highest order. People deny God’s existence because then they’d have to acknowledge they were ultimately responsible to Him. We are all sinners and need God’s salvation/mercy. It’s the same way a criminal doesn’t want to find a police officer. The Bible says “the fool says in his heart ‘there is no God’. Evolution is NOT proven FACT!! - It is only a theory!!! In order to be scientific it has to be observable and repeatable. There is not one single shred of evidence where there is a change in kind i.e. dog to cat etc etc. Don’t believe the lie. Believe God’s inspired Holy word the Bible and read Genesis 1.
Colonel Evolution has been proven time and time again, and it is repeatable, look at dogs and cats, same process but for Humans it was God who did it instead of man
@@lucidlocomotive2014 That is simply not true. Evolution has NEVER been proven. That is a fact. It has to be observable and repeatable to be scientific. It is only a theory which is cannot be proven. You will not be able to give me even one piece of 'observable' evidence where there is a change in kind. It doesn't exist.
_My conviction that Jesus IS the Son of God is based on evidence._ Wonderful! That's exactly what I've been waiting for. Please present just *one piece of good evidence* backing that up. Right now, that's just a claim - a claim that there _is_ evidence. Can you demonstrate that your claim is true by actually providing even *one* piece of good evidence backing it up? Or do you have nothing but the claim? _His resurrection from the dead is enough evidence_ OK. Resurrection after being dead for a couple of days would be pretty good. Did that happen? Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that it actually happened? As far as I know, we have much better evidence of the resurrection of Elvis Presley. It's still not _good_ evidence for such an extraordinary claim, but we've got actual eyewitness testimony of _that._ Hundreds of people have reported seeing Elvis after he died, and those people aren't all anonymous and they aren't all dead. You can even interview some of them, if you like. As I say, that's not very good evidence for such an extraordinary claim, but you don't have anything even _that_ good for Jesus, do you? Do you have _anything_ but old stories? By that standard, we have evidence that Spiderman exists. After all, we've got stories about that, too. _Evolution is NOT proven FACT!! - It is only a theory!!!_ Clearly, you're not a scientist yourself. Indeed, you don't seem to even have a fifth-grade understanding of science, let alone of biology. "Only a theory"? Theory is the best it gets in science. There is nothing higher in science than theory. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I'm not a biologist, but I urge you to educate yourself. But get your education in biology from _biologists,_ not from religious apologists. Biology is science, not religion. Evolution doesn't disprove a god, and even if you _could_ disprove evolution - and win your Nobel Prize and become the most famous scientist in history - it would get you nowhere at all in demonstrating that a god exists - _any_ god, let alone a particular one.
A big problem with proving God's existence is the definition of "God". There are so many different definitions commonly given, that the word has little meaning by itself. So it needs to be further qualified before this thing's existence can even be attempted to be proven. If we say that it's a "Creator", then that's something potentially provable. Was the universe, in fact, created? Does it actually have a beginning?
As a non-believer, I find the "problem of evil" argument to be one of the *weakest*, since it requires the "God" in question to be omnibenevolent, at the very least.
I think the issue with the problem of evil is that it ignores that theology has an answer to the question. It's called free will. God is all good. Therefore, he is not a dictator. He gives humans free will. He is all knowing. Just because I KNOW what choice you're going to make does not mean that I caused you to make that decision. God DID do something to remedy the issue of evil as he is all powerful and its laid out in detail in the Bible. Understanding it fully requires you to go all the way back to the book of Genesis. You're not going to get it just by knowing Christians believe Jesus died for our sins. That's like reading the cover of a book and acting like you read it. He executes this plan without affecting our free will because 1) He is all good. He is not a dictator. And 2) Because he is love. You cannot have love without consent. That's not love. And 3) Much like the mean mother who feeds her children veggies his ultimate concern is our well being, even if it doesn't make sense to us. After the fall of man The Lord cried out in sorrow who TOLD you you were naked? What have you done? Now you're going to have to do XYZ. You're going to have to toil. It wasn't a punishment. It was a remedy. It was medicine. Yuck! Shots are no fun. Reminds me of the day my father found out I was pregnant. He's never left my side. Sometimes he helped by helping, and other times he helped by not helping, so I could learn to fly. No matter what happens he's always there loving me, advising me, and letting me learn how to make the right decisions. It's a bit more complicated for God obviously but he knows what he's doing and he isn't the cause of evil. He's there waiting for us to do the right thing.
@@kelseythomson4418 No, you wont convince us with "God is all good" argument! You know that we dont believe he is real, so why do you think that we will believe that he is real AND ALSO all good? Do you expect us to take it on faith?
@@eklektikTubb Let’s say that God isn’t good, and that he wants nothing but evil to befall the human race. Would you be tortured, beaten, mocked, and crucified for a *prank?* Think on it for a while. Because I don’t want to get into a long, drawn out argument with someone who may or may not care about a thing I say.
My problem with the claim that god exist is that I have only heard arguments and claims. For me that is too weak to be considered as good evidence. If god exist and she affect the world we live in, then it should either be testable. If it is not testable, how can we differentiate her from a god that does not exist?
I suffered, i cried out to god, i found peace. I was a horrible human being who watched porn all day and was rude to others. I seeked for gods forgiveness and believed that jesus died for my sins, and then I was literally morally renovated and feel so much better. So yes, god is testable. Just not in the way you might think. it takes a heart seeking him. I experienced him so I know he is true. As Jesus said: For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:8)
Or... whilst yes, you might have been wasting your life away with porn and conflict, could it be that due to a) the power of suggestion / confirmation bias, and b) your own hitherto untested strength of character and resolve (made possible by 'a'), allowed you to take stock, and therefore, as it transpires, you're a far better, stronger person than you give yourself credit for? The thing is, we've all done things of which we're not entirely proud. but just like you, most of us do manage to make good decisions which lead to the betterment of our own lives - we choose to do this, and those choices are ultimately down to us alone.
@@Jonas-c9tWell, I don't believe that in any sense whatsoever, but if that's your position, then fair enough. I'm not here to try and change your mind. Best of luck to you my friend.
@@AntisocialMediaMike Yea God bless you man. I am both intellectually and experientially convinced of the creator of the universe. I share that faith with the intention of sharing a blessing with a good friend, not as an invitation to "deconstruct my faith" as many atheists try to do. So I'm glad that you respect my conviction. I also wish you the best for everything!
At 7:12 Trent Horn says something funny: "But when we are talking about whether certain immaterial things exist, there's no scientific test... And it's not just God, I mean, do other minds exist? Free will? Numbers? Moral facts? " It's funny because minds, (free) will, numbers, and (moral) facts are all material in some aspect. We do not know of a mind or a will outside of a brain, numbers are our brains' interpretation of material objects and the relations they have to each other, facts, moral or otherwise are observable and directly linked to some material manifestation. But what about God? The only way God can be said to "exist" in a scientific or empirical manner is as a figment of our imagination; in our brains. Any talk of "existence" outside space and time is just a meaningless string of words. In every sense imaginable "to exist" means to take up space and time.
@@dickdestroye I don't think we can "prove" anything exists other that the thought itself, if we accept that it is thought. I think this called solipsism. Or nihilism; I'm not quite sure which formal position you want to take. The problem I have with these "Matrix" or "Boltzmann brain" or "Brain-in-a-vat" or "maybe we are just the thoughts of a butterfly in God's garden" type of arguments is that they are not productive in any other way. If you accept them, you are done. Any other avenue of thought has been rendered useless. In essence, doing anything other than thinking, including involuntary actions like breathing, is a rejection of solipsism as a working assumption.
@@deanodebo There is a specific arrangement of molecules in your brain that constitutes the number 1. In this lowly respect, the number 1 is material. Do you think the number 1 could be said to "exist" if no life existed? I'm sure that the property of uniqueness and singularity would exist in unique and singular things, and even in the way they interact (two H2 plus one O2 producing two H2O), but that would, in my view, only constitute the potential for the number 1, not the number itself.
Hans De Mos Sorry but I majored in math, and I’ve never heard anything so ridiculous regarding numbers. My brain might conceptualize the quality, but “oneness” has nothing to do with molecules in my brain. A singular object has the trait of oneness. That trait is not material. It is abstract and conceptual. Do you not believe in immaterial transcendental things? What *IS* the past?
@@deanodebo The trait of "oneness" is not the same as "the number 1". We can assign to a singular object our label of "number 1", but that is something we do, not something inherent in the object. As it is something that happens in our brains, "the number 1" is, at the very least in that limited sense, material. I indeed have a hard time accepting "immaterial transcendental things". I don't understand how you can talk of a "thing" that "exists" outside space and time. I cannot imagine an existence that is not material. Numbers and logic included. The past may not be anything other than the particular chain of cause and effect that has resulted in the present. As you are a math major, I'd be interested in hearing your take on numbers, and if you think it is necessary for the study of mathematics to give them some immaterial quality that detaches them from our material reality.
"Why should I believe there are no good arguments for god" - An atheist doesn't say that... There may be a very good reason, but we haven't found one yet. "Which is the best argument for god" - I think many are bad, but it is an inherent issue at the heart of any theism that postulates a supernatural god. Definitionally, you can't assess supernatural claims within the limits of empiricism. A theist might say that is a problem for empiricism, but in reality, we live in a world (let's suppose that world is created by a god) and in this world, empiricism is clearly the best methodology to find truth (we build technology because of breakthroughs science and engineering, not because of breakthroughs in theology.) Why would a god create an empirically-biased world, and then demand that we cast that methodology aside in order to find the ultimate truth of all, i.e. it? So it's the opposite, it's a problem for theists, not empiricists, that our world is very biased against theology as an effective pursuit. As for arguments, the Kalam for instance begins with a faulty and unjustified premise, so all the conclusions drawn from it are all dubious. But if I were to say what arguments are more effective than others, I think a deistic argument is more convincing than a theistic argument. I would say that theistic arguments that at least attempt to take a crack at empiricism, are more compelling to me. Although they naturally struggle for the reason I just outlined about the limits of empiricism in assessing supernatural claims. I know that sounds doomed from the outset and essentially renders atheism the default, and I wish I could solve this problem for theists, but I genuinely can't help them with this, if I could, perhaps I would be a theist. "Atheists think if there were good reasons, they would be universally believed" - Um.... no. Not even close. People are irrational, we do not assess claims objectively, we just believe what we want to believe. This fact is partly why skepticism towards religions should be very much treasured, since religions are designed to prey upon people's wishes and biases rather than to make compelling arguments. Apologetics are arguments used far more to defend existing faith, rather than as a tool of conversion. And I wouldn't be surprised if churches are emptying, and christianity is on the decline simply for trivial reasons (like people are less inclined to seek comfort in the hereafter, when they already have enough comfort in the here and now, especially if religion makes demands of them they don't wish to fulfil.) What I will say however... is that if there were strong evidence, it would be a lot more obvious. I'm not saying everyone would believe it, but a lot more would. In the same way that it is obvious that vaccines work, that the earth is round etc. Not everyone accepts these truths because people are irrational and can be prone to conspiracy thinking, but most of the scientifically literate world at least do accept these truths. There is no reason why the existence of a god can't be as obvious as the roundness of the earth, and yet it's not. There are so many different religious sects, denominations all with disagreements, and you just don't see the same level of disagreement in science. This doesn't need to be the state of affairs, and yet it is. The existence of a god is not a matter of philosophy, it's a matter of empiricism. It either is a real phenomena, or it is not. The moral truth of something is not the same thing as the literal truth of something, because the former is a matter of subjective ethics, and the latter is a matter of objective reality. When it comes to objective reality, we should expect a loving god to have made its existence obvious to us, especially if the religion preaches that he will reveal himself to those who search earnestly for him. Many people do search, and have found nothing. "People can't prove E=mc2" - Actually you can do it, albeit indirectly if you're not a physicist. For one thing, we know about nuclear weapons, and they are able to produce such vast energy from such a small mass, because E=mc2. We know nuclear power plants generate electricity by using uranium to heat water in a similar process. It's really not hard to just use some basic reasoning there to work that one out from our every day experience and understanding. But even if you don't say that, you know that technology is made possible due to scientific progress. And we know E=mc2 is a very profound scientific discovery. We can't say the same for theology. There are no breakthroughs in the evidence for a god, the way we have breakthroughs in science. So you cannot compare empirical discoveries like relativity, to belief in god. You are just being dishonest here.
@@username82765 Logically, things exist. The evidence that things exist are the things themselves, ie: the proof is in the pudding. Are you avoiding the question deliberately or are you genuinely confused?
@@ironymatt Let me try and clarify. My point is that the statement your claiming Atheists make is NOT worded correctly. At least, I have never heard it said that way and can find no evidence of that wording. The way I have heard and can find evidence to support is... _"there's no good evidence/reason _*_to believe_*_ God exists."_
@@username82765 That's agnosticism my friend, not atheism, and it still amounts to nothing more than avoiding the question - especially considering that there's been 2000 years of evidence (setting aside the very glaring fact that things exist in the first place!) for those who are intellectually honest about it.
@@ironymatt ironymatt Agnostic/Gnostic is knowledge claim. Atheism/Theism is a believe claim. I and most other Atheists are Agnostic Atheists _" We don't know there is a God/s, therefore I do NOT believe there is a God/s.
I don't believe in religion. I can't imagine how anyone can. I was raised Christian and a few years after I figured out Santa Claus wasn't real I figured out the solar messiah wasn't real either. One thing I find particularly ridiculous is Christians debating atheists using Christianity as a basis for God. Anyone that can think critically knows that all these religions are nonsense and anyone bringing that to the table to discuss a higher power is cute.
I just always find it odd when atheists attempt to claim they aren't making any claims. Since we all exist, our explanation can only ultimately be explained by some sort of creator by some sort of design, or by random chance. Period. There are no other alternatives. So you only have A or B. Atheists tend to say their only "claim" is that the answer to the question is 'Not A' and that's it, however of course by logic Not A = B in this scenario with only 2 possibilities. So the atheist does have a positive claim, that everything that exists from the vastness of the universe to the microscopic complexity of the DNA just happened by random chance. That claim is simply un defenseable, and the more scientific research we do the more complex we find the world around us to be. Science pushes us more and more towards the conclusion that random good luck cannot explain the world we see around us. This is recognized by a very small subset of atheists and they are forced to resort to the multiverse, by definition an unscientific, untestable claim taken on blind faith, leading to 'atheism of the gaps'. The ONLY thing a person needs to know to refute atheism is the fact that if the gravitational constant differed by 1 part in 10^60 (which is an incomprehensible number) too large the expansion rate of the big bang would not have been large enough and the universe would have collapsed back on itself, or too small the expansion rate of the big bang would have been too large and no stars would have formed. In both cases we would not be living some sort of alternative universe, there would be no life at all. The atheist must either rely on blind faith in the multiverse based on NO empirical evidence, or think our finely tuned universe (on the order of 1 in 10^60%) is best explained by good luck.
The universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. The universe is "fine-tuned" to spend the vast majority of its existence populated by collapsed stars, no longer energetic enough to sustain life on the planets around them, growing emptier as the cosmos expands. You may think that lifeless emptiness requires a creator; I find the idea hard to swallow.
@@jancerny8109 "Since we all exist, our explanation can only ultimately be explained by some sort of creator by some sort of design, or by random chance." False. You clearly don't understand the different between natural forces and random chance.
@@darrylelam256 I am talking about the natural forces themselves. What other natural force is responsible for the precise value of the gravitational constant?
@@jancerny8109 Where did I say fine tuned for life? All I am saying is that the universe is fine-tuned to even exist at all. Or I guess a 1 in 10^60 event happened due to good luck... Nevermind you are right
@@topper009 And I was talking about how you don't seem to understand the difference between natural forces and random chance. Ow and the fine tuning argument it BS regardless if you are talking about life or the universe. There is so much wrong with your thinking it's not even funny.
And we also have to understand that even if Big Foot does exist...so what, it will not change our perspective on life. There is another type of creature roaming the planet, cool. But if God exists, then everything changes.
Perhaps Big Foot was not the best example given for the atheist side. If I made a claim that pink rhinos were rampaging on the dark side of a Jupiter moon, it would be up to me to concretely back up the claim with evidence that can be tested and verified. There could still be those pink rhinos but if there is no proof, then we can decline to believe in that claim solely on the basis that it is unlikely. That is closer to the atheist point.
I like thoughts in this video, but i dont think it is very helpful. I am not sure if existence of God is really a philosophical question, and even if it is, what is the point of saying that? How could it possibly help theist in conversation?
I love how they got to the base of the power and how its not just faith that is controlling things they spoke of science and spoke of how in context we are all kinda mindless and put to much into other things when it's like the basics 1+3 =4
It comes down to which definition of god. A deist style god or more abstract ideas on god are not something I argue against. I am agnostic in that regard. Now if we are talking the Christian description, that I have zero reason to believe. I was raised in it and am very fluent and it was terrifying leaving, but now I am glad I did. Outside of the impossibility of stories like the ark or the heinous behavior condoned in Exodus 21, one of the more troubling issues surrounds the original sin. I would not convict someone for something they could not have truly understood as wrong. If you set a wine glass by a baby and say baby don't touch that and it does, would you condemn it to eternal damnation? Eve could not have possibly understood what she was doing was wrong prior to eating the fruit of the tree. The whole story that sets up the need for the savior is majorly flawed. It is also in two different orders. The specifics of a religion make it easier to say it is true or not. I am fascinated by the history of how religions form and why people follow them which is why I end up places like here.
@Kuffar Legion Great stuff! I enjoyed the read. I often wonder about the possibility of free will in a world created completely by a god outside of time and space as Christianity says it was. I do not see the possibility. Many Christians I have spoken to said of course it exists because I make decisions. They don't get that in a world created completely by a god outside of time would mean it would only appear they had free will.
@@jayv9779 No, there are just different acceoted Revelations of Him. It's hard to study God (that of which nothing greater can be thought of), and Him, being benevolent, revealed Himself. Some people reject or twist that Revelation. Other groups like the greeks didn't have a good grasp of God, they only had a vague idea of the "transcendant", the category which God inhabits but that they wrongly interpreted as being a collection of deities.
To an atheist, your insistence that there"must", be a least bad reason for believing in your particular god is ultimately laughable, as if one cannot believe, no reason is any good, hence no least bad. That is just a sophist attempt to legitemise the conversation in order to get a foot in the door. For instance, the idea that my failure to believe in your god consigns me to endless torment in hell, is like telling me there's a boogeyman in my closet, when I have no closet, because if I don't believe in your god, I certainly don't believe in hell. So it's a non-threat. That complete lack of being an effective argument is extant for all and every argument you can bring to bear on the subject to a critical thinker. The only person you can affect with that argument is someone who is prone to fear, paranoia and insecurity that you have bullied into a state of existential unrest. Not very compassionate.
How does one explain God to an atheist WHO IS SEEKING THE TRUTH? 1) Respectfully I will ALWAYS ask the honest atheist why they dismiss the inexplicable experience/s they have ALL had in their lives (the synchronicities), and also why they did not get hit on the car ride when they should have been hit - just the other day. EVERYONE has experienced this! EVERYONE! (God makes sure that everyone is without excuse to believe.) I tell them that they are rational and intelligent which is why I'm curious to know how they explain it away. (Of course, I won't use the word miracle because they will immediately jump at the word and it will therefore cause a distraction from the main point I am making.) 2) As regards them citing bad reasons (like war and child cancer, etc) for not believing in God, I mention that that is evil which is responsible for these things. I will continue that if there's evil why does good also exist, and why hasn't this evil not been able to eliminate all good in the world as yet? But mind you, the atheist claims that there is no evil and that we ourselves are responsible. I will then ask where this 'urge' comes from? I offer them the explanation that the urging is from the devil. In other words, we all are in a different degree of 'possession'. (Remember that Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, satan.") I will anyway ask the atheist where the good in us comes from. He will undoubtedly claim that the good comes from ourselves. I ask, 'Where does that come from?' He says, from his conscience. I ask the same question. He explains more. I ask the same question (And where does that come from?). He either won't be able to continue or will be stubborn. But at any rate, I tell him too that the only explanation for the good in him is that it is the spirit of God, and that God leaves it to our free will and honesty to acknowledge this truth. Interestingly as well, God uses His spirit in the atheist to do good in the world because His work will continue as planned. By the way, this latter aspect also answers the atheists statement that God is not required for a person (the atheist) to do good - for it is God in him doing it. Remind the truth seeking atheist that they know that ouija boards really do do the (evil) thing it does, as also does tarrot card, crystal ball and palm reading and other (false) promises from the devil if one makes a pact with him. I tell them to try it if they don't believe it is real, and immediately I tell them to definitely NOT do that because I was only making a point. If they deny that these things are all real, I won't argue with the atheist. 3) I don't argue with someone who is closed minded. Therefore too, we can't sell them on the fact that if we pray against harm befalling our children they will be safe, and that is not something the atheist can do for his children or for himself, on the road and elsewhere. Ditto, for the fact that we can secure our future in God and not in savings, and we are MORE than rewarded for this trusting (aka faith), even though we are weaker in this area and are required to perfect it. God Bless you.
How is not being hit by a car "inexplicable?" People get lucky sometimes. A better question: why were devout believers killed in their thousands during prayer by the Lisbon earthquake? I've tried a tarot card reading. It was pure rubbish. People do good--and a great deal of the bad--for the same reason; we're social animals.
"1) Respectfully I will ALWAYS ask the honest atheist why they dismiss the inexplicable experience/s they have ALL had in their lives" Because no such things happen that can't be explained by natural things. "2) As regards them citing bad reasons (like war and child cancer, etc) for not believing in God, I mention that that is evil which is responsible for these things" Evil that YOUR god created according to your religion? You might want to pick something else as it will only work against you. Also your 'evil' doesn't seem to exist. Good and bad are subjective. Also ouija boards, tarot cards, crystal balls and palm reading are not 'evil'. Its all BS but it's not evil in anyway. I've played with ouija boards, tarot cards and even had my palm read once for fun. Nothing bad ever came from any of it. "3) I don't argue with someone who is closed minded." So are you saying we shouldn't argue with you as you seem pretty closed minded to me. People have prayed for their kids to be safe and their kids have died because that's all they did. Praying doesn't do anything.
@@jancerny8109 >why were devout believers killed in their thousands during prayer by the Lisbon earthquake? God doesn't owe you one second of your life. By eating the fruit of the knowlege of Good and Evil we became vulnerable to the injustices and wickedness of the world, because pain and loss are the mean we know evil with.
@@tafazzi-on-discord "1) miracles happen." There are zero cases of confirmed miracles. "or the accounts of Our Lady of Fatima" There is nothing there. This is a case of unsupported claims, both religious and secular investigations suggest alternative explanations more in line with reality than the impossible ability of the sun to jump about and the devastation in our solar system that would result in doing so. This event was not witnessed anywhere else where the sun jumping about would be a global event witnessed by half the planet. This event was not even witnessed by most of the people who were in the crowd. It was a form of hallucination resulting from staring at the sun and from group hysteria. Once one person shouted that the sun was moving around, other people, almost in a trance, began to believe the same. "2) You are not in the Faith, that's the bad that came out of those evil practices" Wow I see someone is nuts. Evil practices. . . Really? I think you need to get your head checked. "Also you didn't look into the problem of evil at all, that's an ignorant comeback" I know what the problem of evil is, and it only applies to one type of god. But what I was pointing out was the things that christian god claims to of done that could be called evil by the standard of the 'christian god' and how this claim is supposed to of created evil in the first place. "3) prayer empirically inequivocably works" No it doesn't.
@@tafazzi-on-discord "God doesn't owe you one second of your life." Yet you are also claiming that "prayer empirically inequivocably works". Or does it only work when is convenient for you? " By eating the fruit of the knowlege of Good and Evil bah bah bah" Please give the nonsense fairytales a rest and join the rest of us in reality.
It gets worse. No Trent. The argument from evil isn't an arguent against the existance of a god at all. So how could it be the best? It's an argument against a certain set of God claims which appear inconsistant with observation. The answer about which is the best will vary depending on how you define best. Some would say that argument from personal relevelation is a bad argument but it's actually good for the person experiencing. If there is a god, revelation is exactly what we would expect under that hypothisis and while I have no reason to think any are actual revelation, if you believe you have had a god reveal itself to you personally, that's as good a reason for YOU to believe as any. Again you short listed an argument that isn't even an argument for a god and cited the best defeater as one that isn't even an arguent against the existance of a god, so I'm not impressed by your ability to judge.
I’m not sure what the word I’m looking for here is, but this is kind of… Russian doll? Redundant? You’re not trying to convince us that your god exists, you’re trying to get us to prove that the arguments that already failed on us suck. You’re treating “your arguments suck” as a claim IN ITSELF.
2:00 God damn you. When people talk about religious abuse they are always spoken down to like this. Sexual assault or trauma is not your priest being mean to you, but the church depends tactics like this. Oh you were attacked? What were you wearing?
I don’t speak for all atheists, only myself. I don’t believe in god specifically because for earthly life to survive extreme brutality must exist. One creature horrifically killing another creature to simply survive in the bloodlust of nature makes perfect sense in a godless universe. Unanswered prayer is another atheist reason. Unanswered prayer is common place and makes perfect sense if there is no god.
As an atheist, my inability to believe in a god goes to a lack of evidence for the existence of a god. It's really just that simple. There is nothing philosophical to it. When it comes to believing in a particular god, the chances of existence becomes much smaller. If your best evidence for a god is the Kalem argument (and that might be the best), that comes nowhere close to indicating that there is a god in 2020 let alone someone knows anything about the theoretical god.
Mike Walters - prove that you exist..... do I? What evidence do you need for my existence? The puzzling question is why are you all so keen to argue for the non-existence of something that - according to you- does not exist. Don Quixotes out to fight the non-existent monsters! There is just something funny about it! :o)
@@kbeetles _prove that you exist_ Note that he never asked for proof, just for evidence. Don't you have evidence that other people exist? Come on! That's just silly, isn't it? You wouldn't have replied to his comment if you thought you'd just imagined it. _The puzzling question is why are you all so keen to argue for the non-existence of something_ Oh, no. That's not puzzling at all. Faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world. Christians control government at _every_ level here. Luckily, Christians can't even agree with _each other_ about much of anything, even when they're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to them by the same supposedly all-knowing deity. Their god is apparently the world's worst communicator. (Or just imaginary.) But they're doing plenty enough harm as it is! Note that evangelical Christians are (along with Nazis and white supremacists) among Donald Trump's biggest supporters. And do I even have to mention the harm that Islam is doing in majority Muslim nations? For most of my life, I _wasn't_ open about my atheism. I didn't hide it, but I thought that religion was harmless. Well, experience proved me wrong about that! The fundamental problem is faith-based thinking. We _should_ be evidence-based. We _should_ have good reasons before believing stuff. After all, there is nothing - no matter how crazy, no matter how silly, no matter how wrong - which can _not_ be justified by an appeal to faith. (Religions aren't the only example of faith-based thinking, but _all_ religions are faith-based, as far as I can tell.) Still, if all god-believers switched to believing in magic leprechauns, instead - and didn't vote or act based on their belief in magic leprechauns - I wouldn't worry about it. It would be just as silly, but probably not so harmful to my country and my world.
Bill Garthright - I grew up in a socialist country in Central Europe. Communists are atheists through and through. Horrendous crimes were committed by those atheists and (you may clap your hands here now!) they had a real hatred towards anything that dared to imply that there is a spiritual aspect to human beings. They loved trashing everything that belonged to a Christian based culture. They celebrated the most disgusting humiliation of religious leaders - wanting to pull down all human dignity.Throwing people out of jobs, blocking careers, university entrances simply because some people could not go along with ridiculing religion ( mainly Christianity). Good old atheists wanted and still want to build heaven on earth (but of course without God because they are gods themselves) and we are all so much happier without God in our life! No? But let us put the past aside - the lovely atheist societies of the West seem to have problems with suicide, addiction, hedonistic consumerism, meaninglessness, depression, rootlessness, identity confusions at every street corner etc.... ( See John Vervaeke's series of lectures on the Awakening from the Meaning Crisis) The arrogance of atheists is well known to me. The comrades, at least the majority of them, were abominable human beings. And I do not want to imply that all atheists are disgraceful - but an atheist society that wants to completely eradicate religion is far from creating a better world than a society where religious views and feelings are okay to have. ....and here we are entangled in a silly "contest" of which society is more harmful. This is such a red herring!
@KKB Just for the record, atheism is a disbelief in a god. There is no atheist book with dogma in it that can be interpreted to do harm (or good) to others. Atheists who do bad things do not do it in the name of atheism just like they do not commit an act based on a disbelief in astrology. Personally, I generally leave religious discussions alone. The exceptions are when it has to do with atheism, or when the religious topic has something to do with topics such as human rights. An opposition to gay marriage, for example.
Mike Walters - similarly there is no Christian dogma about doing harm to others!! On the contrary - the first idea in the ancient world of not doing harm but doing good to others who are in a more vulnerable position than you are, of accepting the outsiders, the "sinners" and of being forgiving towards those who are your enemies while not forgiving their actions. Weird, revolutionary ideas. Views that were pretty unheard of before Christ...... have you come across Tom Holland's book "Dominion"? I am just amazed at the venom that so often comes towards people who have faith in a higher power. There seems to be a need in many atheists to humiliate, ridicule, offend, demand explanations and to smash to smithereens another person's sense of the sacred ( how do you explain the sacred to someone who never experienced it? Explain falling in love to a 3 year-old, tenderness to someone who was unfortunate enough to know only rough handling etc....etc...) But thanks for your comment!
1 "I don't believe in God because I don't see any good reasons to think that God exists." This is a fair assessment as far as I can tell. As long as you don't presuppose that this is the only reason we don't believe in a God. I at least would need not just a logical argument. I'd need to see evidence to back up that logic. 2 "It sounds like what you're looking for are good reasons." Among other things. 3 "Why should I believe that there are no good reasons to believe in God." The premise of the question is that you have those good reasons. You can't turn it around on the person who doesn't believe and ask why you should believe none of the reasons are good enough. The premise of the conversation is that I've not heard an argument good enough and assuming you agree to the conversation, it's your job to present me with one. 4 "Can you help me see why there are no good reasons?" Well I can do my best if you bring up the reasons why you think they're good. Let's go with contingency and the Kalam cosmological argument. Contingency: This argument is circular. It makes the leap in it's premise that if the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God, which is the conclusion you're trying to reach, not the basis upon which to make other conclusions. Kalam: This argument is insubstantial. The premises state that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the universe began to exist. The conclusion being that the universe had a cause. The premises are debatable as the universe coming into existence is just the beginning of time so there was never a time in which it didn't exist, and there are things in the universe that seem to come into existence without cause. All of that aside, this only gets you to something causing the universe, not specifically a God. 5 "Which is the best one and why does it fail?" That one's hard to say. I've never thought of any failed argument as more or less good. If the argument fails it fails, there's no heirarchy or scale to the failure. Either it's valid and sound or it isn't. The argument from complexity, evil, the watchmaker, creation, specificity, contingency, Kalam. All of them fail in some way and if I had to give a worst, I'd say... mmmhh complexity? And best would probably be the Kalam because at least the reasoning is valid. It just isn't sound. 6 "The problem of evil is better than my priest was mean to me." Uhm what? How many atheists give the argument, "my priest was mean to me" as a logical argument. Y'know you're making a big stink over us not knowing any of your arguments. How many of ours do you know? 7 "Every time you've asked this question I've never heard a good answer. It exposes them, but I'm not saying that all atheists think this way. Some atheists are very intelligent." Well then really that says more about who the host invites on, doesn't it? 8 "In order to say there's no good reasons to believe in something..." Nooo. No reasons that have been presented to us that we might consider good. It's not on us to tell you all the reasons we don't find the reasons we know of compelling. It's on you to present your case for the reasons you have. You might have a good one we've never heard before, and that'd be hard for us to just come up with. 9 "They think that if there were good reasons, they would be universally believed." Mmh had to think about this one but I generally agree? Like if we had a valid and sound reason to believe in a specific God or religion above all others, it'd be pretty much universally spread and understood, especially with the internet. But as it stands, most people wind up being the religion of their parents/ community, implying that people are given their religious tradition, and post hoc rationalize it later. 10 "That's just not how it works with philosophical topics." Well if it were a completely proven idea with valid logic, it would cease to be philosophy. It would just be a fact. 11 "Ethical philosopher disagree about whether we should follow Kant, or be utilitarians, or virtue theorists." Uhm no? Kant is someone who's ideas we occasionally go back to, but ethical philosophers hardly ever go back to Kant as a basis for morality. But here's the thing, morality is subjective. Facts aren't. Also if you want to put the realm in which you're arguing into the realm of philosophy, you've already kind of ceded ground to the notion that the answers you'll arrive at are to some extent subjective. 12 "The difference is you're not claiming there are no good arguments for bigfoot, they're the ones claiming there are no good arguments for theism." That we've heard. And the premise of this conversation was that YOU think there are good arguments for theism, and we're interested to hear them. Don't try and turn the burden of proof on us when we say we haven't found any reasons compelling. 13 "Most people believe what they do about the world based on scientific consensus, and not because they've figured it out for themselves." Fair enough, but scientific consensus is a better standard, because it's something we can test for ourselves should we go out and learn how to do it, which creates a thing known as peer review, making it so that if someone tries to come up with some nonsense, it can be dealt with relatively quickly by others in the field so errant hypotheses don't get through. Religion doesn't have a similar process resulting in some 13,000 sects of christians who have mild to severe philosophical differences. 14 "People thought for a long time there were no black swans." Eeh kinda. The way I was introduced to the concept is the black swan fallacy which highlights the folly of trying to prove a negative, as in "Well prove to me this doesn't exist." after asking for evidence for why it does. Regardless of how much I search I could never prove to you a thing doesn't exist, because "oh have you checked behind that rock?" No. Lemme check. "Oh well now you can't tell if it's on the other side." Infinitely this could be made more granular. In a way, this is what you have done with this conversation back at #3 when you said "Why should I believe that there are no good reasons to believe in God." On top of trying to turn the burden of proof back on me for just not believing, what is this if not asking me to show you no good reasons? Well I don't know every reason, which is why I might ask you to show me a reason I've not heard of, or if I have I'll explain to you why I don't accept it. 15 "The existence of God is not like the existence of Cryptids." Eeeh he kind of is. For both creatures you could come up with any number for reasons for why we won't find evidence for their existence, and in fact, we do find those arguments being used to say, "God is real, and here's why you won't find proof of Him, but believe it anyway." And you can do the same for cryptids. You won't find remains because they disappear from this plain of reality upon death. On the same note, you won't find God because He exists outside the universe. 16 "God is not a being in the universe that you try to find. There's no field of science dedicated to determining whether God exists." In so far as God is not analogous to other things, I'm generally in agreement, which is why almost all analogies break down. But if God exists outside of the universe and you can't detect him, how could ANY argument you make be sound? 17 "If we're talking about whether certain immaterial things exist, there's no scientific test." In what way does an "immaterial thing" exist outside of it being an idea or emotion? 18 "Do other minds exist?" The mind is a property of the brain. Remove the brain and no thought can happen. In this way, the mind can be said to take up material space. 19 "Free will." Free will is a concept, and like all concepts, it exists within the mind which takes up space in the brain. 20 "Moral facts." I don't like this term, but yes, still in the brain. 21 "If we discovered it [math], where is it? The brain.
What is then the meaning of humans being here now? Why is there time? does past and future really exist when we are in the present? by the time tomorrow arrives it becomes the present and that present will be called a yesterday, where will it be? can I touch it ? ithe minutes or seconds that passed by or to come, does it exist? where is it if I am in this present second or minute? why are there events? why take photos and videos? why be reminded of what happened or plan what will happen? where is this space we call present? what is here and now? why were you born? why have parents? why did you grow? can you decide for your cells mutations? why have cells? why do cells have energies, protons, electrons, neutrons? how to turn it off? Stop breathing? why breathe or gasp for the air? what is this life for? why spend time and energy to be alive? why do you use your brain? why are your senses working? does the brain make you do so? is the brain your creator? does the brain have a mind of its own? why think and anylyze? why do you want to be happy? why care anyways? why argue when it is meaningless? why seek for answers and peace? is there a benefit? the Ego? where is the ego? consciousness? why have that? why be aware? anyone tell you to be aware or conscious? why have subconscious? why do get angry or complain? why the need to be sad? why not just stay still and do nothing? why react? why are you moving now? why do you use your body parts and why are your organs moving on their own? can you see your genes mutating when you eat food? why eat and drink? why be satisfied? what is satisfaction? to fill a need? why have needs? to survive? why survive? to do stuff? why do stuff? where did your atomic composition come from? poof! from nothing? Are you something? why be something when all these atoms just happen to be nothing? why do things work in a certain way? why stay on this earth? why are things so orderly in scientific conclusions? why believe in science and study? why is there science? curious? why be curious? knowledge? why have knowledge and reasons?ultimately what for? existence? why exist? evolution? why evolve? there is nature? why is there nature? poof! from nothing?why have memory or why forget? what is the use or knowledge and memory? why be reasonable? what gauges reason? why have the need for power? fame? comfort? why feel should we good or bad? why not feel nothing? why is all these stuff going on? why have desires and dreams and passions? why have good or so-so friends or enemies?p what is your purpose? why do people die or get sick or suffer? why have a choice? why not robots or puppets on strings? why have a basis of things? why start and end? why live or die? who are you? why have a name? why be civil? why have laws? why prevent chaos? natural calamity exist, why? for earth to survive? why is there something like earth? why have gravity? why are the mechanism of things found by science the way they are? who or what decided that? why is my head above my shoulders and not in place of my feet? silly or not functional? who gets to decide a human should be formed this way? should I transfer my limbs on my torso?...why am I writing this? why need to comment? I have more questions😢 Sorry...In the End, Everything that makes all sense, If not God as the source, always end in Nothing.😅
@@filiamaria8 if that’s what you want to believe go ahead. Just don’t pretend like it’s logical, or that it should be taught in school, or that you understand our arguments, etc. it might be hard to believe, but I don’t have a problem with anyone believing in a God. Life’s tough and if that’s what helps you get through the day, great. However: One’s ability to make sense of something is dependent on their education and familiarity with the subject, so for someone to say "God did it" as the explanation to all of these questions that range from philosophical, to emotional, to biological to cosmological and so on is more of a statement of one’s own ignorance and lack of curiosity about the subject. It also exposes one’s own fear of answering "I don’t know".
Ive heard plenty of arguments promoting the existence of a god. It's evidence that's lacking. If there was evidence there wouldn't need to be a hundred arguments and apologetics.
Simple Trent, if there were good reasons, it's reasonable to assume that over millennia and many religious traditions apologists would have come up with them. So it's reasonable to assume that no person has good reasons and we should all, therefore, reject the claims of theists. Note how that's slightly different to believing there are no good reasons. Note too how your position on the claim "there are no good reasons" is independant of your position on the claim "there are good reasons". You seem to be appealing to an argument from ignorance. As if not having a reason to believe it's impossible for someone to one day discover a good reason means that you should assume there is. No. The null hypothisis is that there are no good reasons until it can be shown that there are. THAT is where you start. Note too how you rattled off a short list of arguments that you implied were reasons to believe a god exists. Firstly, they are arguments. A reason to believe a god exists is that you are convinced by both the validity and soundness of these arguments or even that the validity and soundness of these arguments can be demonstrated. Secondly, the third in the list (the Kalam) isn't, in it's original form, an argument for a god. It is an argument that the universe had a cause.
As an atheist, I don't necessarily state that there are no good arguments. I just haven't found one that is convincing to me. That said, you cannot argue a god into existence. Its existence or non-existence is independent of all pre-suppositional sophistry.
@@veradux5580 Sure, but there is also a possibility that no gods exist, regardless as to whether someone thinks they've experienced God. We humans tend to place agency on things that have no agency, like seeing Grandma's rocker suddenly start moving (negating to remember that they left the window open, and there's now a breeze blowing in). Agency detection is something we're really good at, but it's also really wrong much of the time. Until such time as a god has been proven to exist, we must adhere to the null hypothesis.
EzyRider, I disagree with what you’re saying. Let me tell you the reason why I believe in God. The reason why I believe in him is because I’m a Catholic Christian and I believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. And God himself has helped me get through some hard times such as when I made a full recovery from Covid-19 3 times.
@@alanbourbeau24 I can appreciate that you took the time to respond, so thank you for that. You said you were going to give me a reason why you believed, then doubled down on the claim that you believe. You didn't actually give me a reason. As for your illness and recovery, what made you think that was Jesus who did that? Moreover, how did you rule out natural causes?
A have 2 atheists and 1 agnostic at work but they really aren't looking for God!... If they don't have an answer to my question, they prefer not talk anymore....
@Kuffar Legion Actually they are bringing the subject in... when they mock my religion... I read a lot of apologetics so I can defend my faith.... But they don't like it when a Christians has questions and they don;t have the answers... Atheists are not as open-minded as they claim....
@Kuffar Legion "Most (little A) atheists, same as most religionists, haven't actually studied the arguments." One of my colleagues is a MILITANT atheist... And he is a smart guy, but... the only thing he does is to insult my faith, not to engage in a debate... although he is a smart man... I'm not denying that.... The other 2 laugh at his "religiosity" although they aren't believers either....
The term Science is very broad imo. Isn't theology a field of science as well? is just that atheist have kidnapped the term science to only apply to inductive reasoning.
@@caruya I know of no scientific field that deals with Metaphysics. Questions about the fundamental nature of reality are, at this moment, unable to be tested by the scientific method. Metaphysics is a philosophical discipline as well.
Atheistic position... there is only one, "Lack of belief in a god\s" period. I've been an Atheist all my life (over 50 years) and I don't know any Atheist that have the same thoughts or positions other than their own. There is no book of Atheism. Atheist are not the ones making the claim of god\s so the burden of proof is on the person making the claim..period. And that proof won't come from a book of even more extraordinary claims.
The Atheistic position as you phrased it being: "Lack of belief in a god or gods" requires definition. On the face of it I would assume that you mean that there is lack of evidence in the Universe of the existence of a being that is both outside the Universe/World as we know it and therefore not subject to its limitations of Space and Time and also the architect of this Universe, and therefore is the Prime Mover or the First Cause, having written the Physical and Spiritual Laws upon which the Universe is constructed. Please correct me if this assumption is incorrect.
@@bazstrutt8247 At this stage I am not putting myself in the position of demonstrating anything. If Atheists and Theists are to have a meaningful debate they must first agree upon what it is upon which they are disagreeing. The primary disagreement must be how the Universe came into existence. Was it by chance or design?
@@bazstrutt8247 never asserted anything. the response to the question what caused the universe to exist ought to be: we don't know but we are going to find out.
Your response to the ultimate questions of existence appears to be that you don't know and you can't be bothered finding out which is just intellectual laziness. Never said God did anything so please stop assuming.
It does not matter if you do, or don't believe there are no good reasons to believe a God exist. If a atheist says they do not believe a God exist, they are not making a claim in regards to the existence of a God, and have no burden of proof in regards to the existence of a God. And maybe a better way to say it would be atheist do not believe there are any good reason to believe a God exist, or so not beliecw there are currently any goss reasons to believe a God exist. That is different then say rbwy believe there are no good reason s to believe a God exist. But even if a person says they believe there are no goos reason to believe a God exist, there are two things to keep in mind. Is the person that you are talking to you trying to convince you there are no good reaaon to believe a God exist. Does the person care if you believe there are good reason to believe rhere are no Goos reasons to believe a God exist, or believe there are no Goo reasons to believe a God exist. But all you are doing is trying to shift the burden of proof. Again not believing a God exist ia not making a claim. The theiat are the ones going around trying to convince atheit that a God exist. Atheist juat respond to the theist arguments.
This discussion seems more about reinforcing existing belief more then changing anybody's view. The simple reason most atheists have no use for any of these discussions is that the topic of God is irrelevant. There is no proof that God(s) exist and the discussion does not change anything in daily life. Sunrises are beautiful without any supernatural interference.
Ethics and the metaphysical philosophy aren't scientific evidence because the conclusions reached by those argue the existence, non-existence of god are not repeatable.
Sure, but only inductive, empirical evidence needs to be repeatable because that’s how inductive argumentation works. If you are arguing deductively, which is what happens in metaphysics, it doesn’t need to be repeatable because it’s a deductive argument like a math proof. You don’t need mathematical results to be repeatable and in fact it’s nonsensical to demand that, metaphysical arguments are similar in that regard.
The fundamental problem for Trent is to put himself into the shoes of someone with opposite views of his. All he does is straw manning the other positions. Weak.
@@Imbetterthanpaulallen I’ve been seeking for a god my entire life, yet never seem to find. If you have any evidence or a valid reason to believe in a god, especially your God, I’m definitely looking. Please share as you’re commanded by your book. 1 Peter 3:16
Yes I completely agree. If I watched a video of Sam Harris disputing the existence of God. I would get a good laugh out of it. Because anytime when non believers like Sam Harris try to argue that God doesn’t exist, I find it humorous and hilarious 😆!!
No Trent. Science doesn't talk about causes at all. Mechanisms maybe. But not causes. And if a god exists and interacts with the physical world (which you believe it does) then those interactions are detectable via the scientific method. Like dark matter or dark energy. We can't directly observe it but we can detect it scientifically. If a god can not be detected and confirmed by science, even in principle, it is functionally the same as one that doesn't exist. Either way, you should reject theism.
@@Catholic101A. It's irrelevant. It's about interaction with the physical world. If God exists and interacts with the physical world it will be dectable by the impact on the physical world even if God were not physical and was interacting using magic. What is the difference between an indectable god and one that doesn't exist?
@nikipedia2818 so how do you know it's irrelevant? Interactive inspired testimony that build western civilization is not irrelevant at all. Can science prove magic? And what about miracles are they irrelevant too just because you can't detect them physically, just using your logic.
@@Catholic101A. Because I'm the one making the argument and it's irrelevant to my argument. If you can detect changes to the physical world it doesn't matter how that change is caused. If a picture falls of the wall because a ghost pushed it off or because the wind blew it off, we can still see the picture fall off the wall. So if you think ghosts are doing things, you point to the things you claim they are doing and THAT'S what we invistigate. If you claim there are ghosts but they don't interact with pictures or anything else in the material world, then ghosts because the same as not ghosts and the entire concept of ghosts becomes worthless.
@@Catholic101A. That testimony is an interaction is what YOU need to demonstrate. You can start with explaining where that interaction is. You would need to show something other than the normal operation of a brain. Something that looks different and necessatates external influence. Do you have that? No. Western civilisation isn't built on testimony from any gods. Especially not the Christian God. That's a myth. No. Science can't. But science can investigate things that are claimed to be magic and discover that they aren't. Like disease, mental health, lightning, earthquakes and countless other things once thought to be magic and now known to be natural.
also i LOVE the bigfoot analogy. like it's amazing that christians are the ones comparing the existence of god to the existence of bigfoot... it's just not what i expected lol. i respect your bigfoot beliefs fellas!
The existence of God is a scientific question. When you say, "The universe came into being because of a deity," you have trespassed on cosmology. When you say, "Scripture was transmitted into human brains (inspired) by God," you have trespassed on biochemistry, physics, and information theory. You have made material, scientific claims, whether you like or acknowledge it. Now back those claims up.
So your claim is also scientific question then , how can we scientifically prove your brain says the truth? You should familiarize your self with "Self reference incoherent proposition" A Big one you are making now.
@Dan Delgado Is that statement truth? You just committed a self referential incoherent statement. By saying you don't believe there is a truth, if your claim is true, it defeats itself, if it's not true, then it's false statement. Sorry, but it's not me who is not to be taken seriously.
Dan Delgado “We live on probability only” That is a truth claim. Is it true? If so, then it’s false also. If you don’t see the contradictory statement you’ve made, then you’re not rational. What is your proof that proof is valid? Does logic exist? What is it?
demi- dogg Mathematical probability is built on axioms, things we assume and absolutely cannot prove. Your version of probability is incoherent, and at best is faith in supernatural governing laws that have dominion over nature. You can’t prove it, but you believe it. That’s faith
I think everyone (on some level) believes in God. The benefit of denying His existence is so that (they feel) that they are not morally accountable to Him. What does the Bible say about people who do not believe in God?? Psalm 14 "The fool says in his heart there is no God. They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds." Repent and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ before it is too late.
_I think everyone (on some level) believes in God._ You think wrong. Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god actually exists? Just *one?* No? Well, _that's_ why I can't believe in him.
@@Bill_Garthright Yes. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the evidence. Over 500 witnesses proclaimed as much. When they were told (and forcefully told) to deny what that had saw, they were willing to die (and did) because they couldn’t deny what they had saw. The bible also declares the existence of God. The Bible has no mistakes in it and has been authenticated by historians including secular ones. There were many witnesses to His ascension. How do we know anything historical e.g. battle of Hasting etc? It was recorded and verified. Christianity is testable. Take it to Jesus and if you acknowledge and ask Him - He will forgive you. The Bible is the inspired word of God. If you have the word of a police man, you have word of authority (eg signing passport), if you have word of US President you have an even higher authority. If you have the word of God, you have the HIGHEST authority.
J R JR True Christians know they are sinners and need forgiveness. I know I’m a sinner. The Bible states that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”.The Church is a hospital for sinners not a museum of saints. The difference is we are in Christ and at one with Christ in the Eucharist. God the Father has provided one mediator between man and Himself and that is through His Son. You have the free will to either accept and cooperate with His grace or simply reject it. It’s a pretty big decision though, your eternity depends on it.
Not every culture has developed a Batman myth (or maybe they have?) but every culture has an all powerful ultra-masc deity, therefore the Christian god is real
Advice for talking to Catholic theist apologists, ask them "If I don't believe in God, do I go to Hell?"...they'll say "Yes". Now ask "If I become a born again Christian in a PROTESTANT church, do I go to Hell?"....and keen on selling THEIR version of Christianity, they'll suddenly say "Well, that's not good enough." And they'll have to say you are "still at risk for Hell" even if you become a Christian, but the "wrong kind" of Christian.
It’s really dumb to ask “Which of the arguments for the god’s existence that you obviously think all fail is the best one?” - it is as dumb as asking “which of those kids’ answers that all have failed the test was the best one?” - they ALL failed, they are all wrong, there is no point in any competition there! There is a reason why there are only 3 first places in races and competitions - we don’t care about the loosers, we care about winners!
you don't understand what "God" means. "God" is "that of which nothing greater can be thought of". the greeks didn't have this concept, but the romans did, they called it "fate"
@@Bingbangboompowwham I know how to define every word I use, I wouldn't be using the word "God" if I couldn't define it. I'm not like the trans activists that use the word "woman" without bring able to define it, I have truth in my side so I don't need to shield my inconsistencies in rhethoric. Think about it, what can that definition define if not the One True God?
In a world without God even logic wouldn't work. The laws of the universe would change from one moment to the next, from one place to another. In a world without God there can be no science. In a materialist worldview you can't even talk about "the problem consciousness". You aren't being skeptic enough if you think you know anything at all. What do you trust in?
this discussion is about the notion of a deistic god. That is a far cry from a personal, hands on intervening god of which most Christians believe. The null hypothesis is why we should not believe things until there is sufficient evidence to believe them. It's the reason you don't believe in Vishnu, Zeus is other gods. It is almost always special pleading with one's own chosen god that the null hypothesis is tossed out.
@NotAPhilosopher1 It would be if their arguments weren't straw man arguments of atheistic positions. That was my point. They are just propagandizing within their own ilk w/ no concern for advice for talking with atheists. I see how it could be construed as you read it tho.
@@derekallen4568 I can tell you paragraphs on top of paragraphs but your pride will try to shut down everything I say with stupid excuses Im not wasting my time on you.
Here we have two pretentious poseurs trying to sound informed. Their first mistake is theocentrism: the unspoken and unacknowledged belief that if there is a god it must be their god and no others. They are helped by the fact that "God" the name and "god" the noun are pronounced the same. This let's them get away with deceptive framing. But the attitude of atheists is an attitude about gods, not just God. All gods. After all, there are billions of people today who claim to know there is no God; who believe there is no God or who lack belief in God yet they are religious! Muslims and Hindus mostly. So when poseurs like this frame the debate in terms of "God" vs "no God" who are they referring to: atheists only or non-xian theists too? But if they always say "gods" or "a god" then it's clear they are speaking about atheists. But will they ever update their spiel to be more precise? Nope. It would wreck their narrative! Yes, I disbelieve in Tinkerbell. But it's more accurate and informative to say I disbelieve in fairies! Here's more philosophical stupidity from these dilettantes: first they fairly frame the attitude of atheists who lack belief as "I don't see any good reasons to believe God exists." Then Trent retorts with "Why should I believe there are no good reasons to believe in God?" Notice the slimy shift from "I see no good reasons" to "there are no good reasons." This makes Trent's riposte nothing more than burden-shifting, straw-manning baloney. The lack-believer didn't say there are no good reasons. Just that he hasn't heard any yet. Fail!
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
Yesterday on Good Friday,
I attended Good Friday mass celebration at my Catholic Church in West Hartford and when the Deacon began the prayer intercessions and mentioned for the conversion of people who don’t believe in God and that’s when I mentioned Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Because these two men are militants atheists and they need help.
What do theists mean when they say “Militant Atheists”, anyway? Richard Dawkins has probably never touched a gun in his life.
If “Militant” Christians blow up abortion clinics, “Militant” Muslims crash planes into buildings, and “Militant” Atheists argue on the internet like this, is Atheism the most peaceful belief system in the universe, is the word “militant” completely meaningless, or are you guys liars?
How do you talk to someone who says there is God but religion is a waste of time? How do you talk to them on a Catholic perspective ?
Ask questions and listen.
I’d ask them who they think God is. Judging from what you’ve stated, I’d say they think God is love. I’d explain that God is a person, yes God loves you, and this is how much he loves you (insert Jesus life, death, resurrection, and Church). Then I’d ask them if they believe God deserves worship.
Trent is a very good speaker
It’s a pity he’s a bad thinker though...
@@Noname-w7f1e how so
@@CHAZER-sp5cm
Well, the things he says may sound good but when you start thinking about it they don’t make much sense...
Nobody cares about failed arguments - they are either forgotten completely or left as an example of how not to build an argument. Nobody cares which of the failed ones was “the best”. What’s the point if it still failed? Also you have to first establish what “god” is in order to say “God doesn’t exist” so the burden of proof is still on the theists side no mater how this guy or anyone else spins it!
@@Noname-w7f1e Aquinas did, the 5 ways are to prove a timeless immaterial all powerful and necessary God, the Other attributes are discussed after this
@@CHAZER-sp5cm
Well clearly his arguments were not enough as if they were - the majority of scholars (not common folk mind you) would have belived in the same god as Aquinas.
His arguments were all refuted long time ago(and some even by other belivers mind you)!
But if you so insist - the "unmoved mover" - is the only one I remember out of my mind. And it doesn't prove god, it just presupposes that there shoud have been "the first cause" that started everything. You still have a long way to get to "God" from ""the first cause". Unless you are a deist and you don't think your god has any consciousness...
Christianity is not anti-science. It is anything but. Men became Scientific because they expected law in nature and because they believed in a law giver. Creation declares the glory of God. The law nature dictates / allows life. An atheist may say “I don’t need God to know what’s right and wrong”. I would agree. As we are made in God’s image, He has also given us a conscience - the faculty of knowing what’s right and wrong. If you get to decide yourself what’s right/wrong, there is no ultimate truth, truth is simply subjective. Scientists will profess energy cannot be created or destroyed - it can only be transferred from one type to the other. My conviction that Jesus IS the Son of God is based on evidence. His resurrection from the dead is enough evidence that what Christ did was enough. His resurrection proves, that death is not the end and Atheism is false.
The most intelligent Scientist on the planet cannot create a grain of sand from ‘nothing’. To think we came/evolved from ‘nothing’ is foolishness in the highest order. People deny God’s existence because then they’d have to acknowledge they were ultimately responsible to Him. We are all sinners and need God’s salvation/mercy. It’s the same way a criminal doesn’t want to find a police officer. The Bible says “the fool says in his heart ‘there is no God’.
Evolution is NOT proven FACT!! - It is only a theory!!! In order to be scientific it has to be observable and repeatable. There is not one single shred of evidence where there is a change in kind i.e. dog to cat etc etc. Don’t believe the lie. Believe God’s inspired Holy word the Bible and read Genesis 1.
Colonel Evolution has been proven time and time again, and it is repeatable, look at dogs and cats, same process but for Humans it was God who did it instead of man
@@lucidlocomotive2014 That is simply not true. Evolution has NEVER been proven. That is a fact. It has to be observable and repeatable to be scientific. It is only a theory which is cannot be proven. You will not be able to give me even one piece of 'observable' evidence where there is a change in kind. It doesn't exist.
@@lucidlocomotive2014 Dogs and cats are different species!
@@lucidlocomotive2014 There is no empirical or repeatable proof of speciation, moron.
_My conviction that Jesus IS the Son of God is based on evidence._
Wonderful! That's exactly what I've been waiting for. Please present just *one piece of good evidence* backing that up.
Right now, that's just a claim - a claim that there _is_ evidence. Can you demonstrate that your claim is true by actually providing even *one* piece of good evidence backing it up? Or do you have nothing but the claim?
_His resurrection from the dead is enough evidence_
OK. Resurrection after being dead for a couple of days would be pretty good. Did that happen? Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that it actually happened?
As far as I know, we have much better evidence of the resurrection of Elvis Presley. It's still not _good_ evidence for such an extraordinary claim, but we've got actual eyewitness testimony of _that._ Hundreds of people have reported seeing Elvis after he died, and those people aren't all anonymous and they aren't all dead. You can even interview some of them, if you like.
As I say, that's not very good evidence for such an extraordinary claim, but you don't have anything even _that_ good for Jesus, do you? Do you have _anything_ but old stories? By that standard, we have evidence that Spiderman exists. After all, we've got stories about that, too.
_Evolution is NOT proven FACT!! - It is only a theory!!!_
Clearly, you're not a scientist yourself. Indeed, you don't seem to even have a fifth-grade understanding of science, let alone of biology. "Only a theory"? Theory is the best it gets in science. There is nothing higher in science than theory. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
I'm not a biologist, but I urge you to educate yourself. But get your education in biology from _biologists,_ not from religious apologists.
Biology is science, not religion. Evolution doesn't disprove a god, and even if you _could_ disprove evolution - and win your Nobel Prize and become the most famous scientist in history - it would get you nowhere at all in demonstrating that a god exists - _any_ god, let alone a particular one.
A big problem with proving God's existence is the definition of "God". There are so many different definitions commonly given, that the word has little meaning by itself. So it needs to be further qualified before this thing's existence can even be attempted to be proven.
If we say that it's a "Creator", then that's something potentially provable. Was the universe, in fact, created? Does it actually have a beginning?
As a non-believer, I find the "problem of evil" argument to be one of the *weakest*, since it requires the "God" in question to be omnibenevolent, at the very least.
It is not an argument against existance of God...
Any number of evil despotic gods can exist...and problem of evil would not apply to em
You could naively say "not all creator gods are omnibevolent, but it's easy to prove that all omnibevolent gods are creator gods".
I think the issue with the problem of evil is that it ignores that theology has an answer to the question. It's called free will. God is all good. Therefore, he is not a dictator. He gives humans free will. He is all knowing. Just because I KNOW what choice you're going to make does not mean that I caused you to make that decision. God DID do something to remedy the issue of evil as he is all powerful and its laid out in detail in the Bible. Understanding it fully requires you to go all the way back to the book of Genesis. You're not going to get it just by knowing Christians believe Jesus died for our sins. That's like reading the cover of a book and acting like you read it. He executes this plan without affecting our free will because 1) He is all good. He is not a dictator. And 2) Because he is love. You cannot have love without consent. That's not love. And 3) Much like the mean mother who feeds her children veggies his ultimate concern is our well being, even if it doesn't make sense to us. After the fall of man The Lord cried out in sorrow who TOLD you you were naked? What have you done? Now you're going to have to do XYZ. You're going to have to toil. It wasn't a punishment. It was a remedy. It was medicine. Yuck! Shots are no fun. Reminds me of the day my father found out I was pregnant. He's never left my side. Sometimes he helped by helping, and other times he helped by not helping, so I could learn to fly. No matter what happens he's always there loving me, advising me, and letting me learn how to make the right decisions. It's a bit more complicated for God obviously but he knows what he's doing and he isn't the cause of evil. He's there waiting for us to do the right thing.
@@kelseythomson4418 No, you wont convince us with "God is all good" argument! You know that we dont believe he is real, so why do you think that we will believe that he is real AND ALSO all good? Do you expect us to take it on faith?
@@eklektikTubb Let’s say that God isn’t good, and that he wants nothing but evil to befall the human race.
Would you be tortured, beaten, mocked, and crucified for a *prank?*
Think on it for a while. Because I don’t want to get into a long, drawn out argument with someone who may or may not care about a thing I say.
At the end of the day, we are all human beings.We breathe, we think, we eat, we sleep, we drink.
we poop
Bring on an Atheist please! Literally taking about Atheist without someone in the room.
So tacky.
My problem with the claim that god exist is that I have only heard arguments and claims.
For me that is too weak to be considered as good evidence.
If god exist and she affect the world we live in, then it should either be testable. If it is not testable, how can we differentiate her from a god that does not exist?
I suffered, i cried out to god, i found peace. I was a horrible human being who watched porn all day and was rude to others. I seeked for gods forgiveness and believed that jesus died for my sins, and then I was literally morally renovated and feel so much better. So yes, god is testable. Just not in the way you might think. it takes a heart seeking him. I experienced him so I know he is true.
As Jesus said:
For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:8)
Or... whilst yes, you might have been wasting your life away with porn and conflict, could it be that due to a) the power of suggestion / confirmation bias, and b) your own hitherto untested strength of character and resolve (made possible by 'a'), allowed you to take stock, and therefore, as it transpires, you're a far better, stronger person than you give yourself credit for?
The thing is, we've all done things of which we're not entirely proud. but just like you, most of us do manage to make good decisions which lead to the betterment of our own lives - we choose to do this, and those choices are ultimately down to us alone.
@@AntisocialMediaMike God is real and he loves you.
@@Jonas-c9tWell, I don't believe that in any sense whatsoever, but if that's your position, then fair enough. I'm not here to try and change your mind.
Best of luck to you my friend.
@@AntisocialMediaMike Yea God bless you man. I am both intellectually and experientially convinced of the creator of the universe. I share that faith with the intention of sharing a blessing with a good friend, not as an invitation to "deconstruct my faith" as many atheists try to do. So I'm glad that you respect my conviction. I also wish you the best for everything!
At 7:12 Trent Horn says something funny: "But when we are talking about whether certain immaterial things exist, there's no scientific test... And it's not just God, I mean, do other minds exist? Free will? Numbers? Moral facts? "
It's funny because minds, (free) will, numbers, and (moral) facts are all material in some aspect. We do not know of a mind or a will outside of a brain, numbers are our brains' interpretation of material objects and the relations they have to each other, facts, moral or otherwise are observable and directly linked to some material manifestation.
But what about God? The only way God can be said to "exist" in a scientific or empirical manner is as a figment of our imagination; in our brains. Any talk of "existence" outside space and time is just a meaningless string of words. In every sense imaginable "to exist" means to take up space and time.
@@dickdestroye I don't think we can "prove" anything exists other that the thought itself, if we accept that it is thought. I think this called solipsism. Or nihilism; I'm not quite sure which formal position you want to take. The problem I have with these "Matrix" or "Boltzmann brain" or "Brain-in-a-vat" or "maybe we are just the thoughts of a butterfly in God's garden" type of arguments is that they are not productive in any other way. If you accept them, you are done. Any other avenue of thought has been rendered useless.
In essence, doing anything other than thinking, including involuntary actions like breathing, is a rejection of solipsism as a working assumption.
How are numbers material? (For starters)
What is the number 1 made of?
@@deanodebo There is a specific arrangement of molecules in your brain that constitutes the number 1. In this lowly respect, the number 1 is material. Do you think the number 1 could be said to "exist" if no life existed? I'm sure that the property of uniqueness and singularity would exist in unique and singular things, and even in the way they interact (two H2 plus one O2 producing two H2O), but that would, in my view, only constitute the potential for the number 1, not the number itself.
Hans De Mos
Sorry but I majored in math, and I’ve never heard anything so ridiculous regarding numbers. My brain might conceptualize the quality, but “oneness” has nothing to do with molecules in my brain. A singular object has the trait of oneness. That trait is not material. It is abstract and conceptual. Do you not believe in immaterial transcendental things? What *IS* the past?
@@deanodebo The trait of "oneness" is not the same as "the number 1". We can assign to a singular object our label of "number 1", but that is something we do, not something inherent in the object. As it is something that happens in our brains, "the number 1" is, at the very least in that limited sense, material.
I indeed have a hard time accepting "immaterial transcendental things". I don't understand how you can talk of a "thing" that "exists" outside space and time. I cannot imagine an existence that is not material. Numbers and logic included.
The past may not be anything other than the particular chain of cause and effect that has resulted in the present.
As you are a math major, I'd be interested in hearing your take on numbers, and if you think it is necessary for the study of mathematics to give them some immaterial quality that detaches them from our material reality.
"Why should I believe there are no good arguments for god" - An atheist doesn't say that... There may be a very good reason, but we haven't found one yet.
"Which is the best argument for god" - I think many are bad, but it is an inherent issue at the heart of any theism that postulates a supernatural god. Definitionally, you can't assess supernatural claims within the limits of empiricism. A theist might say that is a problem for empiricism, but in reality, we live in a world (let's suppose that world is created by a god) and in this world, empiricism is clearly the best methodology to find truth (we build technology because of breakthroughs science and engineering, not because of breakthroughs in theology.)
Why would a god create an empirically-biased world, and then demand that we cast that methodology aside in order to find the ultimate truth of all, i.e. it? So it's the opposite, it's a problem for theists, not empiricists, that our world is very biased against theology as an effective pursuit. As for arguments, the Kalam for instance begins with a faulty and unjustified premise, so all the conclusions drawn from it are all dubious. But if I were to say what arguments are more effective than others, I think a deistic argument is more convincing than a theistic argument. I would say that theistic arguments that at least attempt to take a crack at empiricism, are more compelling to me. Although they naturally struggle for the reason I just outlined about the limits of empiricism in assessing supernatural claims. I know that sounds doomed from the outset and essentially renders atheism the default, and I wish I could solve this problem for theists, but I genuinely can't help them with this, if I could, perhaps I would be a theist.
"Atheists think if there were good reasons, they would be universally believed" - Um.... no. Not even close. People are irrational, we do not assess claims objectively, we just believe what we want to believe. This fact is partly why skepticism towards religions should be very much treasured, since religions are designed to prey upon people's wishes and biases rather than to make compelling arguments. Apologetics are arguments used far more to defend existing faith, rather than as a tool of conversion. And I wouldn't be surprised if churches are emptying, and christianity is on the decline simply for trivial reasons (like people are less inclined to seek comfort in the hereafter, when they already have enough comfort in the here and now, especially if religion makes demands of them they don't wish to fulfil.) What I will say however... is that if there were strong evidence, it would be a lot more obvious. I'm not saying everyone would believe it, but a lot more would. In the same way that it is obvious that vaccines work, that the earth is round etc. Not everyone accepts these truths because people are irrational and can be prone to conspiracy thinking, but most of the scientifically literate world at least do accept these truths. There is no reason why the existence of a god can't be as obvious as the roundness of the earth, and yet it's not. There are so many different religious sects, denominations all with disagreements, and you just don't see the same level of disagreement in science. This doesn't need to be the state of affairs, and yet it is. The existence of a god is not a matter of philosophy, it's a matter of empiricism. It either is a real phenomena, or it is not. The moral truth of something is not the same thing as the literal truth of something, because the former is a matter of subjective ethics, and the latter is a matter of objective reality. When it comes to objective reality, we should expect a loving god to have made its existence obvious to us, especially if the religion preaches that he will reveal himself to those who search earnestly for him. Many people do search, and have found nothing.
"People can't prove E=mc2" - Actually you can do it, albeit indirectly if you're not a physicist. For one thing, we know about nuclear weapons, and they are able to produce such vast energy from such a small mass, because E=mc2. We know nuclear power plants generate electricity by using uranium to heat water in a similar process. It's really not hard to just use some basic reasoning there to work that one out from our every day experience and understanding. But even if you don't say that, you know that technology is made possible due to scientific progress. And we know E=mc2 is a very profound scientific discovery. We can't say the same for theology. There are no breakthroughs in the evidence for a god, the way we have breakthroughs in science. So you cannot compare empirical discoveries like relativity, to belief in god. You are just being dishonest here.
Atheist: "There's no good reasons for God to exist."
Me: "So, is there a good reason for anything to exist?"
_"Good reasons"_ as in evidence and/or logic
@@username82765 Logically, things exist. The evidence that things exist are the things themselves, ie: the proof is in the pudding.
Are you avoiding the question deliberately or are you genuinely confused?
@@ironymatt Let me try and clarify. My point is that the statement your claiming Atheists make is NOT worded correctly. At least, I have never heard it said that way and can find no evidence of that wording.
The way I have heard and can find evidence to support is...
_"there's no good evidence/reason _*_to believe_*_ God exists."_
@@username82765 That's agnosticism my friend, not atheism, and it still amounts to nothing more than avoiding the question - especially considering that there's been 2000 years of evidence (setting aside the very glaring fact that things exist in the first place!) for those who are intellectually honest about it.
@@ironymatt ironymatt Agnostic/Gnostic is knowledge claim.
Atheism/Theism is a believe claim.
I and most other Atheists are Agnostic Atheists _" We don't know there is a God/s, therefore I do NOT believe there is a God/s.
I don't believe in religion. I can't imagine how anyone can. I was raised Christian and a few years after I figured out Santa Claus wasn't real I figured out the solar messiah wasn't real either. One thing I find particularly ridiculous is Christians debating atheists using Christianity as a basis for God. Anyone that can think critically knows that all these religions are nonsense and anyone bringing that to the table to discuss a higher power is cute.
You’ll notice in this comment section that is all about rhetoric then any substance.
I just always find it odd when atheists attempt to claim they aren't making any claims. Since we all exist, our explanation can only ultimately be explained by some sort of creator by some sort of design, or by random chance. Period. There are no other alternatives. So you only have A or B. Atheists tend to say their only "claim" is that the answer to the question is 'Not A' and that's it, however of course by logic Not A = B in this scenario with only 2 possibilities.
So the atheist does have a positive claim, that everything that exists from the vastness of the universe to the microscopic complexity of the DNA just happened by random chance. That claim is simply un defenseable, and the more scientific research we do the more complex we find the world around us to be. Science pushes us more and more towards the conclusion that random good luck cannot explain the world we see around us. This is recognized by a very small subset of atheists and they are forced to resort to the multiverse, by definition an unscientific, untestable claim taken on blind faith, leading to 'atheism of the gaps'.
The ONLY thing a person needs to know to refute atheism is the fact that if the gravitational constant differed by 1 part in 10^60 (which is an incomprehensible number) too large the expansion rate of the big bang would not have been large enough and the universe would have collapsed back on itself, or too small the expansion rate of the big bang would have been too large and no stars would have formed. In both cases we would not be living some sort of alternative universe, there would be no life at all. The atheist must either rely on blind faith in the multiverse based on NO empirical evidence, or think our finely tuned universe (on the order of 1 in 10^60%) is best explained by good luck.
The universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. The universe is "fine-tuned" to spend the vast majority of its existence populated by collapsed stars, no longer energetic enough to sustain life on the planets around them, growing emptier as the cosmos expands. You may think that lifeless emptiness requires a creator; I find the idea hard to swallow.
@@jancerny8109 "Since we all exist, our explanation can only ultimately be explained by some sort of creator by some sort of design, or by random chance." False. You clearly don't understand the different between natural forces and random chance.
@@darrylelam256 I am talking about the natural forces themselves. What other natural force is responsible for the precise value of the gravitational constant?
@@jancerny8109 Where did I say fine tuned for life? All I am saying is that the universe is fine-tuned to even exist at all. Or I guess a 1 in 10^60 event happened due to good luck... Nevermind you are right
@@topper009 And I was talking about how you don't seem to understand the difference between natural forces and random chance. Ow and the fine tuning argument it BS regardless if you are talking about life or the universe. There is so much wrong with your thinking it's not even funny.
And we also have to understand that even if Big Foot does exist...so what, it will not change our perspective on life. There is another type of creature roaming the planet, cool. But if God exists, then everything changes.
Perhaps Big Foot was not the best example given for the atheist side. If I made a claim that pink rhinos were rampaging on the dark side of a Jupiter moon, it would be up to me to concretely back up the claim with evidence that can be tested and verified. There could still be those pink rhinos but if there is no proof, then we can decline to believe in that claim solely on the basis that it is unlikely. That is closer to the atheist point.
Not argumens, or resons., but EVIDENCE.
I like thoughts in this video, but i dont think it is very helpful. I am not sure if existence of God is really a philosophical question, and even if it is, what is the point of saying that? How could it possibly help theist in conversation?
I love how they got to the base of the power and how its not just faith that is controlling things they spoke of science and spoke of how in context we are all kinda mindless and put to much into other things when it's like the basics 1+3 =4
It comes down to which definition of god. A deist style god or more abstract ideas on god are not something I argue against. I am agnostic in that regard. Now if we are talking the Christian description, that I have zero reason to believe. I was raised in it and am very fluent and it was terrifying leaving, but now I am glad I did. Outside of the impossibility of stories like the ark or the heinous behavior condoned in Exodus 21, one of the more troubling issues surrounds the original sin. I would not convict someone for something they could not have truly understood as wrong. If you set a wine glass by a baby and say baby don't touch that and it does, would you condemn it to eternal damnation? Eve could not have possibly understood what she was doing was wrong prior to eating the fruit of the tree. The whole story that sets up the need for the savior is majorly flawed. It is also in two different orders. The specifics of a religion make it easier to say it is true or not. I am fascinated by the history of how religions form and why people follow them which is why I end up places like here.
@Kuffar Legion Great stuff! I enjoyed the read. I often wonder about the possibility of free will in a world created completely by a god outside of time and space as Christianity says it was. I do not see the possibility. Many Christians I have spoken to said of course it exists because I make decisions. They don't get that in a world created completely by a god outside of time would mean it would only appear they had free will.
@Kuffar Legion Free will has more of a chance in this reality than the Christian tale. We would have to define what we see as free will as well.
there is only one definition of "God":
"That of which nothing greater can be thought of"
@@tafazzi-on-discord There are lots of versions of god. You can see that through the varieties of religions we have.
@@jayv9779 No, there are just different acceoted Revelations of Him. It's hard to study God (that of which nothing greater can be thought of), and Him, being benevolent, revealed Himself. Some people reject or twist that Revelation.
Other groups like the greeks didn't have a good grasp of God, they only had a vague idea of the "transcendant", the category which God inhabits but that they wrongly interpreted as being a collection of deities.
To an atheist, your insistence that there"must", be a least bad reason for believing in your particular god is ultimately laughable, as if one cannot believe, no reason is any good, hence no least bad. That is just a sophist attempt to legitemise the conversation in order to get a foot in the door.
For instance, the idea that my failure to believe in your god consigns me to endless torment in hell, is like telling me there's a boogeyman in my closet, when I have no closet, because if I don't believe in your god, I certainly don't believe in hell. So it's a non-threat. That complete lack of being an effective argument is extant for all and every argument you can bring to bear on the subject to a critical thinker. The only person you can affect with that argument is someone who is prone to fear, paranoia and insecurity that you have bullied into a state of existential unrest. Not very compassionate.
I LOVE TRENT AND MATT
How does one explain God to an atheist WHO IS SEEKING THE TRUTH?
1) Respectfully I will ALWAYS ask the honest atheist why they dismiss the inexplicable experience/s they have ALL had in their lives (the synchronicities), and also why they did not get hit on the car ride when they should have been hit - just the other day. EVERYONE has experienced this! EVERYONE! (God makes sure that everyone is without excuse to believe.) I tell them that they are rational and intelligent which is why I'm curious to know how they explain it away. (Of course, I won't use the word miracle because they will immediately jump at the word and it will therefore cause a distraction from the main point I am making.)
2) As regards them citing bad reasons (like war and child cancer, etc) for not believing in God, I mention that that is evil which is responsible for these things. I will continue that if there's evil why does good also exist, and why hasn't this evil not been able to eliminate all good in the world as yet?
But mind you, the atheist claims that there is no evil and that we ourselves are responsible. I will then ask where this 'urge' comes from? I offer them the explanation that the urging is from the devil. In other words, we all are in a different degree of 'possession'. (Remember that Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, satan.")
I will anyway ask the atheist where the good in us comes from. He will undoubtedly claim that the good comes from ourselves. I ask, 'Where does that come from?' He says, from his conscience. I ask the same question. He explains more. I ask the same question (And where does that come from?). He either won't be able to continue or will be stubborn.
But at any rate, I tell him too that the only explanation for the good in him is that it is the spirit of God, and that God leaves it to our free will and honesty to acknowledge this truth. Interestingly as well, God uses His spirit in the atheist to do good in the world because His work will continue as planned. By the way, this latter aspect also answers the atheists statement that God is not required for a person (the atheist) to do good - for it is God in him doing it.
Remind the truth seeking atheist that they know that ouija boards really do do the (evil) thing it does, as also does tarrot card, crystal ball and palm reading and other (false) promises from the devil if one makes a pact with him. I tell them to try it if they don't believe it is real, and immediately I tell them to definitely NOT do that because I was only making a point. If they deny that these things are all real, I won't argue with the atheist.
3) I don't argue with someone who is closed minded. Therefore too, we can't sell them on the fact that if we pray against harm befalling our children they will be safe, and that is not something the atheist can do for his children or for himself, on the road and elsewhere. Ditto, for the fact that we can secure our future in God and not in savings, and we are MORE than rewarded for this trusting (aka faith), even though we are weaker in this area and are required to perfect it.
God Bless you.
How is not being hit by a car "inexplicable?" People get lucky sometimes. A better question: why were devout believers killed in their thousands during prayer by the Lisbon earthquake?
I've tried a tarot card reading. It was pure rubbish.
People do good--and a great deal of the bad--for the same reason; we're social animals.
"1) Respectfully I will ALWAYS ask the honest atheist why they dismiss the inexplicable experience/s they have ALL had in their lives" Because no such things happen that can't be explained by natural things.
"2) As regards them citing bad reasons (like war and child cancer, etc) for not believing in God, I mention that that is evil which is responsible for these things" Evil that YOUR god created according to your religion? You might want to pick something else as it will only work against you. Also your 'evil' doesn't seem to exist. Good and bad are subjective. Also ouija boards, tarot cards, crystal balls and palm reading are not 'evil'. Its all BS but it's not evil in anyway. I've played with ouija boards, tarot cards and even had my palm read once for fun. Nothing bad ever came from any of it.
"3) I don't argue with someone who is closed minded." So are you saying we shouldn't argue with you as you seem pretty closed minded to me. People have prayed for their kids to be safe and their kids have died because that's all they did. Praying doesn't do anything.
@@jancerny8109 >why were devout believers killed in their thousands during prayer by the Lisbon earthquake?
God doesn't owe you one second of your life. By eating the fruit of the knowlege of Good and Evil we became vulnerable to the injustices and wickedness of the world, because pain and loss are the mean we know evil with.
@@tafazzi-on-discord "1) miracles happen." There are zero cases of confirmed miracles.
"or the accounts of Our Lady of Fatima" There is nothing there. This is a case of unsupported claims, both religious and secular investigations suggest alternative explanations more in line with reality than the impossible ability of the sun to jump about and the devastation in our solar system that would result in doing so. This event was not witnessed anywhere else where the sun jumping about would be a global event witnessed by half the planet. This event was not even witnessed by most of the people who were in the crowd. It was a form of hallucination resulting from staring at the sun and from group hysteria. Once one person shouted that the sun was moving around, other people, almost in a trance, began to believe the same.
"2) You are not in the Faith, that's the bad that came out of those evil practices" Wow I see someone is nuts. Evil practices. . . Really? I think you need to get your head checked.
"Also you didn't look into the problem of evil at all, that's an ignorant comeback" I know what the problem of evil is, and it only applies to one type of god. But what I was pointing out was the things that christian god claims to of done that could be called evil by the standard of the 'christian god' and how this claim is supposed to of created evil in the first place.
"3) prayer empirically inequivocably works" No it doesn't.
@@tafazzi-on-discord "God doesn't owe you one second of your life." Yet you are also claiming that "prayer empirically inequivocably works". Or does it only work when is convenient for you?
" By eating the fruit of the knowlege of Good and Evil bah bah bah" Please give the nonsense fairytales a rest and join the rest of us in reality.
It gets worse. No Trent. The argument from evil isn't an arguent against the existance of a god at all. So how could it be the best? It's an argument against a certain set of God claims which appear inconsistant with observation.
The answer about which is the best will vary depending on how you define best.
Some would say that argument from personal relevelation is a bad argument but it's actually good for the person experiencing. If there is a god, revelation is exactly what we would expect under that hypothisis and while I have no reason to think any are actual revelation, if you believe you have had a god reveal itself to you personally, that's as good a reason for YOU to believe as any.
Again you short listed an argument that isn't even an argument for a god and cited the best defeater as one that isn't even an arguent against the existance of a god, so I'm not impressed by your ability to judge.
I’m not sure what the word I’m looking for here is, but this is kind of… Russian doll? Redundant? You’re not trying to convince us that your god exists, you’re trying to get us to prove that the arguments that already failed on us suck.
You’re treating “your arguments suck” as a claim IN ITSELF.
2:00 God damn you. When people talk about religious abuse they are always spoken down to like this. Sexual assault or trauma is not your priest being mean to you, but the church depends tactics like this.
Oh you were attacked? What were you wearing?
They are a sick cult
I don’t speak for all atheists, only myself. I don’t believe in god specifically because for earthly life to survive extreme brutality must exist. One creature horrifically killing another creature to simply survive in the bloodlust of nature makes perfect sense in a godless universe. Unanswered prayer is another atheist reason. Unanswered prayer is common place and makes perfect sense if there is no god.
As an atheist, my inability to believe in a god goes to a lack of evidence for the existence of a god. It's really just that simple. There is nothing philosophical to it. When it comes to believing in a particular god, the chances of existence becomes much smaller. If your best evidence for a god is the Kalem argument (and that might be the best), that comes nowhere close to indicating that there is a god in 2020 let alone someone knows anything about the theoretical god.
Mike Walters - prove that you exist..... do I? What evidence do you need for my existence?
The puzzling question is why are you all so keen to argue for the non-existence of something that - according to you- does not exist. Don Quixotes out to fight the non-existent monsters! There is just something funny about it! :o)
@@kbeetles
_prove that you exist_
Note that he never asked for proof, just for evidence. Don't you have evidence that other people exist? Come on! That's just silly, isn't it? You wouldn't have replied to his comment if you thought you'd just imagined it.
_The puzzling question is why are you all so keen to argue for the non-existence of something_
Oh, no. That's not puzzling at all. Faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world. Christians control government at _every_ level here. Luckily, Christians can't even agree with _each other_ about much of anything, even when they're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to them by the same supposedly all-knowing deity. Their god is apparently the world's worst communicator. (Or just imaginary.)
But they're doing plenty enough harm as it is! Note that evangelical Christians are (along with Nazis and white supremacists) among Donald Trump's biggest supporters. And do I even have to mention the harm that Islam is doing in majority Muslim nations?
For most of my life, I _wasn't_ open about my atheism. I didn't hide it, but I thought that religion was harmless. Well, experience proved me wrong about that!
The fundamental problem is faith-based thinking. We _should_ be evidence-based. We _should_ have good reasons before believing stuff. After all, there is nothing - no matter how crazy, no matter how silly, no matter how wrong - which can _not_ be justified by an appeal to faith. (Religions aren't the only example of faith-based thinking, but _all_ religions are faith-based, as far as I can tell.)
Still, if all god-believers switched to believing in magic leprechauns, instead - and didn't vote or act based on their belief in magic leprechauns - I wouldn't worry about it. It would be just as silly, but probably not so harmful to my country and my world.
Bill Garthright - I grew up in a socialist country in Central Europe. Communists are atheists through and through. Horrendous crimes were committed by those atheists and (you may clap your hands here now!) they had a real hatred towards anything that dared to imply that there is a spiritual aspect to human beings. They loved trashing everything that belonged to a Christian based culture. They celebrated the most disgusting humiliation of religious leaders - wanting to pull down all human dignity.Throwing people out of jobs, blocking careers, university entrances simply because some people could not go along with ridiculing religion ( mainly Christianity). Good old atheists wanted and still want to build heaven on earth (but of course without God because they are gods themselves) and we are all so much happier without God in our life! No? But let us put the past aside - the lovely atheist societies of the West seem to have problems with suicide, addiction, hedonistic consumerism, meaninglessness, depression, rootlessness, identity confusions at every street corner etc.... ( See John Vervaeke's series of lectures on the Awakening from the Meaning Crisis) The arrogance of atheists is well known to me. The comrades, at least the majority of them, were abominable human beings.
And I do not want to imply that all atheists are disgraceful - but an atheist society that wants to completely eradicate religion is far from creating a better world than a society where religious views and feelings are okay to have.
....and here we are entangled in a silly "contest" of which society is more harmful. This is such a red herring!
@KKB Just for the record, atheism is a disbelief in a god. There is no atheist book with dogma in it that can be interpreted to do harm (or good) to others. Atheists who do bad things do not do it in the name of atheism just like they do not commit an act based on a disbelief in astrology. Personally, I generally leave religious discussions alone. The exceptions are when it has to do with atheism, or when the religious topic has something to do with topics such as human rights. An opposition to gay marriage, for example.
Mike Walters - similarly there is no Christian dogma about doing harm to others!! On the contrary - the first idea in the ancient world of not doing harm but doing good to others who are in a more vulnerable position than you are, of accepting the outsiders, the "sinners" and of being forgiving towards those who are your enemies while not forgiving their actions. Weird, revolutionary ideas. Views that were pretty unheard of before Christ...... have you come across Tom Holland's book "Dominion"?
I am just amazed at the venom that so often comes towards people who have faith in a higher power. There seems to be a need in many atheists to humiliate, ridicule, offend, demand explanations and to smash to smithereens another person's sense of the sacred ( how do you explain the sacred to someone who never experienced it? Explain falling in love to a 3 year-old, tenderness to someone who was unfortunate enough to know only rough handling etc....etc...) But thanks for your comment!
1 "I don't believe in God because I don't see any good reasons to think that God exists."
This is a fair assessment as far as I can tell. As long as you don't presuppose that this is the only reason we don't believe in a God. I at least would need not just a logical argument. I'd need to see evidence to back up that logic.
2 "It sounds like what you're looking for are good reasons."
Among other things.
3 "Why should I believe that there are no good reasons to believe in God."
The premise of the question is that you have those good reasons. You can't turn it around on the person who doesn't believe and ask why you should believe none of the reasons are good enough. The premise of the conversation is that I've not heard an argument good enough and assuming you agree to the conversation, it's your job to present me with one.
4 "Can you help me see why there are no good reasons?"
Well I can do my best if you bring up the reasons why you think they're good. Let's go with contingency and the Kalam cosmological argument.
Contingency: This argument is circular. It makes the leap in it's premise that if the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God, which is the conclusion you're trying to reach, not the basis upon which to make other conclusions.
Kalam: This argument is insubstantial. The premises state that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the universe began to exist. The conclusion being that the universe had a cause. The premises are debatable as the universe coming into existence is just the beginning of time so there was never a time in which it didn't exist, and there are things in the universe that seem to come into existence without cause. All of that aside, this only gets you to something causing the universe, not specifically a God.
5 "Which is the best one and why does it fail?"
That one's hard to say. I've never thought of any failed argument as more or less good. If the argument fails it fails, there's no heirarchy or scale to the failure. Either it's valid and sound or it isn't. The argument from complexity, evil, the watchmaker, creation, specificity, contingency, Kalam. All of them fail in some way and if I had to give a worst, I'd say... mmmhh complexity? And best would probably be the Kalam because at least the reasoning is valid. It just isn't sound.
6 "The problem of evil is better than my priest was mean to me."
Uhm what? How many atheists give the argument, "my priest was mean to me" as a logical argument. Y'know you're making a big stink over us not knowing any of your arguments. How many of ours do you know?
7 "Every time you've asked this question I've never heard a good answer. It exposes them, but I'm not saying that all atheists think this way. Some atheists are very intelligent."
Well then really that says more about who the host invites on, doesn't it?
8 "In order to say there's no good reasons to believe in something..."
Nooo. No reasons that have been presented to us that we might consider good. It's not on us to tell you all the reasons we don't find the reasons we know of compelling. It's on you to present your case for the reasons you have. You might have a good one we've never heard before, and that'd be hard for us to just come up with.
9 "They think that if there were good reasons, they would be universally believed."
Mmh had to think about this one but I generally agree? Like if we had a valid and sound reason to believe in a specific God or religion above all others, it'd be pretty much universally spread and understood, especially with the internet. But as it stands, most people wind up being the religion of their parents/ community, implying that people are given their religious tradition, and post hoc rationalize it later.
10 "That's just not how it works with philosophical topics."
Well if it were a completely proven idea with valid logic, it would cease to be philosophy. It would just be a fact.
11 "Ethical philosopher disagree about whether we should follow Kant, or be utilitarians, or virtue theorists."
Uhm no? Kant is someone who's ideas we occasionally go back to, but ethical philosophers hardly ever go back to Kant as a basis for morality. But here's the thing, morality is subjective. Facts aren't. Also if you want to put the realm in which you're arguing into the realm of philosophy, you've already kind of ceded ground to the notion that the answers you'll arrive at are to some extent subjective.
12 "The difference is you're not claiming there are no good arguments for bigfoot, they're the ones claiming there are no good arguments for theism."
That we've heard. And the premise of this conversation was that YOU think there are good arguments for theism, and we're interested to hear them. Don't try and turn the burden of proof on us when we say we haven't found any reasons compelling.
13 "Most people believe what they do about the world based on scientific consensus, and not because they've figured it out for themselves."
Fair enough, but scientific consensus is a better standard, because it's something we can test for ourselves should we go out and learn how to do it, which creates a thing known as peer review, making it so that if someone tries to come up with some nonsense, it can be dealt with relatively quickly by others in the field so errant hypotheses don't get through. Religion doesn't have a similar process resulting in some 13,000 sects of christians who have mild to severe philosophical differences.
14 "People thought for a long time there were no black swans."
Eeh kinda. The way I was introduced to the concept is the black swan fallacy which highlights the folly of trying to prove a negative, as in "Well prove to me this doesn't exist." after asking for evidence for why it does. Regardless of how much I search I could never prove to you a thing doesn't exist, because "oh have you checked behind that rock?" No. Lemme check. "Oh well now you can't tell if it's on the other side." Infinitely this could be made more granular. In a way, this is what you have done with this conversation back at #3 when you said "Why should I believe that there are no good reasons to believe in God." On top of trying to turn the burden of proof back on me for just not believing, what is this if not asking me to show you no good reasons? Well I don't know every reason, which is why I might ask you to show me a reason I've not heard of, or if I have I'll explain to you why I don't accept it.
15 "The existence of God is not like the existence of Cryptids."
Eeeh he kind of is. For both creatures you could come up with any number for reasons for why we won't find evidence for their existence, and in fact, we do find those arguments being used to say, "God is real, and here's why you won't find proof of Him, but believe it anyway." And you can do the same for cryptids. You won't find remains because they disappear from this plain of reality upon death. On the same note, you won't find God because He exists outside the universe.
16 "God is not a being in the universe that you try to find. There's no field of science dedicated to determining whether God exists."
In so far as God is not analogous to other things, I'm generally in agreement, which is why almost all analogies break down. But if God exists outside of the universe and you can't detect him, how could ANY argument you make be sound?
17 "If we're talking about whether certain immaterial things exist, there's no scientific test."
In what way does an "immaterial thing" exist outside of it being an idea or emotion?
18 "Do other minds exist?"
The mind is a property of the brain. Remove the brain and no thought can happen. In this way, the mind can be said to take up material space.
19 "Free will."
Free will is a concept, and like all concepts, it exists within the mind which takes up space in the brain.
20 "Moral facts."
I don't like this term, but yes, still in the brain.
21 "If we discovered it [math], where is it?
The brain.
What is then the meaning of humans being here now? Why is there time? does past and future really exist when we are in the present? by the time tomorrow arrives it becomes the present and that present will be called a yesterday, where will it be? can I touch it ? ithe minutes or seconds that passed by or to come, does it exist? where is it if I am in this present second or minute? why are there events? why take photos and videos? why be reminded of what happened or plan what will happen? where is this space we call present? what is here and now? why were you born? why have parents? why did you grow? can you decide for your cells mutations? why have cells? why do cells have energies, protons, electrons, neutrons? how to turn it off? Stop breathing? why breathe or gasp for the air? what is this life for? why spend time and energy to be alive? why do you use your brain? why are your senses working? does the brain make you do so? is the brain your creator? does the brain have a mind of its own? why think and anylyze? why do you want to be happy? why care anyways? why argue when it is meaningless? why seek for answers and peace? is there a benefit? the Ego? where is the ego? consciousness? why have that? why be aware? anyone tell you to be aware or conscious? why have subconscious? why do get angry or complain? why the need to be sad? why not just stay still and do nothing? why react? why are you moving now? why do you use your body parts and why are your organs moving on their own?
can you see your genes mutating when you eat food? why eat and drink? why be satisfied? what is satisfaction? to fill a need? why have needs? to survive? why survive? to do stuff? why do stuff? where did your atomic composition come from? poof! from nothing?
Are you something? why be something when all these atoms just happen to be nothing? why do things work in a certain way? why stay on this earth? why are things so orderly in scientific conclusions? why believe in science and study? why is there science? curious? why be curious? knowledge? why have knowledge and reasons?ultimately
what for? existence? why exist? evolution? why evolve? there is nature? why is there nature? poof! from nothing?why have memory or why forget? what is the use or knowledge and memory? why be reasonable? what gauges reason? why have the need for power? fame? comfort? why feel should we good or bad? why not feel nothing? why is all these stuff going on? why have desires and dreams and passions? why have good or so-so friends or enemies?p what is your purpose? why do people die or get sick or suffer? why have a choice? why not robots or puppets on strings? why have a basis of things? why start and end? why live or die?
who are you? why have a name? why be civil? why have laws? why prevent chaos? natural calamity exist, why? for earth to survive? why is there something like earth? why have gravity? why are the mechanism of things found by science the way they are? who or what decided that? why is my head above my shoulders and not in place of my feet? silly or not functional? who gets to decide a human should be formed this way? should I transfer my limbs on my torso?...why am I writing this? why need to comment? I have more questions😢
Sorry...In the End, Everything that makes all sense, If not God as the source, always end in Nothing.😅
@@filiamaria8 if that’s what you want to believe go ahead. Just don’t pretend like it’s logical, or that it should be taught in school, or that you understand our arguments, etc. it might be hard to believe, but I don’t have a problem with anyone believing in a God. Life’s tough and if that’s what helps you get through the day, great. However:
One’s ability to make sense of something is dependent on their education and familiarity with the subject, so for someone to say "God did it" as the explanation to all of these questions that range from philosophical, to emotional, to biological to cosmological and so on is more of a statement of one’s own ignorance and lack of curiosity about the subject. It also exposes one’s own fear of answering "I don’t know".
Ive heard plenty of arguments promoting the existence of a god. It's evidence that's lacking.
If there was evidence there wouldn't need to be a hundred arguments and apologetics.
An “Advice for talking with theists” video would sound exactly the same as the first half of this video if you just swap the word atheist for theist.
yes because knowing how to meet halfway is a fundamental part of an argument. Theists have truth by their side so we'll win
Simple Trent, if there were good reasons, it's reasonable to assume that over millennia and many religious traditions apologists would have come up with them. So it's reasonable to assume that no person has good reasons and we should all, therefore, reject the claims of theists.
Note how that's slightly different to believing there are no good reasons. Note too how your position on the claim "there are no good reasons" is independant of your position on the claim "there are good reasons".
You seem to be appealing to an argument from ignorance. As if not having a reason to believe it's impossible for someone to one day discover a good reason means that you should assume there is. No. The null hypothisis is that there are no good reasons until it can be shown that there are. THAT is where you start.
Note too how you rattled off a short list of arguments that you implied were reasons to believe a god exists. Firstly, they are arguments. A reason to believe a god exists is that you are convinced by both the validity and soundness of these arguments or even that the validity and soundness of these arguments can be demonstrated. Secondly, the third in the list (the Kalam) isn't, in it's original form, an argument for a god. It is an argument that the universe had a cause.
Best thing to do with an athiest is what Jesus did, just preach the gospel: Don't sell them the catholic church?
Wow... this is the sharpest I've ever seen trent horn and hes usually a very sharp guy
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 There is good reason to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny; that does not make them real.
As an atheist, I don't necessarily state that there are no good arguments. I just haven't found one that is convincing to me.
That said, you cannot argue a god into existence. Its existence or non-existence is independent of all pre-suppositional sophistry.
Agreed that there is a possibility God exists whether or not someone experiences Him
@@veradux5580 Sure, but there is also a possibility that no gods exist, regardless as to whether someone thinks they've experienced God.
We humans tend to place agency on things that have no agency, like seeing Grandma's rocker suddenly start moving (negating to remember that they left the window open, and there's now a breeze blowing in). Agency detection is something we're really good at, but it's also really wrong much of the time.
Until such time as a god has been proven to exist, we must adhere to the null hypothesis.
@Atum Rayay for some people, yes. I have no need of it, personally.
EzyRider,
I disagree with what you’re saying. Let me tell you the reason why I believe in God. The reason why I believe in him is because I’m a Catholic Christian and I believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. And God himself has helped me get through some hard times such as when I made a full recovery from Covid-19 3 times.
@@alanbourbeau24 I can appreciate that you took the time to respond, so thank you for that.
You said you were going to give me a reason why you believed, then doubled down on the claim that you believe. You didn't actually give me a reason.
As for your illness and recovery, what made you think that was Jesus who did that? Moreover, how did you rule out natural causes?
I just cant understand people that belive in any gods... Seems crazy to me.
Without suffering and death , evolution comes to a screeching halt....
Prove it.
so... what?
Yet we see suffering and death in the universe.
I do believe e=mc² because Neil Degrasse Tyson is funny, yes
Show me the proof that circles exist, no evidence for circles anywhere n Nature....
@Kuffar Legion and yet...the universe seems bound by abstract concepts like logic and mathematics. Lets spend the next 2,500 years debating this, :-)
They don’t exist. They are an abstract concept.
@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll But don't circles exist independently of human thought? The Sun was 'round' before the apes came down from the trees.
@@qetoun The sun is not a circle
@@baguette7851 I said the sun was 'round', which it is, but if you prefer oblique spheroid then so be it.
A have 2 atheists and 1 agnostic at work but they really aren't looking for God!... If they don't have an answer to my question, they prefer not talk anymore....
@Kuffar Legion Actually they are bringing the subject in... when they mock my religion... I read a lot of apologetics so I can defend my faith.... But they don't like it when a Christians has questions and they don;t have the answers... Atheists are not as open-minded as they claim....
@Kuffar Legion "Most (little A) atheists, same as most religionists, haven't actually studied the arguments."
One of my colleagues is a MILITANT atheist... And he is a smart guy, but... the only thing he does is to insult my faith, not to engage in a debate... although he is a smart man... I'm not denying that.... The other 2 laugh at his "religiosity" although they aren't believers either....
@Dan Delgado pay attention! I said that the other colleagues (an atheist and an agnostic) said that our militant atheist friend was "religious"!
The term Science is very broad imo. Isn't theology a field of science as well? is just that atheist have kidnapped the term science to only apply to inductive reasoning.
Theology is a field of philosophy, not science. Science is the study of the natural world by use of testable predictions and experimentation.
@@BFizzi719 That's natural science, but just the terms science can be both metaphysical or physical.
@@caruya I know of no scientific field that deals with Metaphysics. Questions about the fundamental nature of reality are, at this moment, unable to be tested by the scientific method.
Metaphysics is a philosophical discipline as well.
No
Hahahahahahahahaha. How can you have the science of faith? Faith is unfalsifiable. End of discussion.
I’m surprised by how bad a representation of atheist arguments these two confront
I believe in both God and Bigfoot.
Atheistic position... there is only one, "Lack of belief in a god\s" period. I've been an Atheist all my life (over 50 years) and I don't know any Atheist that have the same thoughts or positions other than their own. There is no book of Atheism. Atheist are not the ones making the claim of god\s so the burden of proof is on the person making the claim..period. And that proof won't come from a book of even more extraordinary claims.
The Atheistic position as you phrased it being: "Lack of belief in a god or gods" requires definition.
On the face of it I would assume that you mean that there is lack of evidence in the Universe of the existence of a being that is both outside the Universe/World as we know it and therefore not subject to its limitations of Space and Time and also the architect of this Universe, and therefore is the Prime Mover or the First Cause, having written the Physical and Spiritual Laws upon which the Universe is constructed.
Please correct me if this assumption is incorrect.
@@bazstrutt8247 At this stage I am not putting myself in the position of demonstrating anything. If Atheists and Theists are to have a meaningful debate they must first agree upon what it is upon which they are disagreeing.
The primary disagreement must be how the Universe came into existence. Was it by chance or design?
@@bazstrutt8247 never asserted anything. the response to the question what caused the universe to exist ought to be: we don't know but we are going to find out.
Your response to the ultimate questions of existence appears to be that you don't know and you can't be bothered finding out which is just intellectual laziness. Never said God did anything so please stop assuming.
If any atheist wants advice for the inverse; Stop being so arrogant and rude. For once.
It does not matter if you do, or don't believe there are no good reasons to believe a God exist. If a atheist says they do not believe a God exist, they are not making a claim in regards to the existence of a God, and have no burden of proof in regards to the existence of a God. And maybe a better way to say it would be atheist do not believe there are any good reason to believe a God exist, or so not beliecw there are currently any goss reasons to believe a God exist. That is different then say rbwy believe there are no good reason s to believe a God exist. But even if a person says they believe there are no goos reason to believe a God exist, there are two things to keep in mind. Is the person that you are talking to you trying to convince you there are no good reaaon to believe a God exist. Does the person care if you believe there are good reason to believe rhere are no Goos reasons to believe a God exist, or believe there are no Goo reasons to believe a God exist. But all you are doing is trying to shift the burden of proof. Again not believing a God exist ia not making a claim. The theiat are the ones going around trying to convince atheit that a God exist. Atheist juat respond to the theist arguments.
This discussion seems more about reinforcing existing belief more then changing anybody's view. The simple reason most atheists have no use for any of these discussions is that the topic of God is irrelevant. There is no proof that God(s) exist and the discussion does not change anything in daily life. Sunrises are beautiful without any supernatural interference.
But why are they there
Because of the refraction of light coming from the sun.
@@atzuricher6218 and then why is that there
I do not understand the question.
Is there no response?
Ethics and the metaphysical philosophy aren't scientific evidence because the conclusions reached by those argue the existence, non-existence of god are not repeatable.
Sure, but only inductive, empirical evidence needs to be repeatable because that’s how inductive argumentation works. If you are arguing deductively, which is what happens in metaphysics, it doesn’t need to be repeatable because it’s a deductive argument like a math proof. You don’t need mathematical results to be repeatable and in fact it’s nonsensical to demand that, metaphysical arguments are similar in that regard.
Regular people who dont know how to disagree will say that this guy is smart.
He says a lot without really saying much at all
Says that but doesn’t say anything to disagree with his claims🤔
@@coul does he? Tbh I can say the same about your comment as well 🤷♂️
@@Imbetterthanpaulallen no you can't. Their comment is a single sentence long. To say that they are saying a lot would be stupid.
The Kalam argument is nonsense! 🤣🤣🤣
Sean Carroll punted it out the window in his debate with WJ Craig.
The fundamental problem for Trent is to put himself into the shoes of someone with opposite views of his. All he does is straw manning the other positions. Weak.
Me atheists are good for entertainment and a good laugh that’s Gods honest truth
I agree. They point out the humor in life. I think it's because of their intelligence, observation, and wit.
@@coul and there ability to never see past there own nose and to disbelief in god yet always are talking about god and have god in there life 24/7🤣🤣🤣
@@Imbetterthanpaulallen I’ve been seeking for a god my entire life, yet never seem to find. If you have any evidence or a valid reason to believe in a god, especially your God, I’m definitely looking. Please share as you’re commanded by your book. 1 Peter 3:16
Yes I completely agree. If I watched a video of Sam Harris disputing the existence of God. I would get a good laugh out of it. Because anytime when non believers like Sam Harris try to argue that God doesn’t exist, I find it humorous and hilarious 😆!!
No Trent. Science doesn't talk about causes at all. Mechanisms maybe. But not causes. And if a god exists and interacts with the physical world (which you believe it does) then those interactions are detectable via the scientific method. Like dark matter or dark energy. We can't directly observe it but we can detect it scientifically. If a god can not be detected and confirmed by science, even in principle, it is functionally the same as one that doesn't exist. Either way, you should reject theism.
How do you know God needs to be matter form to be detected in the first place, no dispute just a reasonable question.
@@Catholic101A.
It's irrelevant. It's about interaction with the physical world. If God exists and interacts with the physical world it will be dectable by the impact on the physical world even if God were not physical and was interacting using magic.
What is the difference between an indectable god and one that doesn't exist?
@nikipedia2818 so how do you know it's irrelevant? Interactive inspired testimony that build western civilization is not irrelevant at all. Can science prove magic? And what about miracles are they irrelevant too just because you can't detect them physically, just using your logic.
@@Catholic101A.
Because I'm the one making the argument and it's irrelevant to my argument.
If you can detect changes to the physical world it doesn't matter how that change is caused.
If a picture falls of the wall because a ghost pushed it off or because the wind blew it off, we can still see the picture fall off the wall. So if you think ghosts are doing things, you point to the things you claim they are doing and THAT'S what we invistigate.
If you claim there are ghosts but they don't interact with pictures or anything else in the material world, then ghosts because the same as not ghosts and the entire concept of ghosts becomes worthless.
@@Catholic101A.
That testimony is an interaction is what YOU need to demonstrate. You can start with explaining where that interaction is. You would need to show something other than the normal operation of a brain. Something that looks different and necessatates external influence.
Do you have that? No.
Western civilisation isn't built on testimony from any gods. Especially not the Christian God. That's a myth.
No. Science can't. But science can investigate things that are claimed to be magic and discover that they aren't. Like disease, mental health, lightning, earthquakes and countless other things once thought to be magic and now known to be natural.
1:37 I thought he was going to actually explain what the fault is with the "problem of evil" but... nope lol
also i LOVE the bigfoot analogy. like it's amazing that christians are the ones comparing the existence of god to the existence of bigfoot... it's just not what i expected lol. i respect your bigfoot beliefs fellas!
How about using the scientific method to determine the effectiveness of prayer to the Christian God, against prayer to a jug of milk?
The existence of God is a scientific question. When you say, "The universe came into being because of a deity," you have trespassed on cosmology. When you say, "Scripture was transmitted into human brains (inspired) by God," you have trespassed on biochemistry, physics, and information theory. You have made material, scientific claims, whether you like or acknowledge it. Now back those claims up.
All you will ever get in terms of support for such claims are word salads.
So your claim is also scientific question then , how can we scientifically prove your brain says the truth? You should familiarize your self with "Self reference incoherent proposition" A Big one you are making now.
@Dan Delgado Is that statement truth? You just committed a self referential incoherent statement. By saying you don't believe there is a truth, if your claim is true, it defeats itself, if it's not true, then it's false statement.
Sorry, but it's not me who is not to be taken seriously.
Dan Delgado
“We live on probability only”
That is a truth claim. Is it true? If so, then it’s false also. If you don’t see the contradictory statement you’ve made, then you’re not rational.
What is your proof that proof is valid? Does logic exist? What is it?
demi- dogg
Mathematical probability is built on axioms, things we assume and absolutely cannot prove. Your version of probability is incoherent, and at best is faith in supernatural governing laws that have dominion over nature. You can’t prove it, but you believe it. That’s faith
I think everyone (on some level) believes in God. The benefit of denying His existence is so that (they feel) that they are not morally accountable to Him. What does the Bible say about people who do not believe in God?? Psalm 14 "The fool says in his heart there is no God. They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds." Repent and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ before it is too late.
_I think everyone (on some level) believes in God._
You think wrong.
Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god actually exists? Just *one?* No? Well, _that's_ why I can't believe in him.
@@Bill_Garthright Yes. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the evidence. Over 500 witnesses proclaimed as much. When they were told (and forcefully told) to deny what that had saw, they were willing to die (and did) because they couldn’t deny what they had saw.
The bible also declares the existence of God.
The Bible has no mistakes in it and has been authenticated by historians including secular ones. There were many witnesses to His ascension. How do we know anything historical e.g. battle of Hasting etc? It was recorded and verified. Christianity is testable. Take it to Jesus and if you acknowledge and ask Him - He will forgive you.
The Bible is the inspired word of God. If you have the word of a police man, you have word of authority (eg signing passport), if you have word of US President you have an even higher authority. If you have the word of God, you have the HIGHEST authority.
@@Colonel63 The bible is just a book of stories and claims not evidence or proof.
J R JR Really? On what authority are you to make such a claim?
J R JR True Christians know they are sinners and need forgiveness. I know I’m a sinner. The Bible states that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”.The Church is a hospital for sinners not a museum of saints. The difference is we are in Christ and at one with Christ in the Eucharist. God the Father has provided one mediator between man and Himself and that is through His Son. You have the free will to either accept and cooperate with His grace or simply reject it. It’s a pretty big decision though, your eternity depends on it.
Not every culture has developed a Batman
myth (or maybe they have?) but every culture has an all powerful ultra-masc deity, therefore the Christian god is real
Advice for talking to Catholic theist apologists, ask them "If I don't believe in God, do I go to Hell?"...they'll say "Yes". Now ask "If I become a born again Christian in a PROTESTANT church, do I go to Hell?"....and keen on selling THEIR version of Christianity, they'll suddenly say "Well, that's not good enough." And they'll have to say you are "still at risk for Hell" even if you become a Christian, but the "wrong kind" of Christian.
It’s really dumb to ask “Which of the arguments for the god’s existence that you obviously think all fail is the best one?” - it is as dumb as asking “which of those kids’ answers that all have failed the test was the best one?” - they ALL failed, they are all wrong, there is no point in any competition there! There is a reason why there are only 3 first places in races and competitions - we don’t care about the loosers, we care about winners!
Another goofy segment that had 0 good points
I wanted to get something of substance from this
Try listening
You guys are almost atheists. One more god to go!
you don't understand what "God" means. "God" is "that of which nothing greater can be thought of". the greeks didn't have this concept, but the romans did, they called it "fate"
@@tafazzi-on-discord if you can confidently define what god is, you don’t know what god is
@@Bingbangboompowwham I know how to define every word I use, I wouldn't be using the word "God" if I couldn't define it.
I'm not like the trans activists that use the word "woman" without bring able to define it, I have truth in my side so I don't need to shield my inconsistencies in rhethoric.
Think about it, what can that definition define if not the One True God?
@@tafazzi-on-discordTrans hate is dangerous to spread. There’s already a lot of violence against them.
@@Bingbangboompowwhamtwo things
firstly:🧢
secondly, truth is more important than conveniance.
Hear me out. Just try to keep an open mind here, theists.
Here it is: use logic.
That's all.
SailingSeignior already done!
JV LOL! Good joke.
In a world without God even logic wouldn't work. The laws of the universe would change from one moment to the next, from one place to another.
In a world without God there can be no science.
In a materialist worldview you can't even talk about "the problem consciousness".
You aren't being skeptic enough if you think you know anything at all. What do you trust in?
Caique Lira None of what you said makes sense. 😆
Frances Snowflake Yes, there is.
this discussion is about the notion of a deistic god. That is a far cry from a personal, hands on intervening god of which most Christians believe. The null hypothesis is why we should not believe things until there is sufficient evidence to believe them. It's the reason you don't believe in Vishnu, Zeus is other gods. It is almost always special pleading with one's own chosen god that the null hypothesis is tossed out.
He's preaching to his choir, not atheists. It's advice, but not good advice.
@NotAPhilosopher1 It would be if their arguments weren't straw man arguments of atheistic positions. That was my point. They are just propagandizing within their own ilk w/ no concern for advice for talking with atheists. I see how it could be construed as you read it tho.
@NotAPhilosopher1 Feel free to not make vapid responses. I'm fine w/ this avenue of debate.
@NotAPhilosopher1 Assuredly not advice you follow. Lead by example. Still vapid.
Here we go again with that Kalam nonsense...
Empty rhetoric alert!!!!
@@caruya Which rhetoric is empty?
@@petercarlson811 Hehe exactly
@@caruya The Kalam nonsense is empty rhetoric. Also known as woo word salad.
@@petercarlson811 If you think Kalam is word salad then clearly you have a reading and reasoning problem.
This is what cognitive dissonance looks like.
Does Trent Horn clearly hold beliefs he knows are contradictory?
Let god talk to me. He doesn't! It's a load of BS. Show me evidence for the supernatural. There is none.
The resurrection of Christ is hard proof and is undeniable. It would take you more faith to be an atheist than it would to follow Jesus.
@@alvindaniel4744 show me the evidence that jesus even existed let a lone resurrected. Give me the coordinates where he was buried.
@@derekallen4568 Look into it nothing I will tell you will get through to you. You only trust yourself.
@@alvindaniel4744 that's what I thought!
@@derekallen4568 I can tell you paragraphs on top of paragraphs but your pride will try to shut down everything I say with stupid excuses Im not wasting my time on you.
Here we have two pretentious poseurs trying to sound informed. Their first mistake is theocentrism: the unspoken and unacknowledged belief that if there is a god it must be their god and no others. They are helped by the fact that "God" the name and "god" the noun are pronounced the same. This let's them get away with deceptive framing. But the attitude of atheists is an attitude about gods, not just God. All gods. After all, there are billions of people today who claim to know there is no God; who believe there is no God or who lack belief in God yet they are religious! Muslims and Hindus mostly. So when poseurs like this frame the debate in terms of "God" vs "no God" who are they referring to: atheists only or non-xian theists too? But if they always say "gods" or "a god" then it's clear they are speaking about atheists. But will they ever update their spiel to be more precise? Nope. It would wreck their narrative! Yes, I disbelieve in Tinkerbell. But it's more accurate and informative to say I disbelieve in fairies!
Here's more philosophical stupidity from these dilettantes: first they fairly frame the attitude of atheists who lack belief as "I don't see any good reasons to believe God exists." Then Trent retorts with "Why should I believe there are no good reasons to believe in God?" Notice the slimy shift from "I see no good reasons" to "there are no good reasons." This makes Trent's riposte nothing more than burden-shifting, straw-manning baloney. The lack-believer didn't say there are no good reasons. Just that he hasn't heard any yet. Fail!
I don't believe in genocide, murder, rape, or, being a horrible human, so I can't believe in a sky daddy