For me as a theist I would say the hiddenness of God which I would categorize as a subset of the problem of evil. If God exists, and wants a relationship with us, and may even desires our salvation, where is he? Why is he not as obvious as he could be?
I would say the least bad argument for theism is something I have never seen anyone actually make. The only concept of the divine that would make any sense to me is of a deity that is in the future and not in the past, an entity that basically was born with the universe and is the collected experience of all sapient beings in it. The reason for that view is because it looks like everything else in the universe is based on emergent properties, and not designed one, thus I feel like an emergent deity also feels more i line of how the universe works.
@@pintswithaquinas that is a very challenging concept, one that has been argued against me by my agnostic friends. There’s a real back and forth of course between the two sides. The theist will argue that God has attempted to communicate with you but you’ve ignored it or flat out rejected it. But what if the atheist/agnostic claims in good faith and forthrightness that they do not believe they have ever truly been “contacted” by God? As in, they have never felt the urging of the Spirit, nor the innate sense of the Divine. Can anyone think of a good to this statement or circumstance?
@@LazyStarrfish I might ask them how they expected to be contacted by God in the first place. Its not an answer per sae but asking athiests questions is often a good place to start.
@@LazyStarrfish I agree with you and Matt as a theist. The response to both divine hiddenness and the problem of evil is the same. Both take the form: If God exists then He would do X. X doesn't happen. Therefore, God doesn't exist. The response is: How can we know that God doesn't have a morally sufficient reason for not doing X? The burden of proof lies with the atheist to show that it is impossible that God might have a morally sufficient reason. To your specific question one could respond "You're not dead yet. God could still make Himself known to you." Or, that there are plenty of natural theology arguments for the existence of God (Rom 1:19-20); He's not as hidden as you lead on. Or, like Alvin Plantinga, one could say that our sensus divinitatis has been wounded by original sin - we can't sense God as we might, according to Christian doctrine.
I had a conversation last week with a friend of mine who claims to be an atheist. We were discussing a problem he was personally wrestling with, that is the exact location of God. He believed that, if God exists he should be another being that can be pointed out clearly in the natural world. Instead of explaining the non-material nature of God by using direct quotation from scripture I decided to provide the analogy C.S. Lewis offers that compares the nature of God to a play-writer. Needless to say, he was rather fascinated by the analogy and understood how the natural sciences could point to clues to the existence of God but a form of revelation was to some degree necessary for knowledge of his existence.
Good for you. Nice work, you did your friend a favor. I don't know if you're Catholic, but it is Catholic doctrine that the existence of God can be known by reason alone and does not require revelation.
@@MiguelArcangel12 _it is Catholic doctrine that the existence of God can be known by reason alone_ Then Catholic doctrine is wrong. The problem is that _everyone_ thinks they use reason. I've never known _anyone,_ no matter _what_ they believed, who didn't think they were reasoning correctly. Certainly, every believer in _every_ religion thinks so. Therefore, if you care about the truth, reason alone cannot be enough. I'm fine with reason. But reason alone is pretty much indistinguishable from wishful-thinking. Worldwide, faith-based people overwhelmingly find "reasonable" whatever religion and whatever god or gods they were taught to believe as children. You can't _all_ be right. (You _can_ all be wrong, though.) No, *evidence* is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. Again, I'm fine with reason, but not by itself. *Evidence* is what keeps us grounded in the real world, instead of the world of our imagination. PS. Also, just as scientists are far more likely to be atheists than people who know little about science, so are philosophers - the _experts_ when it come to logical reasoning - far more likely to be atheists than people who know little about philosophy: philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl So, if it _were_ true that reason is all you need, then why do the experts disagree with you? And that poll is just about atheism vs theism. It doesn't even begin to get into the many different religions and different gods that a theist might believe in. So it's even worse for theists than it might appear at first.
Beautifully done. I always find it difficult to talk to non-believers or those making their faith journey without being too harsh. I've spent too much time in the snarkiness on the internet.
" .... the analogy C.S. Lewis offers that compares the nature of God to a play-writer" God's existence seems no less of a story/play than our own. He purportedly engenders many of the aspects of our existence (meaning, love, will, justice, intelligence, order, morality etc.) which people suggest require an author. The clues are still there in the non-chaotic state of any proposed God. It doesn't help me understand the existence of such things by merely pushing the question back to a place where they are claimed to be "just so". I have an equally unsatisfactory "just so" answer already without adding any more layers of "authorship". Ah, but it can't be playwrights all the way down! Just so.
I'm only saying this, not to disagree, but to solidify in my own mind thoughts and habits if I ever might find myself in a similar conversation : There is A real danger to presenting characteristics of God and virtues as having a transitive relationship with God himself. That is, God is love cannot also precisely be stated by saying love is God. So, I think this Chinese student who believes in truth and justice could better be told, not that she is actually a theist and doesn't know it, but that God is the source and center of those things she holds highest. Imagine a person said I don't believe in the emperor, I only believe in kings. You could say well, that depends on how you define kingship or monarchy or the word emperor. But, what I'm suggesting is simply that you state that the emperor is, among other things, the king of kings. Likewise, the disbelief in God being a person can be approached by saying God became man, rather than asserting the same in reverse, that Jesus is God and here's why I can prove it. It is actually a radical proposition, that God became Man. "You really think a Jewish Rabbi from the 1st century was God?" can be reexamined by putting forth that, in the first century AD, God Himself became a Jewish Rabbi. A lot of it has to do with helping move people's heads so their eyes can see what you see.
I don't think he is presenting them as transitive. That's sort of you reading into an absence of detail, a detail that isn't there. In philosophy it's not assumed that "x is y" describes a transitive relationship. Especially with respect to the Christian God, we're dealing with a concept that encompasses multiple infinities, something that necessarily cannot be fundamentally equated with anything in the world, but which encompasses multiple things that find expression in the world. Namely, in this case, that any love you can find in the world is a subset of God; any absolute truth you can find in the world is a subset of God; and so on. And an article of faith that ties in with that is the idea that there's a place, some plane of existence (maybe in the physical sense, or maybe in the Platonistic sense) where the entire set exists, where the source of those expressions can be beheld. It's definitely a poisonous heresy to believe that these are not merely expressions of some higher metaphysical being, but are themselves divine rather than merely holy. It's related to the sort of exaggerated humanism you see with some new age spiritualists who say "I worship the human spirit" and other, similar platitudes. But I don't think this can be laid at the feet of Christians who rightly point out that God is love. It can be blamed on new age charlatans who shamelessly cherry pick and plagiarize elements of real religions to use in their fraudulent cultic practices. They are successful because they steal the insights from real religions, while simultaneously presenting appealing doctrines that conveniently don't require much faith, don't require humility, don't require commitment or hard work or charity or an effort to change one's self. So they come across to laypeople as Diet Religion™, or basically Religion: Easy Mode. And one of the means by which they make the vague notion of God (which is inherently cathartic) more palatable to materialists is by identifying God with well-regarded concepts like love, compassion, or consciousness itself. Not material objects, but processes relevant to humans that appear to operate within the material world. Of course, the true religion and other religions developed by rigorous contemplatives like Hinduism and Islam are extremely explicit and laborious in warning and admonishing us not to conflate God with the material, because it not only fails to encourage moral behavior but also ultimately leads to disillusionment and atheism. But new age spiritualists are neither rigorous nor contemplative, so they either don't know or don't care.
_I think this Chinese student who believes in truth and justice could better be told, not that she is actually a theist and doesn't know it, but that God is the source and center of those things she holds highest._ But what if she asks for *one piece of good evidence* that's actually _true?_ After all, claims are easy. _Every_ religion makes claims. So why should she pay any attention to claims - why should _I_ pay any attention to claims - if that's all you've got? Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is even real, rather than just imaginary? Do you just _imagine_ that "God is the source and center of those things she holds highest," maybe because that's what you were taught to believe as a child and you really, really _want_ it to be true? Of do you have actual evidence that's really true?
@@Bill_Garthright of course there's evidence, but this isn't a debate, and I'm not selling something. The point is not to mentally entrap the other person, the point is to help them understand your perspective. Also, it's not 'what I was taught as a kid and really want to be true', so I don't have to worry about that.
I am not an Athiest, but I know people who are. Most of the people who I know who reject God, reject him from a morality standpoint (like "God approved of slavery") or they say, "Well there is not objective truth, all truth is what I feel on a daily basis." and they won't ever change from that argument no matter what you say, so it is actually really easy to be an Atheist (functionally).
I think that the fundamental difference between an atheist and a theist revolves around autonomy. If God was «nice» and didn’t infringe on human «sovereignty» - I think no one would care to be an atheist. Over many years I have come this conclusion, at the bottom it really has nothing to do with rationality or logic, but only about self-preservation.
I don't know about the people _you_ know, of course, but none of the atheists I know reject "God" for those reasons. All of the atheists I know are more like me. We just don't see any good evidence that _any_ god is real, rather than just imaginary. I ask theists for *one piece of good evidence* that their god is real, rather than just imaginary. That's because evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. Well, I hear lots and lots of _claims_ from all sorts of different religions, but still not even *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. I don't know about other people, but that's why _I'm_ an atheist.
@@Bill_Garthright I appreciate your reply and I appreciate your insight. I know that there are different types of Atheists and those who are Atheist for different reasons. I appreciate that you understood that I was not attempting to generalize all Atheists into one category or to say that all their beliefs/reasons are exactly the same. I am not sure if this is the reason for their beliefs, but the Atheists that I know were once Christians, then for some reason were hurt by religion, then became Atheists. There is a lot that Christians and Atheists can gain by attempting to understand each other from dialogue. If you don't mind me asking, what is your "standard of evidence"? Is it empirical? physical? Philosophical? Tangible? or Emotional? You said that you would like one reason to prove the existence of God. Which form of proof do you need?
@@mortensimonsen1645 I think that you may be partially correct. However there are differing views of autonomy between Christian denominations as well. Catholics, Calvinists, "Protestants", and Eastern Christians have very different theologies regarding authority and autonomy.
From my experience, most who reject God may say that it's because of suffering, injustice, slavery, etc., but that's mostly a smokescreen for the real reason; they won't believe in him because that will need them to deny their wills in order to subject to His, to bow their stiff necks under his gentle yoke. So they go through life taking advantage of the God based morality, theology, and civilization that they were born into, without giving proper thanks to God. They go through life thinking everything was caused by randomness. But won't dare believe what must follow if that was true, that nothing matters. Not life, morality, laws, etc. Even free will is not real if we're just a bunch of random matter and energy. As if decisions are nothing but chemical and neurons firing in a pattern. Try telling someone they have no free will. It's the ultimate insult. Besides, Faith is a supernatural Grace. Though one can arrive at the concept of God purely rationally, the belief in Him comes from Him. One cannot go to God without God first doing the invitation. Besides, faith is just he beginning. For example, demons don't need faith or belief in God, because they know God is God. But that didn't stop them from denying Him.
I have to say I don't find this convincing, as a strong, Aquinas 5 proofs Catholics. A belief in God is not just a belief in the absolute, its a belief in the person of the absolute. This is just word play, otherwise. If I ask an anarchist if they believe in SOME type of human organization, and they say, yes, then I go and accuse them of being a fascist, they would rightly object.
Right, unless I misunderstood his argument I don't think he was saying that everyone really believes in the Christian/Catholic God. As he said near the end of the video, he would have to convince the atheist of the personhood of God after getting them to see that they already accept some form of transcendent reality.
"If they believe in an ultimate truth thats God" are we just making non-evidential claims? "if they believe in ultimate goodness thats God" If you are just changing the definition of what a god is then yes i would believe in certain versions of a god.
That is pretty much the traditional Classical Theistic conception of God. You take these definitions and concepts and then you really scrutinize them until you discover God. That’s how I discovered God and many others too
@@RustyWalker You're mistaken. This video is about God, the ultimate transcendent being itself AKA truth, goodness etc. Do you mean to tell me that you don't believe in truth? I doubt that you would be so delusional, but considering that you missed the video's entire point and brought up polytheism while this is clearly a topic about monotheism and why it is the only logical conclusion, it would make sense that you are, in fact, this ignorant.
@@csongorarpad4670 someone believing that God is the ultimate transcendent being itself AKA truth is one thing. But going beyond that and claiming it is a wholly different thingz
@@Rolando_Cueva _"did the Big Bang just start expanding on its own"_ How would _I_ know? And what does that have to do with my question? I don't know what cosmology has to do with this. But cosmologists are even less likely than most scientists to believe in a god (just beat out by biologists, according to Pew Research). And remember that scientists in general are less likely to believe in a god than people who know little or nothing about science. Either way, "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it" - not for _any_ god, let alone a particular one. _"Theism, or even deism, just makes more sense."_ Again, why? Just because you were taught to believe in a god as a child? Because you really, really _want_ it to be true? Do you have anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs?
Holy crap, the smugness of the guy! "That's god and that's god and that's god..." No, dude, that's what you are trying to atribute to a god. What you are trying to justify it with. Or, more precisely, to justify your belief in it.
THEIST here, my teacher in highschool said that God can't be all powerful because he couldn't make a pizza that he couldnt eat. If he could, he won't be all powerful because the pizza was more powerful than him. If he couldn't he wasn't all powerful because he couldn't. This contraction lead to his denial of the power of God but not of a higher power. For context my teacher believed in a sort of love/struggle view of the world that draws on some Eastern ideas (need to transend). I still haven't found the answer to this riddle but have full faith in the power of God.
The riddle is called the omnipotence paradox. Basically, the answer is that the riddle is nonsense. God being all-powerful does not include doing what is a logical contradiction. God cannot make a married bachelor or a square circle. They are logical contradictions, nonsense, gibberish. A pizza that God can't eat or a rock so heavy that God couldn't lift it are also logical contradictions, nonsense, gibberish. God can't make those either. You might want to look it up yourself for a more thorough explanation. Good for you for not falling for this kind of silliness and keeping the faith!
I agree, I always thought that the pizza question was easily answered with the fact of existence. God created order and is outside of it, anything that we would have God do in reality that contradicts God is wrong. "Well if Gods exists why isn't he this way?" The line of reasoning never made sense to me but as a highschooler it took me for a spin. Also the funny part about us observing the natural world is that the more we do so, the more we realize God's existence because of the improbability of our existence.
It's not a nonsense question because I can make a pizza so big that I can't eat it. If I can do it, is not nonsense. It's also a reasonable question then to ask why I can do something that an imnipotent being cannot.
Atheist here, this wasn’t convincing at all. All he did was try to shift the burden of proof even though he’s the one making a claim. You’re claiming love is God, or beauty is God. Those are claims you need to justify. Saying atheists believe in Truth and a highest good is just plain false too. I don’t think those are real and absolute. Very disingenuous and disappointing. Atheism is just saying “theists haven’t convinced me so I reject their claim”. It’s not a claim on its own. It’s the null hypothesis.
@@skullo5557 what do you mean by “ultimate truth” ? It sounds like very vague flowery language. As in, it sounds like it’s deep and profound, but really just meaningless. Not trying to offend; I’m just not sure what you mean. I believe there is an accurate account of reality, but a “Truth”, I feel like I’ve never heard a good definition of that.
This is a 3-4 minute video. Of course he can’t fully spell it all out here. But we got thinkers like Aquinas and Augustine, or even look into his full interview. There are plenty of places to look if you are willing to see these ideas fleshed out more. It’s all contingent on how willing you are to explore
As an atheist (former seminarian for 4 years) my biggest problem with taking these concepts and using them as proof of God (Love, Justice, etc) gives. the false impression that one has proven God (to a certain extent). The Christian God is a God that interacts with the world (theist), yet most if not all arguments in favor of proving God's existence merely seem to focus on proving a deist notion of God. I do agree that some arguments to prove God are very convincing, but that is if you want to prove a deist God that was only that first cause and doesn't interact with the world (let alone, humans). To go from deism to theism requires a lot (and I mean a LOT) of philosophical and scientific scrutiny and education and I have not seen a single theist do so in a satisfactory way. Why am I still an atheist and not a deist if I can agree with some deist postulates? Occam's razor. But I'd love to see someone guiding me from atheism to deism and then to theism (and their specific religion). When I see that, I'll gladly accept it.
The evidence of miracles is pretty overwhelming. The evidence of out-of-body experiences where a flat-lined person perceives things they could not possibly guess at and which are verified by outside observers is pretty overwhelming.
@@stymiedagain _The evidence of out-of-body experiences where a flat-lined person perceives things they could not possibly guess at and which are verified by outside observers is pretty overwhelming._ You're talking about stories you heard? And you believed those stories because they seemed to back up what you already believe (probably because that's what you were taught to believe as a child) and what you really, really _want_ to be true? Or did you actually investigate one of those stories in detail? Did you actually find good evidence that the story was _true?_ Theists love to share stories like that. But stories aren't always true. That's why I'm skeptical of such vague claims.
I don’t think you understand atheists at all. Believing in a moral system or love itself does not mean you believe there is a higher being in existence in the universe. It can just mean you think people should treat eachother well to make a better society. It’s really as simple as that for people who aren’t theists.
Really? I've never heard of Von Feuerbach, but I'm 70 years old, and I've been an atheist as long as I can remember. I'm an atheist because I've never seen/heard even *one* piece of good evidence that a god is real, rather than just imaginary - _any_ god, let alone a particular one. Do _you_ have anything? Just *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, or maybe *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened? Just *one?* After all, _every_ religion makes claims. That's because claims are easy. And typically, _which_ religion's claims you believe depends on which one you were taught to believe as a child. When I was a kid, _everyone_ I knew was Christian. And they all seemed to believe it because that's what they were taught to believe as a child, and they really, really _wanted_ it to be true. There's a reason why 83% of Italians are Christian, while 90% of Egyptians are Muslim and 80% of Indians are Hindu. _Every_ religion has claims, and _every_ religion has excuses. But *one piece of good evidence?* Not that I've seen, so far. And I can't - _can't,_ not won't - believe this stuff when you have _nothing_ distinguishable from delusion and wishful-thinking.
@@tomlabooks3263 Just wishful-thinking, then? OK. Wishful-thinking isn't enough for me. If it's enough for you, that's your business, I guess. But faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world, so to me, this stuff _matters._ To me, the truth of our beliefs _matters._
@@Bill_Garthright Bill, that thing that is putting your country and your world at risk is not faith-based thinking, it’s ignorance. You country (I’m Italian, different set of country problems) has a catastrophic education system, and if you add that to how the media have been using that ignorance to make everyone even more ignorant, THERE you have a major risk. It is ignorant people, faith-based OR NOT, who hurt democracy.
@@tomlabooks3263 _that thing that is putting your country and your world at risk is not faith-based thinking, it’s ignorance._ In America (I can't talk about Italy, though I loved visiting your country... 50 years ago), ignorance certainly plays a big part. But it's often _willful_ ignorance. It's very definitely faith-based, rather than evidence-based thinking. Evidence simply doesn't matter to the faith-based. What matters is what they _want_ to be true. Now, sure, not every Christian is a right-wing crazy. And nearly all Christians accept evidence if it doesn't seem to conflict with their religious beliefs. Most Christians _are_ rational. But nearly every right-wing crazy in America is Christian. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, either. But the people blowing themselves up - and innocent people, too - _are_ Muslim. They're open about their religious motives. It's the same here in America. The Christian Taliban is open about its religious motives. The media don't like to mention it, because America is overwhelmingly Christian. That's their customer base. And - just as you'd expect with faith-based thinking - Christians are nearly always on _both_ sides of every issue. But the fundamental problem _is_ faith-based thinking, I'd say. PS. Re. ignorance, right-wing Christians in America openly oppose education. They urge other Christians not to send their kids to college - not unless it's a Christian school which won't teach anything they don't already believe, at least. They attack schools at every level. Ignorance is the _goal._ "I love the poorly educated" was _popular_ with Trump supporters.
When I first clicked on this vid I, expected to find something at least vaguely intellectually stimulating. How disappointed I was. I really don't mean to be disrepectful but the way he just conflates definitions, redefines words to mean things that they obviously don't, is simply nausiating. Truth = In accordance with fact or reality/something which persists whether you believe it or not. Beauty = Aestheticly pleasing God = Concious Powerful entity/person, possibly omnipotent, omnipresent etc Eg Yahweh, Thor, Posidon etc God (Of the Bible) = -Concious Powerful entity/person - Definatly omnipotent - Omnipresent - All knowing - Jealous (according to the Bible) Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:14 - Dictator of the universe - Final authority on everything - Cares about whether or not you masturbate - Sacificed himself (jesus) to himself (The father) in order to save us from himself (The spirit) John 3:16 (because apparantly he was incapable of just forgiving us for our sins verbally, he was a slave to his own made up rules) Romans 6:23 - Murders Children in his free time (seriously) 2nd Kings 2: 24 - Intends on roasting most of us alive because, why not? Matthew 7:13-14 These words are distinct and separate concepts whether God is real or not and are not interchangable. Please don't take this wishy washy nonsense seriously. Please don't be fooled by the suits, ties and high production value, this is up there with the weakest arguments for God I have ever heard (and I've heard some weak arguments). If this man doesn't make your B.S-ometer ring even just a little bit, then I don't know what will. Oprah Winfrey literally made the same weak argument many years ago. A sharp 8 Year old could literally see the flaws in this argument. There is a reason why there are over 40,000 different denominations of christianity and that reason is: the bible isn't a well written or defined document. It's literally (and I mean literally literally) the most overrated book of all time. I Understand life can be depressing/harsh and scary for some, and thus people turn to religious for a sense of purpose and meaning, but there are much more rational and meaningful ways to live a truthful, fufilling existance without believing in self contraditing paradoxical, sometimes sinister fairy tales. Care for your fellow man and woman, love yourself, find like minded trust worthy people, take personal ownership of the problems in your own life, distance yourself from toxic people, place: logic, reason, compassion, love, science, rationality, empathy, discernment, disipline, pleasure as your highest values, be strong and get on with your life Peace www(Dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=vKgDDglSq2s
After listening to your story about the Chinese student, I wonder why you think it’s so important for her to change her understanding and relationship with a being she has been in harmony with all her life? What makes Aristotles desire to worship “perfection" the right response? For instance if my kid thought I was the best dad ever, worship would be the last thing I expect. I assume that in time when my child reaches adulthood that he will model himself after me. But worship.......I don’t see it.
One thing I often find when discussing these issues with atheists is that they have difficulty in recognizing any a priori, or presuppositions, truths that they hold. I am speaking with one currently and he maintains that one can observe such things as, say, intentionality (which I continue to remind him is a phenomenon that comes out of the existentialist/phenomenology tradition of philosophy which is a reaction against materialism/naturalism/physicalism reductionism). I suppose the biggest hurdle for me is to 'prove' to an atheist that not all thinking or logical deliberation is done by observational science. That there are epistemic presuppositions that we all must have to even make sense of empirical phenomena that are not within the purview of empirical experience (save through some phenomenological perspective which is not a scientific observation but an existential/phenomenological one). Does that make sense? Most atheists I have encountered struggle with religious language because they treat it like scientific language and yet refuse to believe that they themselves use non-scientific epistemic strategies to understand the world.
I put the blame for that problem on the way modern science is taught. There's never any mention of epistemology, it's just all implied. So people are never asked to consider epistemology and are led to believe they are above those discussions.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Without a lens, one cannot contextualize what they are perceiving. Not a priori as in something one is born with per se. Rather, a developed worldview which directs the tenor of one's assessment of reality.
Robert Henry: Wrapping up beliefs in unfounded claims is not helpful. Do you have good, credible evidence for the existence of a "God"? No, I dare say you do not. In which case, why believe a "God" exists? If you have been led to believe that "arguments" based in the philosophy of religion are "evidence", that is your problem. They are not.
Just a little digression from the mention of Aristotle at the end of this about Bartolome de las Casas. During his debate with Bishop Juan de Quevedo before the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V/King of Spain Charles I regarding treatment of the indigenous peoples of New Spain he responded to Quevedo's argument that Indians were "slaves by nature" as described by Aristotle by saying that since Aristotle was a nonbeliever he was presumably in hell and his teachings should provide no ground for such argument. I'm inclined to put this retort in the category of a swift riposte rather than an expression of any deeply held belief of the Dominican de las Casas. Las Casas is on the path to beautification by the Church, but it is fair to acknowledge that he had a temper when provoked.
i would like to read the original transcript of that conversation, because in spanish there are atleast two words that can be translated to slave, but one in particular "ciervo or siervo" is usually used as "servant of god" but can be translated as slave, the other word is "esclavo" and haves the same root from slave. That is why i would like to know which word was used.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:01 🤔 Fundamental questions about meaning and existence often lead to discussions about God's existence in philosophy. 00:43 🧐 Challenging atheists: People who deny God's existence might still believe in higher ideals like truth, goodness, and beauty, which can be considered attributes of God. 01:11 🌌 Different levels of belief in God: Some individuals may not accept the concept of a personal creator God but still adhere to abstract, transcendent principles. 02:20 💕 Seeking understanding: The process of contemplating and respecting the concept of God can lead to a deeper appreciation and recognition of truth and love. 03:03 🤔 Living with respect for God: Regardless of one's beliefs about God's nature, considering how to live in accordance with a higher power's principles can influence personal conduct and values. Made with HARPA AI
So easy to turn these comments on their head and say 'This God you say you believe in is really The Highest Good (or whatever) dressed up in theological language'. What's sauce for the goose ...
Functionally sure, not going to church or doing the typical things a religious person does(although there can be a debate about that too). But if someone believes in justice, goodness and beauty, the theist would recognize those qualities to be of God. I think in modern day when we argue about the existence of God both sides in away do it presuppositional(I think I said that right). Meaning they both start out with an idea of God and argue either for or against that. Lot of issues with this, the biggest being, it seems that most theists and atheists start with a different definitions. This causes them to talk past each other
@@CedanyTheAlaskan _But if someone believes in justice, goodness and beauty, the theist would recognize those qualities to be of God._ Clearly, you must not be a Christian. I mean, have you _read_ the Bible? Justice, goodness, and beauty? Hardly!
"they think theres a highest good" ---WHO is he referring to exactly? .. Im an atheist and I dont believe there is a "highest good" .... I dont even know what "highest good" is supposed to mean "they think theres a truth" .... I think there are many truths... it depends on what we are specifically talking about.... for one to say "they think theres a truth" in reference to atheists, i think its a bit dishonest to present such a blanket statement, especially when the assertion "they think theres a truth" is so ridiculously vague, and doubly when the guy claims this vague "truth" is "god" .......... I dont like this guys vague blankets he is presenting here so far... "they think theres beauty that transcends" ... transcends what? how? which atheists said that? did they elaborate? if so why did this guy not present those elaborations? and why didnt he explain HOW "god" is "beauty that transcends" ????? again, assertions based on vague assertions and all without any nuance or substance... just straw manning and unsupported assertions about "god" "i dont believe you that you dont believe in god" ...well, I dont believe that this guy is a christian.... i say this guy is actually a muslim, and only pretending to be a christian.... What i just did, was an example of how remarks stifle any chance of a productive discussion between a theist and an atheist "i didnt convince her... but to me, she has that... she realizes that being, she needs to respect" ....so this guy says that he didnt convince her of a being, but then says that she realized she needs to respect this being.... this being that he just said he failed to convince her even exists..... again, this goes right along with this guys theme of "people belueve what i believe even if they dont say they believe it and even if they flat out say they dont believe it" "she is worshipping it in a certain way" ....no she is not worshipping it in a certain way, or any way at all, since he just said he failed to convince her of its existence in the first place... "thats the highest thing there is in the universe" im sorry, but this guy has absolutely no clue what is or is not the "highest thing there is in the universe" how arrogant does someone have to be, to make a claim that clearly implies that they know everything there is to know about the entire universe???????? Im an openminded atheist willing to believe in things which i do not yet believe...however, this video is a great example of why its EASY to NOT accept theists claims about a god but please note that the rejection of a claim about a god, does NOT equate to a claim that a god does not exist... Lastly, dont try to claim to know what someone else believes or doesnt believe... we are all humans here, and nobody as far as i can see has demonstrated that they have the ability to read other peoples minds or knows how to prove whether or not someone believes something that they claim they do not believe... When a theist does something like that, like this guy in the video did, I start to think that person is disingenuous or a flat out charlatan, or the very least insincere or having a lack of confidence in their own ability to prove their beliefs to non believers Anyone interested in discussing this honetly and maturely, Im open to it! Peace!! :)
Lol, except that science has done no such thing. You are referring to someone misrepresenting and twisting science in order to pretend it has said something about God's existence.
@@dorasnop7771 Like most of us, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't claim that gods _don't_ exist. After all, any invisible, immaterial, magical being would be the all-time world champion at hide-and-seek. But no, science hasn't proved the existence of God. I'm sorry, but that's just silly. I would recommend not believing Christian apologists on TH-cam - even when they say stuff you really, really _want_ to be true - without at least checking contrary views. (I might recommend Paulogia or Viced Rhino, though there are lots of good - and, unfortunately, some bad - atheist channels on TH-cam.) I've heard Eric Metaxas. He was so unconvincing that I don't even remember what his argument was. I do remember that it seemed silly to me. Of course, I didn't really, really _want_ it to be true. (I want to believe true things, of course, but I need to have evidence that they're true _before_ I can believe them.)
@@timeshark8727 Look around at creation at perfect laws, ratios that govern all.. then look deep inside yourself....grasp that you are meant for more ...if not then wow! Wishing you that kind experience that at least make you wonder... Many misrepresenting God-people can hold God only on their own level.. Einstein believed in God...
I'd say the least bad argument for theism is the hypothesis that a god or gods are responsible for creation. But theists need to grasp this: _belief_ in the _existence_ of a god or gods can be justified with argument but once you reveal beliefs about the _personality_ of your gods, you no longer qualify as a _believer_ but have advanced to _affirmer_ and _proof required!_ It's totally illogical to say "I don't _know_ if (insert god) exists but I believe it's a male and is good and jealous and likes (X) and dislikes (Y). That's like saying: "I don't know if an 8'6" tall woman exists but I believe she's a good person who likes opera and dislikes cheese." Without knowledge, the beliefs are just idle speculation. So remember: when theists start talking about what their gods want or like/dislike or love/hate, they're in Affirmer Town and proof may be demanded of them. If they can't provide that proof (and they can't), then call them out for their arrogant claim! Tell them to put up or shut up!
The proof is the revelation given to us through scripture and sacred tradition. We have centuries of Jewish and Christian witness testimony to what God has done and revealed about himself. So yes, it is belief in that testimony that is proof of the nature of God. That testimony can be evaluated like any witness making any claim, but it is valid to say I know something because a witness to the event told me. I wouldn't know my own birth date if my Mom had not told me
As I've evolved in my beliefs, I've come to understand that God doesn't have to be conceived of as a person, because that sort of definition would simply be beyond my ability to conceive of what a person is, so it doesn't, and never did, help me to believe in the idea in that way. But I do like this concept of God as the superlative, highest good, uncaused cause, etc. I've come to see Jesus as merely the human manifestation of something that is incomprehensible. I don't believe in God, yet I do. I don't really believe, I have, as was said in the movie 'Dogma', a good idea of the Divine. But I look at grasping for a concretization of this idea as the thing that ultimately kills the beautiful thing. A human soul is not a thing, it is a process, and so is the rest of life. If we are fearfully tied to dogma, our souls will inevitably wither, because dogmas protect our egos and our worldly status. If our human identities are based in childlike wonder and simplicity, then we will be happy...and I think some things that Jesus is quoted to have said will back me up on that point.
@@aclark903 I didn't specifically mean 'Catholic dogma', and I don't perhaps mean ego and status in the way that you are taking it to mean (as some kind of way to offend). However dogma, in general, is something that gratifies the sense of permanence that we have in the current state of our lives, whereas in reality, there is much less that we have to be certain of. It's my personal belief that we are better off in accepting that we probably know less than we think we do, and that there is a certain futility in our struggle to define things and have them mapped out. I have largely given up this sort of metaphysical struggling as I think it's futile. But I wasn't implying anything negative or judgmental about a particular religion. Just describing my personal evolution.
@@aclark903 Lol why are you seemingly wanting to pick a fight with me about what I wrote? It is not nearly as offensive as you are making it out to be, though I am assuming you are looking to be offended. That's okay I suppose given the age we live in. You should read the entirety of what I wrote, not nit-pick it in order to make jabs at me. I had no intention to offend your Catholic sensibilities. What I do find hard to deal with, however, is that every time you write something that a Catholic disagrees with, Catholics need to call it 'heresy X' or 'heresy Y'. Instead of just, 'this is an idea I disagree with and here is why.'
There are many miracles which you can point to, visions, saints, NDEs. If people look hard enough it can only be explained by God. 1. Fatima miracle 2. Christ resurrection. 3. Padre Pio (recent saint of our time) 4. Our Lady of Medjugorje 5. Our Lady of Guadalupe (Spain and Mexico) 6. Our Lady of Las Lajas. Amazing miracle
@@mike-cc3dd On the grounds that it's an extremely unlikely claim that isn't substantiated well enough for people to believe it purely based on the historical evidence.
_There are many miracles which you can point to_ Sure. But can you demonstrate that _any_ of them actually happened? Or are we just supposed to believe vague claims?
Interesting....he's doing the flip flop of most atheists/agnostics I know. I know very few that would take much care in a values argument to persuade them of the existence of God. Most still care about scientific arguments. Values and morality is usually a popular reason for rejecting Christianity. Most of the friends that I have that reject Christianity, but still hold there is a higher being, are ok with a god, or at least a first cause, but not the Christian God.
@@adrianaelena2669 I mean, I'm an atheist and I'm fine with the existence of any number of deistic gods on a conceptual level... I just don't have any reason to believe they exist. Heck, even gods like the Greek or Nordic pantheons would be far better than the God of the bible in terms of logical possibility and palatability. Monotheism runs into a problem when it tries to make its God all things, but then also limit it to favorable traits. For Christianity it leads to the problem of evil, as an easy example. Those impossibilities are not found in either deistic ideas of god where it made the universe then stopped or pantheons where different gods do different things. The bible being a horrible book that supports slavery, women as property and/or less than men, genocide, ect, doesn't help though. Neither do the many Christian priests that have been found molesting children.
@@timeshark8727 I understand. And yeah, I'm a christian, I see your problems with the biblical God and I will not make a novel here defending or explaining you those things because I am young and not experienced in this field. You gave me an insight about how some atheist see the situation tho, thank you.
@@adrianaelena2669 I've been an atheist since I was a child (as long as I can remember), even though I was raised Christian (nominally, at least). All the time I grew up, I never met anyone who wasn't a Christian - not as far as I knew). And I'm 70 years old, so that was long before the internet. In America, Christianity was just the default. I don't know why I was different. But everyone I knew only seemed to believe it because that's what they were taught to believe as a child and they really, really _wanted_ it to be true. Heck, almost none of them had even read the Bible! They didn't even know what was in it. (Of course, back then, I hadn't read it, either.) My point is just that "if He was the way they want Him to be" doesn't fit me at all. I've just never seen even *one* piece of good evidence that your god - or any god - is actually real, rather than just imaginary. When I was a kid, it wouldn't have taken _much_ evidence. After all, I clearly remember believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. But it would have taken _something._ Today, my standards are higher. (I no longer believe in Santa Claus. Heh, heh.) But I still haven't seen anything but vague claims. I ask Christians for *one piece of good evidence* that their god is real, rather than just imaginary. Or *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. It's extremely rare that a Christian even tries to present anything specific. Even pastors immediately run away when I ask that. (Online, I mean. None of my Christian friends want to talk about religion, so we don't.) Christian apologists tend to be convincing only to people who already believe this stuff, just like how Muslim apologists are only convincing to people who are already Muslim - almost always because that's the religion _they_ were taught to believe as a child. If you look at it critically and get specific, rather than vague, there doesn't seem to be anything there. When I was a kid, I didn't know about any of the truly disgusting stuff in the Bible. I didn't have a problem with church. I kind of enjoyed the group singing. I didn't have any bad experiences. Indeed, for much of my life, I thought that religion was kind of silly, but harmless. Of course, I've changed my mind about that now! These days, faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world. It is clearly _far_ from harmless. But my point is just to point out how "if He was the way they want Him to be" really doesn't apply to me at all. PS. As a kid, I was really fond of ancient Greek and Roman mythology. Of course, it was called "mythology," but it was really just religion - a religion that people no longer believed. I knew that. And I knew that there were many other religions in the world, even if no one I knew believed in any of them. I was always a big reader. I knew that there _were_ people - lots of people - who believed in those religions just as much as my friends and neighbors believed in Christianity. So, why were _Christians_ right? As far as I can tell, Christians have nothing more than any other theist. I talk to Muslims on TH-cam, and they have nothing, either. Rather, all religions have arguments. But they don't seem to have _anything_ distinguishable from wishful-thinking. They don't seem to have even *one* piece of good evidence.
@@Bill_Garthright I know atheists are of many types. I said that"some of them" not all. And about evidences, I think that apologists may rarely bring proof to convince someone about the existence of God. That's why when I was in doubt I stopped listening to christian apologists too, because I was more confused after I was seeing the points atheists made. I asked God myself and got my answer. Judge as long as you wish, you may say that what I did was irrational, I was delusional etc. But that's it. It doesn't mean I am immature or less intelligent than other people. I still like to study the stance of atheists too, because they have good point that make me look in other way at life. We all have different life philosophies. Now it depends what kind piece of evidence you search... I am young and not experienced yet to show any kind of proof that an atheist might consider "worthy" so I usually do not try to refute arguments.
Sorry but no, the burden is on the person making the claim not the other way around. If I say the greatest being is a futon and challenge someone else to prove it, I still haven't proved that the divine futon actually exists, nor does it prove that that futon is same one listed in the holy books that make claims, morals, ethics on it.
He's not arguing that anything can be God, he's arguing that to be Atheist you would have to deny things such as a greater good, objective truth, and overall meaning to existence since these all logically imply some kind of creator. Not necessarily that the creator is a personal God
@@sentjojo A "greater good" is and had typically been a subjective thing. And "overall meaning to existence" is a weird concept that doesn't truly make sense or seem like a requirement outside religious context. As for "objective truth", objective according to who? If God, who's understanding of God?
@@Sho-td8wg you're proving the point here. Greater good is an offshoot of objective truth. Something is objectively true if it is true no matter whose perspective is considered. It is true regardless of opinion. I would argue that because we can logically prove things, it implies that there is an objective truth to reality. I believe that there are things that are true that don't require humans to understand it to be true. Greater good means that there are things that are objectively better for humans than others, with something being greater than all the others, the greatest good. And the purpose of humanity is to know that greatest good. I understand that you disagree, but your disagreement begins at not believing in objective truth.
@@sentjojo it's not so much that I deny objective truth, but rather we humans hold differing views and definitions of it. So much so that it effectively becomes subjective. I'm suggesting it works as a philosophical concept but is practically used in ways that make it subject to the person or denomination's definition.
@@Sho-td8wg here I can agree. Human understanding of truth will always be flawed and in practice subjective. But logically, I do believe that there is an objective truth to reality and we can aspire to learn about it. The Christian perspective is that God is the source of objective truth, and we can only hope to understand that truth through revelation, God revealing the truth to us. I don't think it makes sense for there to be an objective truth and also believe that there isn't some type of God, creator, or higher power behind that truth
Mattew 24:36 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows,neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. Mattew 23:8-10 8 But be not ye called teachers. for one is your Teacher, even Christ. 9 You are all brothers. And call no man father upon the earth. for one is Father, which is in heaven.10 And be not ye called masters. for one is your Master, even Christ.... “YOU must not let people call you ‘leaders’-you have only one leader, Christ!” (Matthew 23:10, The New Testament) With these words, Jesus made it plain to his followers that no man on earth would be their leader. Their one Leader would be heavenly-Jesus Christ himself. Jesus holds this position by divine appointment.. Jehovah “raised him up from the dead and . . . made him head over all things to the congregation, which is his body.”-Ephesians 1:20-23. 2 Since Christ is “head over all things” with regard to the Christian congregation, he exercises his authority over all that takes place within the congregation. Nothing that occurs within the congregation escapes his notice. He closely observes the spiritual condition of each group of Christians, or congregation. This is clearly apparent in the revelation given to the apostle John at the end of the first century C.E. To seven congregations, Jesus stated five times that he knew their deeds, their strong points, and their weaknesses, and he gave counsel and encouragement accordingly. (Revelation 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1,8,15,17) There is every reason to believe that Christ was equally familiar with the spiritual condition of other congregations in Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Babylonia, Greece, Italy, and elsewhere. (Acts 1:8) What of today? th-cam.com/video/VuFTrWsp3XQ/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/y4KDwhNqYa4/w-d-xo.html
I've never found it difficult to be an Atheist. The ever-growing list of horrible theistic arguments like the ones presented here make it easy to maintain my non-belief.
No offense, but an atheist could easily argue from the counter. "So you believe in God, you are actually an atheist, you just aren't at that level of atheism yet." The problem here lies in the fallacy of the argument from two different epistemologies. I'm a devout Catholic, but I have to point out error in logic where I see it. But then again, Quid est veritas.
@@23STEVO23 It really is a simple question demanding and deserving to be asked, and answered, when beginning with the creation of man, his "fall" in Eden, and then what is nothing more than the rest of not simply recorded history in the Bible but also to include the stuff of all recorded human history and it is to flip the coin over from the discussion of Jews and Gentiles, the saved the unsaved, i.e., salvation in terms of the collective and place the focus on...the individual. You'll figure it out.
If you are referring to God from the bible, then belief wouldn't be any sort of factor. The God of the bible wouldn't "believe" anything, it would "Know" with absolute certainty. If you have complete knowledge, belief isn't a thing you can have.
@@timeshark8727 Yes, referencing the God from the Bible and now...only for the sake of discussion, not to start a theological war...that would mean that what is generally called "Calvanism" would be correct in its theological conclusions about God, man...yes, that whole story. (But even then that simply changes the context of my original question. Instead of "Why" the problem then becomes "How". How...can a person know, be certain, i.e., have the faith...that God believes in him...personally?) Again, just asking a question because there ain't anything new or exciting you or I could add to that old discussion, now it it? Timeshark, stay safe and be well.
Hard? I find it not difficult at all. I don't think there is a highest good, all value judgements are dependent on the the person making such assessments. I find the term truth troublesome, I think there is reality and there there is the simulacrum of reality we construct in our head about reality, and how much the patterns we perceive actually represent the structures of reality is what we call truth, but that also makes truth only something related to our capabilities of perception. Beauty also just lies in the eye of the beholder and is not an intrinsic property of anything. So, nothing of those things is more than fiction, and somehow I don't think that my assessment of deities as mere fiction would satisfy the guy in the video.
@@andrewyoung4483 No, just thinking doesn't do anything either. But looking at how right and wrong changes depended on if it is about something that happens to the ingroup or outgroup, it because very obvious that it is very much a social construct. Luckily we are getting better as a species to recognise human rights, thus extending the ingroup to everyone of our species and with animal rights even beyond that.
@@Drudenfusz you wrote "no" to disagree with my statement. Then proceed to give a very telling diatribe to further your belief . If you spend a little more time thinking about what you are saying /thinking you might see how you full of it you really are.
@@andrewyoung4483 Sure, Think about how it works, but it works not because of my thinking. Society existed long before I was born, the social contract existed long before anyone named it such. The only one full o themselves here seems to be you, not me. Thanks for wasting my time, guess you are definitely not one of the people I was talking about as being capable to recognise the humanity in others.
Seems like a bad semantics argument akin to false equivalence. If someone doesn't believe in a concept, he will expand and redefine the definition of said concept to incorporate any random belief someone may have. Then after conflating the two concepts through a new definition, he will impose the rules of the original definition from the first concept onto the second concept.
Let's paraphrase this wishwambu: "God is a feeling, not a being, and if you narrow your perception to what is beautiful and ignore the ugly and tragic, you will feel God."
Great points. How will we respond to the available light? The least bad argument for atheism is infinite regression or at least regression beyond the Christian God.
Something I read recently is a difference between the Hebrew conception of truth and the Greek concept. In many respects, we today think like the Greeks in that truth is a thing or an idea. Truth is a what. The Hebrews on the whole saw truth as a Who. The fact that we got the bible from the Hebrews and not from the Greeks is telling to me.
_In many respects, we today think like the Greeks in that truth is a thing or an idea. Truth is a what. The Hebrews on the whole saw truth as a Who._ I don't see that at all, myself. (I'm an atheist, so maybe I don't see this as most people do?) I think that things are "true" to the extent that they match up to reality. We call it the "truth," when a statement matches up to reality to whatever degree of precision we require. For example, "the Earth is a sphere" is the truth, though it's just a rough approximation. It's _more_ true to say that "the Earth is an oblate spheroid," meaning that that description is more precise. But the Earth is still not _exactly_ an oblate spheroid, of course. Both descriptions are the truth, just to different degrees of precision. The idea that truth is a "thing" doesn't make any sense to me. Certainly, the idea that truth is a _"who"_ makes no sense. How in the world could _that_ make sense, whether you believe in a god or you don't? But the truth _is_ a concept, so yeah, it's an idea. It might be considered an idea like a circle is an idea. We can make a circle as precise as we want, as close to a perfect circle as we want, but it will never be _exact._ Likewise, we can probably indicate reality as precisely as we want, without being able to describe it _exactly,_ don't you think? It would still be the "truth," just like you might draw a "circle." It's just a matter of how much precision you require.
@@Bill_Garthright Interesting to get your take on this. I'm not sure we actually disagree; it seems to me we are using different language to describe the same thing. The crux of what I was saying is the people who wrote the text of the Bible saw truth different than we tend to see it today, in that they more readily personified truth in the form of deity. If you are an atheist I can certainly see that being a foreign concept , but to be honest even a lot of us theists still think this way. Am I making sense?
@@alexwatson7068 Well, I'm certain that people two thousand years ago, people with a natural explanation of almost _nothing,_ looked at the world differently than I do, someone with the advantage of such incredible scientific discoveries in recent centuries. And - obviously - they wouldn't have been speaking English, so "truth" isn't the word they would have used anyway, huh? So I'm absolutely on board with that part of your argument. They undoubtedly _did_ see things very differently than even most theists of today, let alone than an atheist (me, to be precise). And I'm not sure I really _could_ understand that mindset. Heck, I don't even know what word they used that you're translating as "truth." That said,... I'm not sure if I can trust that _you_ know how they saw "truth," either. I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm just saying that it's probably hard for _you_ to put yourself in their mindset, too, right? Can _any_ of us actually do that? Of course, as you point out, I've had modern Christians tell me that "God is truth." I've had it argued to me - well, more a claim than an argument, since they never wanted to actually _talk_ to an atheist about these things - that we can't have truth without God. Those people _are_ using the same word that I use, and they live in the same society that I do. And yet I _still_ don't understand them. So maybe it's not entirely a matter of being two thousand years in the future? Heh, heh. To me, the "truth" is just the extent to which a statement, a claim, matches up to reality. I really don't see _how_ you could personify that. It's a concept, not a person. But I find that I often struggle to understand theists. And they probably struggle to understand me, too. :) Thanks for the reply!
@@Bill_Garthright Interesting to get your take on this. We can know what ancient Hebrews thought about things simply because they wrote it down. Consider the Bible for a moment not as a text for a religion you don’t believe in but as one of the most complete windows into an ancient people that exist. That’s incredibly valuable even if you don’t believe there is a deity behind it. Hebrews thought of their God as a parental and sovereign figure at once, whereas the Greeks saw their Gods as almost elemental, and almost certainly amoral. The Hebrew God is righteous and cares for the goings of people. Zeus/Jupiter couldn’t care less about humans and can’t stop cheating on his wife with anything that breaths. This Hebrews often saw truth the way we see fidelity. Covenants between themselves and their God were seen as supremely important, as they could be _true_ to their God and He in turn would be _true_ to them. I’m not sure the Greeks saw truth having anything to do with their Gods.
Also I’m not convinced ancient peoples knew as little about the world and science as we thought they did (you ought to look up the Antikythera mechanism sometime if you’ve never heard of it). I think it’s more a matter of having different amount of data to work with. We only know so much because of the people who came before us. I feel indebted to them, actually. Just because they lived a long time ago doesn’t mean they were stupid (not that I’m accusing you of thinking that for a second, lots of people think that without realizing it though).
I knew a guy back in the USENET days who called his toaster oven a God. I could not disprove the existence of his toaster oven. But it is ridiculous to suppose that there's anything profound about that.
Utter nonsense. 'Highest good' and 'beauty that transcends'? What does that even mean? They're just concepts that this guy's asserting without any basis that 'that's God'. Same with 'truth', depending on your definition. If any of them exists as more than just human-generated concepts, that has to be demonstrated, not just claimed. The last thing you people need to be doing is telling atheists what they believe or how 'really hard' it is for us to believe something. It's insulting and does nothing to convince us. And _especially_ never go to the 'God has written Himself on our hearts' thing; all that does is prove to a non-believer that you're fundamentally wrong.
Do you believe that some things are more valuable (i.e. more good) than other things? And likewise, do you believe that some things are more beautiful than other things? This is where the 'highest good' and 'transcendent beauty' come from. This isn't utter nonsense, this is literally Philosophy 101. Whether you believe in God or not, this is actually what philosophy is. Now if you believe that such opinions are purely subjective, then there would be no such things as a 'highest good' or a 'transcendent beauty'. More often than not, atheists are fundamental materialists who believe that anything claimed must also be verifiably demonstrated. Theists on the other hand are fundamental idealists who believe that there are objective realities that exist above (or beyond) human consciousness and sense perception. Although I find it amusing that many atheists believe that the Big Bang created the universe, and everything else astrophysics has taught them, without ever having experienced or having had it demonstrated to them in a way they could verify it. Basically taking it on faith that the theories must be true, because scientists are smart.
@@badmen1550 It's nonsense to say that just because something is 'really good' or 'really pretty', it therefore becomes god. As for the Big Bang, I think most people understand that what we've learned isn't necessarily the correct answer, but it's the model that best explains the facts that we've discovered about the universe. That's where theists keeps getting things wrong: there are facts that we can determine, and even if us laymen can't replicate those facts, the process of science means that the facts are constantly checked and verified. The conclusions reached through the examination of these facts are never going to be 100% certain to be true; the best they can do is create a model that ties them all together. You can mock the process all you want, but you're perfectly okay with the results in your day-to-day life. You drive cars, you use computers, you get treated for illnesses. It's only when it conflicts with your theological presuppositions that you start pushing back.
@@LaserShark123 No...that's what "God" actually MEANS. GOD = "the highest good", "the most transcendent beauty", etc. That's the definition of God. Just because your term for "God" is something else, like "the universe" or "The Unity", doesn't mean it isn't the same PRINCIPLE. That's what this video is about: the PRINCIPLE of "the highest good" IS "God". Do you understand? This is really basic philosophy stuff.
@@LaserShark123 Also, let me ask you this: How can a scientist discover an objective fact about the universe, when the scientist himself has a subjective viewpoint? Every experiment he performs will eventually be filtered through his own subjective experience.
@@badmen1550 No. You don't get to define God into existence. You don't get to say 'there is something that is the 'highest' good, and that's God'. If you can do that, then I get to say 'well, this invisible unicorn in my back pocket is an even greater good than God, and nothing you say can make your God a higher good than my unicorn'. You're not engaged in philosophy at this point, you're engaged in wish fulfillment. If your god is the highest good, you have to prove that this is the case, not just assert it without the slightest scrap of evidence. And you're talking about the problem of solipsism, which is more of a problem for you than me. How can a theist possibly know anything about their God when anything they experience is by necessity interpreted by their fallible human brain? Scientists can base their observations on the shared experience of the universe we live in, and from those observations come up with testable, repeatable conclusions that, again, you're perfectly fine with as long as they don't step on your god's toes. Meanwhile, it seems like every single person has their own definition of God, as evidenced by the massive number of different religions and sects across the world and throughout history. If there's one true God, why is there absolutely no consensus like there is for science?
When you point blank ask to show proof God doesn’t exist, they deflect and say they don’t have to prove it. The burden of proof is on the person who believes only. What a joke
"I don't believe you that you don't believe in God"? Wow... So basically that guy is calling people liars when they say they don't believe? That's... embarrassing for him. What is the situation here is that you have different definitions for deities, and you ignore the definition they use and force yours on them. But that makes no sense. You have to define the deity and then ask them whether they believe in that deity or not. You can't just ask people "do you believe in the existence of a deity", and then whip out a pretty non-standard definition to call those peoples liars. It's like as if I'd ask you "do you believe that amoebas are highly intelligent", and you'd say "no", and I'd say "you are a liar, you believe that they are highly intelligent compared to rocks". Like wtf is this nonsense? And what does that even mean "there is a truth - that's God". Truth refers to a claim. What claim is that? What is your truth referring to? Is your use of "truth" here not just a synonym for "God" and therefor you are just saying "there is a God - that's God", according to a definition that makes no sense to anyone not believing in God? Also you seem to pretend that the only atheists in existence are explicit positive atheists, which is not the case. You just pretend as though the rest does not exist. And what do you mean "they think there is a highest good"? Have you asked them? How do you define "highest good"? In matters of morality? How can you answer that question for them without asking them? Aren't you just creating fake play-dialogues in your head to make yourself feel better? This is just utter nonsense what that guy is saying. And regarding the creators comment: The least bad argument for theism? I don't know any argument for theism that is not bad. But I'd say for theism the least bad argument would be the cosmological argument, because it sounds good until you think about it and realise that it's in the end nothing but armchair philosophy, nothing but assumptions not supported by good evidence.
It seems to me that ordinary people (myself included) don't have any personal experience with the divine. So, specific claims about God have to come from churches. There are a lot of different churches that each believe they are right, so the majority of people thinking that they are guided by the holy spirit must be wrong (even admitting that some people might be guided by the holy spirit). I've not been really impressed with any of my personal experiences with churches either. As for the existence of objective truth and goodness. We have continual sensory experience, so treating sensory experience as the foundation of objective truth is easy to do. Matter (which we experience through our senses) appears to follow rational laws. The study of mathematics also makes the existence of logic seem like a thing unto itself. So, treating matter and logic as foundational to objective truth is not hard to do based on every day experience. However, there is no every day experience of objective goodness, since it is our every day experience that people experience goodness on an individual basis. It seems to me that God would be the only objective measure of goodness that could possibly exist, but there is no evidence from every day experience that he does actually exist. It also seems true that an intelligent being created the universe, or else that the universe is infinitely old with no beginning, or is incomprehensible in some other manner.
@@apracity7672 there's really no proof of a gods existance i did pray in the past and absolutely nothing came of it that was my esrly 20s it was then i came to the conclusion thtre was no god
I love when atheist say that believing in God is too far fetched, but then say that they have faith that abiogenesis occurred against all scientific evidence.
_I love when atheist say that believing in God is too far fetched, but then say that they have faith that abiogenesis occurred against all scientific evidence._ You're talking about the 'atheist' in your imagination, right? The strawman 'atheist' you just pulled out of your... imagination?
Notice the giant leap of faith. We hear arguments for _a god or gods,_ and we're just supposed to assume they point to God as opposed to any of the hundreds of other gods worshiped today. Who should decide what qualifies as compelling evidence for belief in a god or gods? The theist! Just challenge them to say what _they_ would accept as compelling evidence for the existence of a god or gods _of a religion other than theirs_ and we'll use that as the standard. That sticks a potato in their tailpipe! Shuts 'em right up!
Idk what u are trying to say...but God transcends all religion. Different names in the culture doesn't change the meaning. A chair is a chair no matter if the word changes. Rather the argument should be towards whose description of God is true...is it Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Judaism or whatever religion you believe? I believe that since majority of history have moved towards "There Is a God" and Science cannot explain the meta-physical, the existence of God should not be disputed. What should actually be the debate is whether Jesus, Muhammed or even aleister Crowley etc which one of them was right? I know Jesus was right.
@@ojoghoro9821 I was replying to the other guy. I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to argue. My point is that arguing for say a monotheistic God is going to contain different premises as opposed to say a pantheistic god. Arguments for polytheistic gods are gaps arguments, thus pointing humanity to the One true God (ie. Something metaphysical).
@@ojoghoro9821 You write " I believe that since majority of history have moved towards "There Is a God" and Science cannot explain the meta-physical, " which sciences are "moving towards there is a god"? The existence of deities have never been proven by anything, but I would still love to read your sources. Science cannot explain metaphysics because metaphysics are not real, thats what "metaphysics" actually mean. Of course the existence of god should be disputed, such an abnormal concept should always be fought with reason.
A question I have been asking Atheists/Materialists/Whatever. Please provide me with Evidence that there is No God. I just got tired/bored with being asked for Evidence For God, by people who (to the best of my knowledge) have never Really investigated it. At least beyond a surface level.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd "it is not necessary to prove that something impossible does not exist" As Dr. John Lennox often says Only In Mathematics can something be proved. Which is why I used the word Evidence. If I am asked to provide Evidence for God (in this case the God of the Bible) *I can do it, I do see why I can't ask for Evidence that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, that the universe ad life just happened by random chance, I don't see any Evidence for that..
* There was a time starting in the mid 19th century, when a good argument could be made that this all happened by random chance. Today (it appears to me) not so much.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd This morning while seated on the meditation throne ( :-) ) A better way of asking my question came to me. Perhaps a better way of asking my question would be, instead of asking for Evidence, ask Why. Why doesn't someone believe in God? Which is where I want to get to in these kinds of discussions. "That science estimates that life was generated by random processes is an assumption. It is the most probable assumption among all the candidates." Is It? It is Only if someone presupposes there is no God. 2 quotes from Alan Sandage "It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence." "The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle-an architect." Allan Sandage "The supernatural option ranks very low because so far no one has ever encountered a supernatural factor that affects aspects of reality." Once again (like so many others) it appears you are presupposing there is Nothing supernatural, that all there is, is the natural/material. But What If you are wrong? Christianity (One of the foundations of Western Civilization) is based on a supernatural event. A guy was killed, buried and 3 days later appeared to hundreds of people. We call it the Resurrection. To paraphrase Paul "If the Resurrection didn't happen, we're fools." Might be a good idea to ask, Am I going down the wrong road looking for answers? What If your presuppositions are wrong? There are 5 words I always ask myself on This and many many many other topics, that I believe in "But..I..Could..Be..Wrong." Someone you might look up is Dr. Michael G Strauss. A particle physicist, works at CERN, teaches at University of Oklahoma. IF you are interested look him up, He his also on TH-cam.
well... since atheists/materialists/whatever don't necessarily believe there is no god, only that they don't believe in any gods... you may be waiting for a while. This is ignoring that its impossible to address, let alone prove, anything about the vast array of possible god claims with a single argument making any attempted answer to your request hinge on hitting the specific version of the specific god you were thinking of at the moment. I mean, I could prove that specific bible stories didn't happen... or prove that Mt Olympias doesn't have a temple full of magical beings on top of it... or prove that the universe didn't just poof into existence from nothing in a week... but none of that would really prove there is no god(s). I think you will find that the majority of atheists, at least in countries like the US where religion is in your face all the time, are more informed and have done more research than most Christians you will meet.
@@timeshark8727 As I believe I said earlier, my point in asking that question is not so much in finding/getting a answer (although that's fine too), but to get someone to think investigate more deeply into Why someone says There Is Not God.
atheism is not the default position. it is a worldview which cannot support its own internal suppositions. The entire human experience across all races, places, and times has shared a connection, in some form, to the transcendent supernatural. Atheism is the exception.
Well first, this guy doesn't know what "atheism" is... its not the belief that there is no god. Its the label for people who don't believe in any gods. He also doesn't know what God refers to apparently. God is a specific character, not a vague idea of an absolute X. Second, it _IS_ hard to not believe in any gods... but not because of any of the stupid things he said... Its hard to not believe in any gods because of how early the indoctrination starts and because of what abandoning that belief can do to your interpersonal relationships and sense of self.
0:40 Already starting off with a strawman. Yes sorry but we aren't playing that game. It's theists that are making a claim that a god exists, so its up to theists to provide the evidence that a god exists. 0:44 Sooooo you are defining a god as the 'highest good'? That doesn't even make sense. Good in what sense and how is it good? 0:48 Truth is that which matches reality. 0:50 Beauty is subjective, it doesn't transcend anything. 0:54 A 'bring' would at lest make sense because everything else you said doesn't. 1:03 Sooo you think that because of a number of things that have nothing to do with a god show that atheists really do believe in a god? . . . Were you dropped on your head as a child? 1:06 Right because you are soo all-knowing that you know what other people believe. . . Or you are just wrong, which do you think is more likely? 1:12 Then guy number 2 is presupposing a creator, but can he show that the universe needed a creator? No of course he can't. 1:26 An 18 year old isn't going to know too much, try me. 1:44 Yes there are all kind of very DIFFERENT beliefs that are religious in nature, That really goes against you claims. 2:22 So you just admitted that you didn't convince her yet you still think her agrees with you? WOW you are dumb! These people really need to talk with a real atheists instead of being a an echo chamber.
"The highest good is god?" No it isn't. No matter how much you able about it, god is a fantasy, PERIOD, FULL STOP !!!! And by the way, it isn't up to the "non-believer" to disprove god. The burden of proof is always with the person making the claim - and the pertinent claim here is that there is a god, not that there isn't.
@@goodmorning6827 if you want to not have a burden of proof, then don't say things like *_"No matter how much you able about it, god is a fantasy, PERIOD, FULL STOP!"_* because that's a claim... and like you said, the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim.
@@goodmorning6827 Then you shouldn't make negative claims, thus incurring a burden of proof on something you can't prove. Also, there are times when you can prove a negative. For instance, you can prove that the story of Noah's Ark didn't exist by pointing at the geologic column, talking about the lack of genetic evidence of a bottleneck event in every creature on the planet, or by pointing to the many ancient civilizations that weren't destroyed by a flood.
_"Why it's really hard to not believe in God (even for atheists)"_ You're wrong. It might be hard for _some_ people, I suppose - people taught to believe in that particular god as children, of course. I can't read minds, so I can't speak for anyone else. But that's certainly not true for me. It's very, very easy for me. As far back as I can remember, it's always been easy. Indeed, it's hard for me to take _any_ god more seriously than I take magic leprechauns. Really. I can't demonstrate that gods _don't_ exist, but I can't demonstrate that magic leprechauns _don't_ exist, either. I can't even _imagine_ what kind of evidence there could be - even hypothetically - that magical beings with magical powers _don't_ exist,... somewhere. I was raised Christian - nominally, at least. Indeed, I didn't know a single other person who _wasn't_ a Christian all the time I grew up. But none of that was based on evidence. It all seemed to be based on nothing but wishful-thinking. And it was simply impossible for me to take it seriously without good evidence it was actually _true._ _"They think there's a highest good. Well that's God."_ Heh, heh. Well, I have to ask you for *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of that is actually true. Because it just seems silly to me. I'm wondering, have you ever _met_ an atheist? Have you ever _talked_ to one of us? We vary, of course - "atheist" is a very, very narrow label - but it sounds to me like you're just _imagining_ what atheists must be like. _"They think there's a truth."_ I have no idea what that even _means._ Perhaps you should define what you mean by "truth," because it doesn't sound like you're even using that word in a way I'd recognize. And just _claiming_ that truth is "God" is... well, silly. What if I claim that truth is magic leprechauns? Would that seem reasonable to _you?_ Wow, this is just such _complete_ nonsense! Does _this_ really seem reasonable to theists? How? Maybe your next video should be titled "Why It's Really Hard for Theists to Listen to Atheists, Instead of Just Imagining Whatever Strawman 'Atheist' They Want to Invent."
To compare the existence of God to the existence of leprechauns is a classic new atheist false equivalency. This can be understood by looking at their attributes. Leprechauns are little men with pots of gold that live at the end of a rainbow. The obvious issue with this is that rainbows don't have ends. They are a refraction of light hitting water droplets in the air. The attributes of God, however, are the basis of metaphysics (above the natural world). God is the creator of all things, the knower of all things, the source of all truth, and many more. To deny the existence of leprechauns is to deny that there are magic dwarves with pots of gold living at the ends of a rainbow. To deny the existence of God is to deny that objective truth exists, to deny that objective good exists, to deny that the universe had a beginning, to deny that all things in the natural world are contingent upon other things, to deny that intelligibility has to come from intelligence, and to deny that man's rational nature has any sort of reason behind it.
I agree with everything you said here; given the way you understood what THEY were saying, and given the fairly lame version of Christianity with which you were presented in your upbringing. That said, for reasons of my own, I agree with some of what they said. But they didn't bother to say it in a way that was even slightly helpful for a person coming from your experience. I mean, as one example: YES, it's a matter of logical necessity that God is "the highest good." But given the various incompatible bits of bad metaphysics and ethics we all absorb from popular culture around us long before we're cognizant enough to question them, that phrase ("God is the highest good") is going to be meaningless. It won't be obvious what "good" means; it won't be obvious that "goods" can be objectively higher or lower; it won't be obvious that some are instrumental but that they can't all be instrumental; it won't be obvious that any such "highest good" could in any way be deemed to have agency or be non-local or non-temporal; it won't even be obvious that such a "highest good" would in any way be involved with constituting or maintaining reality as an originating or sustaining principle. All of that might require...what? Several weeks' worth nonstop additional argumentation, with adequate time for clarifying definitions and usages and answering objections? But this short video clip barely even gestures at the need for all that groundwork. So I think your objections are entirely valid. To anyone in your shoes, what Alex Plato said in this clip will appear to be nonsense-talk making meaningless claims for no reason, yet in a self-satisfied kind of way. That'd piss me off, too.
@@immaculata_marian I am convinced personally that the existence of God is necessary for the existence of objective goodness, but I'm not convinced that he's necessary for the existence of objective truth of any kind. We can see stuff with our eyes, can't we? Providing that it is somehow possible for stuff to exist without God, doesn't the existence of matter by itself constitute a kind of objective truth? And evolution and other natural explanations seem to show how it is possible for less intelligent/developed things to become more intelligent/developed, if not explain ultimately how it all got here.
@@immaculata_marian _Leprechauns are little men with pots of gold that live at the end of a rainbow._ Don't be silly! Obviously, that's just an allegory. :) That's like claiming that God is a magic man who lives in the sky, somewhere so low that primitive people building a _brick tower_ could build it all the way up to Heaven (the Tower of Babel story). Well, we build structures a lot taller than that _these days,_ not to mention that we fly even higher. No Heaven. No God. Therefore, "God" can't be real? That's like claiming that the Christian god cannot exist because there never was a worldwide flood. Or because the stuff in Egypt, described in Exodus, never happened. Christians can excuse anything they _want_ to excuse in the Bible, so why can't I do the same thing with magic leprechauns? I don't require special treatment when it comes to magic leprechauns, but I won't allow Christians to have special treatment, either. If Christians don't have to defend every story as literal, then I don't, either. Obviously, human beings might have gotten some things wrong about magic leprechauns, just as they get some things wrong about gods. (After all, no matter _what_ you believe, you don't agree with all human beings about gods.) But that doesn't mean magic leprechauns aren't _real._ Otherwise, it would mean that gods weren't real, too. And we can't have _that,_ right? :) _God is the creator of all things, the knower of all things, the source of all truth, and many more._ *Evidence?* Do you have *one piece of good evidence* backing up _any_ of that? Maybe magic leprechauns are the creator of all things, the knower of all things, the source of all truth (although I don't know what you even _mean_ when you use the word "truth" in that way), etc. Claims are easy, after all. Claims are _easy._ _To deny the existence of God is to deny that objective truth exists, to deny that objective good exists, to deny that the universe had a beginning..._ Nope. But I don't "deny the existence of God" any more than I "deny the existence of magic leprechauns." It's just impossible for me to believe in either one without even *one* piece of good evidence backing up such claims. Likely, it would take more than one to convince me - both are truly extraordinary claims, after all - but I'm just asking for *one example,* specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. Or else I can't even take gods or magic leprechauns _seriously._ So far, *one* seems to be too much to ask of Christians. (I'm not sure about believers in magic leprechauns, since I haven't met any.)
Actually, it’s very easy to not believe in god. For the exact same reason as it is to not believe in Zeus, Santa, and the Easter bunny. No one has ever established they exist. All theists have are bad arguments and assertions to support their faith. Which would be fine if every theist had the identical god, but you don’t. You seem to have the exact god that expresses your personal views. This argument nearly broke my brain from sheer stupidity.
If you are an ATHEIST, what's the LEAST BAD argument for theism? If you're a THEIST, what's the LEAST BAD argument for atheism?
For me as a theist I would say the hiddenness of God which I would categorize as a subset of the problem of evil. If God exists, and wants a relationship with us, and may even desires our salvation, where is he? Why is he not as obvious as he could be?
I would say the least bad argument for theism is something I have never seen anyone actually make. The only concept of the divine that would make any sense to me is of a deity that is in the future and not in the past, an entity that basically was born with the universe and is the collected experience of all sapient beings in it. The reason for that view is because it looks like everything else in the universe is based on emergent properties, and not designed one, thus I feel like an emergent deity also feels more i line of how the universe works.
@@pintswithaquinas that is a very challenging concept, one that has been argued against me by my agnostic friends. There’s a real back and forth of course between the two sides.
The theist will argue that God has attempted to communicate with you but you’ve ignored it or flat out rejected it. But what if the atheist/agnostic claims in good faith and forthrightness that they do not believe they have ever truly been “contacted” by God? As in, they have never felt the urging of the Spirit, nor the innate sense of the Divine. Can anyone think of a good to this statement or circumstance?
@@LazyStarrfish I might ask them how they expected to be contacted by God in the first place. Its not an answer per sae but asking athiests questions is often a good place to start.
@@LazyStarrfish I agree with you and Matt as a theist. The response to both divine hiddenness and the problem of evil is the same. Both take the form: If God exists then He would do X. X doesn't happen. Therefore, God doesn't exist. The response is: How can we know that God doesn't have a morally sufficient reason for not doing X? The burden of proof lies with the atheist to show that it is impossible that God might have a morally sufficient reason.
To your specific question one could respond "You're not dead yet. God could still make Himself known to you." Or, that there are plenty of natural theology arguments for the existence of God (Rom 1:19-20); He's not as hidden as you lead on. Or, like Alvin Plantinga, one could say that our sensus divinitatis has been wounded by original sin - we can't sense God as we might, according to Christian doctrine.
I had a conversation last week with a friend of mine who claims to be an atheist. We were discussing a problem he was personally wrestling with, that is the exact location of God. He believed that, if God exists he should be another being that can be pointed out clearly in the natural world. Instead of explaining the non-material nature of God by using direct quotation from scripture I decided to provide the analogy C.S. Lewis offers that compares the nature of God to a play-writer. Needless to say, he was rather fascinated by the analogy and understood how the natural sciences could point to clues to the existence of God but a form of revelation was to some degree necessary for knowledge of his existence.
Good for you. Nice work, you did your friend a favor. I don't know if you're Catholic, but it is Catholic doctrine that the existence of God can be known by reason alone and does not require revelation.
@@MiguelArcangel12
_it is Catholic doctrine that the existence of God can be known by reason alone_
Then Catholic doctrine is wrong. The problem is that _everyone_ thinks they use reason. I've never known _anyone,_ no matter _what_ they believed, who didn't think they were reasoning correctly. Certainly, every believer in _every_ religion thinks so.
Therefore, if you care about the truth, reason alone cannot be enough. I'm fine with reason. But reason alone is pretty much indistinguishable from wishful-thinking. Worldwide, faith-based people overwhelmingly find "reasonable" whatever religion and whatever god or gods they were taught to believe as children. You can't _all_ be right. (You _can_ all be wrong, though.)
No, *evidence* is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. Again, I'm fine with reason, but not by itself. *Evidence* is what keeps us grounded in the real world, instead of the world of our imagination.
PS. Also, just as scientists are far more likely to be atheists than people who know little about science, so are philosophers - the _experts_ when it come to logical reasoning - far more likely to be atheists than people who know little about philosophy: philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
So, if it _were_ true that reason is all you need, then why do the experts disagree with you? And that poll is just about atheism vs theism. It doesn't even begin to get into the many different religions and different gods that a theist might believe in. So it's even worse for theists than it might appear at first.
Beautifully done. I always find it difficult to talk to non-believers or those making their faith journey without being too harsh. I've spent too much time in the snarkiness on the internet.
" .... the analogy C.S. Lewis offers that compares the nature of God to a play-writer"
God's existence seems no less of a story/play than our own. He purportedly engenders many of the aspects of our existence (meaning, love, will, justice, intelligence, order, morality etc.) which people suggest require an author. The clues are still there in the non-chaotic state of any proposed God. It doesn't help me understand the existence of such things by merely pushing the question back to a place where they are claimed to be "just so". I have an equally unsatisfactory "just so" answer already without adding any more layers of "authorship".
Ah, but it can't be playwrights all the way down! Just so.
@@Bill_Garthright There’s too much wrong with what you just wrote to even begin diving into.
More of Dr. Plato, please! He’s wonderful!
I'm only saying this, not to disagree, but to solidify in my own mind thoughts and habits if I ever might find myself in a similar conversation : There is A real danger to presenting characteristics of God and virtues as having a transitive relationship with God himself. That is, God is love cannot also precisely be stated by saying love is God.
So, I think this Chinese student who believes in truth and justice could better be told, not that she is actually a theist and doesn't know it, but that God is the source and center of those things she holds highest.
Imagine a person said I don't believe in the emperor, I only believe in kings. You could say well, that depends on how you define kingship or monarchy or the word emperor. But, what I'm suggesting is simply that you state that the emperor is, among other things, the king of kings.
Likewise, the disbelief in God being a person can be approached by saying God became man, rather than asserting the same in reverse, that Jesus is God and here's why I can prove it. It is actually a radical proposition, that God became Man.
"You really think a Jewish Rabbi from the 1st century was God?" can be reexamined by putting forth that, in the first century AD, God Himself became a Jewish Rabbi.
A lot of it has to do with helping move people's heads so their eyes can see what you see.
Perspective twist? Re-packaging methods? Did that when I was young, now I just enjoy being Catholic (because I wasn't when I were young).
I don't think he is presenting them as transitive. That's sort of you reading into an absence of detail, a detail that isn't there. In philosophy it's not assumed that "x is y" describes a transitive relationship. Especially with respect to the Christian God, we're dealing with a concept that encompasses multiple infinities, something that necessarily cannot be fundamentally equated with anything in the world, but which encompasses multiple things that find expression in the world. Namely, in this case, that any love you can find in the world is a subset of God; any absolute truth you can find in the world is a subset of God; and so on.
And an article of faith that ties in with that is the idea that there's a place, some plane of existence (maybe in the physical sense, or maybe in the Platonistic sense) where the entire set exists, where the source of those expressions can be beheld. It's definitely a poisonous heresy to believe that these are not merely expressions of some higher metaphysical being, but are themselves divine rather than merely holy. It's related to the sort of exaggerated humanism you see with some new age spiritualists who say "I worship the human spirit" and other, similar platitudes.
But I don't think this can be laid at the feet of Christians who rightly point out that God is love. It can be blamed on new age charlatans who shamelessly cherry pick and plagiarize elements of real religions to use in their fraudulent cultic practices. They are successful because they steal the insights from real religions, while simultaneously presenting appealing doctrines that conveniently don't require much faith, don't require humility, don't require commitment or hard work or charity or an effort to change one's self. So they come across to laypeople as Diet Religion™, or basically Religion: Easy Mode.
And one of the means by which they make the vague notion of God (which is inherently cathartic) more palatable to materialists is by identifying God with well-regarded concepts like love, compassion, or consciousness itself. Not material objects, but processes relevant to humans that appear to operate within the material world. Of course, the true religion and other religions developed by rigorous contemplatives like Hinduism and Islam are extremely explicit and laborious in warning and admonishing us not to conflate God with the material, because it not only fails to encourage moral behavior but also ultimately leads to disillusionment and atheism. But new age spiritualists are neither rigorous nor contemplative, so they either don't know or don't care.
_I think this Chinese student who believes in truth and justice could better be told, not that she is actually a theist and doesn't know it, but that God is the source and center of those things she holds highest._
But what if she asks for *one piece of good evidence* that's actually _true?_ After all, claims are easy. _Every_ religion makes claims. So why should she pay any attention to claims - why should _I_ pay any attention to claims - if that's all you've got?
Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is even real, rather than just imaginary? Do you just _imagine_ that "God is the source and center of those things she holds highest," maybe because that's what you were taught to believe as a child and you really, really _want_ it to be true? Of do you have actual evidence that's really true?
@@Bill_Garthright of course there's evidence, but this isn't a debate, and I'm not selling something. The point is not to mentally entrap the other person, the point is to help them understand your perspective.
Also, it's not 'what I was taught as a kid and really want to be true', so I don't have to worry about that.
@@Bill_Garthright
the alternative is that the universe is irrational, that's evidence enough.
I am not an Athiest, but I know people who are. Most of the people who I know who reject God, reject him from a morality standpoint (like "God approved of slavery") or they say, "Well there is not objective truth, all truth is what I feel on a daily basis." and they won't ever change from that argument no matter what you say, so it is actually really easy to be an Atheist (functionally).
I think that the fundamental difference between an atheist and a theist revolves around autonomy. If God was «nice» and didn’t infringe on human «sovereignty» - I think no one would care to be an atheist. Over many years I have come this conclusion, at the bottom it really has nothing to do with rationality or logic, but only about self-preservation.
I don't know about the people _you_ know, of course, but none of the atheists I know reject "God" for those reasons. All of the atheists I know are more like me. We just don't see any good evidence that _any_ god is real, rather than just imaginary.
I ask theists for *one piece of good evidence* that their god is real, rather than just imaginary. That's because evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. Well, I hear lots and lots of _claims_ from all sorts of different religions, but still not even *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself.
I don't know about other people, but that's why _I'm_ an atheist.
@@Bill_Garthright I appreciate your reply and I appreciate your insight. I know that there are different types of Atheists and those who are Atheist for different reasons. I appreciate that you understood that I was not attempting to generalize all Atheists into one category or to say that all their beliefs/reasons are exactly the same.
I am not sure if this is the reason for their beliefs, but the Atheists that I know were once Christians, then for some reason were hurt by religion, then became Atheists.
There is a lot that Christians and Atheists can gain by attempting to understand each other from dialogue.
If you don't mind me asking, what is your "standard of evidence"? Is it empirical? physical? Philosophical? Tangible? or Emotional? You said that you would like one reason to prove the existence of God. Which form of proof do you need?
@@mortensimonsen1645 I think that you may be partially correct. However there are differing views of autonomy between Christian denominations as well. Catholics, Calvinists, "Protestants", and Eastern Christians have very different theologies regarding authority and autonomy.
From my experience, most who reject God may say that it's because of suffering, injustice, slavery, etc., but that's mostly a smokescreen for the real reason; they won't believe in him because that will need them to deny their wills in order to subject to His, to bow their stiff necks under his gentle yoke.
So they go through life taking advantage of the God based morality, theology, and civilization that they were born into, without giving proper thanks to God. They go through life thinking everything was caused by randomness. But won't dare believe what must follow if that was true, that nothing matters. Not life, morality, laws, etc. Even free will is not real if we're just a bunch of random matter and energy. As if decisions are nothing but chemical and neurons firing in a pattern.
Try telling someone they have no free will. It's the ultimate insult.
Besides, Faith is a supernatural Grace. Though one can arrive at the concept of God purely rationally, the belief in Him comes from Him. One cannot go to God without God first doing the invitation.
Besides, faith is just he beginning. For example, demons don't need faith or belief in God, because they know God is God. But that didn't stop them from denying Him.
I have to say I don't find this convincing, as a strong, Aquinas 5 proofs Catholics. A belief in God is not just a belief in the absolute, its a belief in the person of the absolute. This is just word play, otherwise.
If I ask an anarchist if they believe in SOME type of human organization, and they say, yes, then I go and accuse them of being a fascist, they would rightly object.
Right, unless I misunderstood his argument I don't think he was saying that everyone really believes in the Christian/Catholic God. As he said near the end of the video, he would have to convince the atheist of the personhood of God after getting them to see that they already accept some form of transcendent reality.
"If they believe in an ultimate truth thats God" are we just making non-evidential claims? "if they believe in ultimate goodness thats God" If you are just changing the definition of what a god is then yes i would believe in certain versions of a god.
That is pretty much the traditional Classical Theistic conception of God. You take these definitions and concepts and then you really scrutinize them until you discover God. That’s how I discovered God and many others too
I find it really easy to not believe in gods. I'm not believing in them right now and I'm not even breaking a sweat.
this might be the epitome of a mid-wit comment.
@@csongorarpad4670 And yet, it's true. Funny how that works.
@@RustyWalker You're mistaken. This video is about God, the ultimate transcendent being itself AKA truth, goodness etc. Do you mean to tell me that you don't believe in truth? I doubt that you would be so delusional, but considering that you missed the video's entire point and brought up polytheism while this is clearly a topic about monotheism and why it is the only logical conclusion, it would make sense that you are, in fact, this ignorant.
@@csongorarpad4670 someone believing that God is the ultimate transcendent being itself AKA truth is one thing. But going beyond that and claiming it is a wholly different thingz
What would be a list of your morality laws?
I believe in God as the maker of the universe and all things.
Why?
@@Bill_Garthright did the Big Bang just start expanding on its own, by random chance?
Theism, or even deism, just makes more sense.
@@Rolando_Cueva
_"did the Big Bang just start expanding on its own"_
How would _I_ know? And what does that have to do with my question?
I don't know what cosmology has to do with this. But cosmologists are even less likely than most scientists to believe in a god (just beat out by biologists, according to Pew Research). And remember that scientists in general are less likely to believe in a god than people who know little or nothing about science.
Either way, "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it" - not for _any_ god, let alone a particular one.
_"Theism, or even deism, just makes more sense."_
Again, why? Just because you were taught to believe in a god as a child? Because you really, really _want_ it to be true? Do you have anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs?
Holy crap, the smugness of the guy! "That's god and that's god and that's god..."
No, dude, that's what you are trying to atribute to a god. What you are trying to justify it with. Or, more precisely, to justify your belief in it.
?
@@mr.rainbowphd2209 I only stutter when I speak. 😊
THEIST here, my teacher in highschool said that God can't be all powerful because he couldn't make a pizza that he couldnt eat. If he could, he won't be all powerful because the pizza was more powerful than him. If he couldn't he wasn't all powerful because he couldn't. This contraction lead to his denial of the power of God but not of a higher power. For context my teacher believed in a sort of love/struggle view of the world that draws on some Eastern ideas (need to transend). I still haven't found the answer to this riddle but have full faith in the power of God.
The riddle is called the omnipotence paradox. Basically, the answer is that the riddle is nonsense. God being all-powerful does not include doing what is a logical contradiction. God cannot make a married bachelor or a square circle. They are logical contradictions, nonsense, gibberish. A pizza that God can't eat or a rock so heavy that God couldn't lift it are also logical contradictions, nonsense, gibberish. God can't make those either. You might want to look it up yourself for a more thorough explanation. Good for you for not falling for this kind of silliness and keeping the faith!
I agree, I always thought that the pizza question was easily answered with the fact of existence. God created order and is outside of it, anything that we would have God do in reality that contradicts God is wrong. "Well if Gods exists why isn't he this way?" The line of reasoning never made sense to me but as a highschooler it took me for a spin.
Also the funny part about us observing the natural world is that the more we do so, the more we realize God's existence because of the improbability of our existence.
That is an irrational position. Your teacher might as well have argued that since God can't make a married bachelor therefore he can't exist.
It's not a nonsense question because I can make a pizza so big that I can't eat it. If I can do it, is not nonsense. It's also a reasonable question then to ask why I can do something that an imnipotent being cannot.
It's a pretty logical question. I can make a pizza so large I can't eat it. Humans can make building so large that we can't lift it.
Christ the Eternal Tao is an excellent relevant resource for anyone wondering how truths from the east can be used to describe the Logos
Dr. Alex Plato is so smart i think he might even be smarter than Doc from Back to the Future.
Great Scott!!!
I wouldn't know about that, but I think they have the same tailor.
Atheist here, this wasn’t convincing at all. All he did was try to shift the burden of proof even though he’s the one making a claim. You’re claiming love is God, or beauty is God. Those are claims you need to justify. Saying atheists believe in Truth and a highest good is just plain false too. I don’t think those are real and absolute. Very disingenuous and disappointing. Atheism is just saying “theists haven’t convinced me so I reject their claim”. It’s not a claim on its own. It’s the null hypothesis.
I believe that there is an ultimate truth, but i dont define it as a god. Idk what that Dr is talking about to be honest
@@skullo5557 what do you mean by “ultimate truth” ? It sounds like very vague flowery language. As in, it sounds like it’s deep and profound, but really just meaningless. Not trying to offend; I’m just not sure what you mean. I believe there is an accurate account of reality, but a “Truth”, I feel like I’ve never heard a good definition of that.
@@brandondefalco8843 i mean accurate account of reality, particularly answering where or how the universe is this way
This is a 3-4 minute video. Of course he can’t fully spell it all out here. But we got thinkers like Aquinas and Augustine, or even look into his full interview. There are plenty of places to look if you are willing to see these ideas fleshed out more. It’s all contingent on how willing you are to explore
As an atheist (former seminarian for 4 years) my biggest problem with taking these concepts and using them as proof of God (Love, Justice, etc) gives. the false impression that one has proven God (to a certain extent). The Christian God is a God that interacts with the world (theist), yet most if not all arguments in favor of proving God's existence merely seem to focus on proving a deist notion of God. I do agree that some arguments to prove God are very convincing, but that is if you want to prove a deist God that was only that first cause and doesn't interact with the world (let alone, humans). To go from deism to theism requires a lot (and I mean a LOT) of philosophical and scientific scrutiny and education and I have not seen a single theist do so in a satisfactory way. Why am I still an atheist and not a deist if I can agree with some deist postulates? Occam's razor.
But I'd love to see someone guiding me from atheism to deism and then to theism (and their specific religion). When I see that, I'll gladly accept it.
The evidence of miracles is pretty overwhelming. The evidence of out-of-body experiences where a flat-lined person perceives things they could not possibly guess at and which are verified by outside observers is pretty overwhelming.
Growing up, the transition of God from theistic to deistic seemed odd to me. I didn't know the terminology at the time of course.
@@stymiedagain Are they though? I've looked into a lot of them, and they never seem to be anything more than mundane in their explanations.
@@stymiedagain
_The evidence of out-of-body experiences where a flat-lined person perceives things they could not possibly guess at and which are verified by outside observers is pretty overwhelming._
You're talking about stories you heard? And you believed those stories because they seemed to back up what you already believe (probably because that's what you were taught to believe as a child) and what you really, really _want_ to be true?
Or did you actually investigate one of those stories in detail? Did you actually find good evidence that the story was _true?_ Theists love to share stories like that. But stories aren't always true. That's why I'm skeptical of such vague claims.
thats funny cause Occam's razor was created by a Catholic theologian who was a franciscan friar
I don’t think you understand atheists at all. Believing in a moral system or love itself does not mean you believe there is a higher being in existence in the universe. It can just mean you think people should treat eachother well to make a better society. It’s really as simple as that for people who aren’t theists.
As a catholic, I find the least bad arguments for atheism are the ones proposed by Von Feuerbach. He’s still wrong, but he’s subtler than most.
Really? I've never heard of Von Feuerbach, but I'm 70 years old, and I've been an atheist as long as I can remember. I'm an atheist because I've never seen/heard even *one* piece of good evidence that a god is real, rather than just imaginary - _any_ god, let alone a particular one.
Do _you_ have anything? Just *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, or maybe *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened? Just *one?*
After all, _every_ religion makes claims. That's because claims are easy. And typically, _which_ religion's claims you believe depends on which one you were taught to believe as a child.
When I was a kid, _everyone_ I knew was Christian. And they all seemed to believe it because that's what they were taught to believe as a child, and they really, really _wanted_ it to be true. There's a reason why 83% of Italians are Christian, while 90% of Egyptians are Muslim and 80% of Indians are Hindu.
_Every_ religion has claims, and _every_ religion has excuses. But *one piece of good evidence?* Not that I've seen, so far. And I can't - _can't,_ not won't - believe this stuff when you have _nothing_ distinguishable from delusion and wishful-thinking.
@@Bill_Garthright In 70 years no one ever told you that faith is based on... FAITH? And not on scientific evidence?
@@tomlabooks3263
Just wishful-thinking, then? OK. Wishful-thinking isn't enough for me. If it's enough for you, that's your business, I guess.
But faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world, so to me, this stuff _matters._ To me, the truth of our beliefs _matters._
@@Bill_Garthright Bill, that thing that is putting your country and your world at risk is not faith-based thinking, it’s ignorance. You country (I’m Italian, different set of country problems) has a catastrophic education system, and if you add that to how the media have been using that ignorance to make everyone even more ignorant, THERE you have a major risk. It is ignorant people, faith-based OR NOT, who hurt democracy.
@@tomlabooks3263
_that thing that is putting your country and your world at risk is not faith-based thinking, it’s ignorance._
In America (I can't talk about Italy, though I loved visiting your country... 50 years ago), ignorance certainly plays a big part. But it's often _willful_ ignorance. It's very definitely faith-based, rather than evidence-based thinking.
Evidence simply doesn't matter to the faith-based. What matters is what they _want_ to be true. Now, sure, not every Christian is a right-wing crazy. And nearly all Christians accept evidence if it doesn't seem to conflict with their religious beliefs. Most Christians _are_ rational.
But nearly every right-wing crazy in America is Christian. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, either. But the people blowing themselves up - and innocent people, too - _are_ Muslim. They're open about their religious motives.
It's the same here in America. The Christian Taliban is open about its religious motives. The media don't like to mention it, because America is overwhelmingly Christian. That's their customer base.
And - just as you'd expect with faith-based thinking - Christians are nearly always on _both_ sides of every issue. But the fundamental problem _is_ faith-based thinking, I'd say.
PS. Re. ignorance, right-wing Christians in America openly oppose education. They urge other Christians not to send their kids to college - not unless it's a Christian school which won't teach anything they don't already believe, at least. They attack schools at every level. Ignorance is the _goal._ "I love the poorly educated" was _popular_ with Trump supporters.
When I first clicked on this vid I, expected to find something at least vaguely intellectually stimulating. How disappointed I was. I really don't mean to be disrepectful but the way he just conflates definitions, redefines words to mean things that they obviously don't, is simply nausiating.
Truth = In accordance with fact or reality/something which persists whether you believe it or not.
Beauty = Aestheticly pleasing
God = Concious Powerful entity/person, possibly omnipotent, omnipresent etc
Eg Yahweh, Thor, Posidon etc
God (Of the Bible) =
-Concious Powerful entity/person
- Definatly omnipotent
- Omnipresent
- All knowing
- Jealous (according to the Bible) Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:14
- Dictator of the universe
- Final authority on everything
- Cares about whether or not you masturbate
- Sacificed himself (jesus) to himself (The father) in order to save us from himself (The spirit) John 3:16 (because apparantly he was incapable of just forgiving us for our sins verbally, he was a slave to his own made up rules) Romans 6:23
- Murders Children in his free time (seriously) 2nd Kings 2: 24
- Intends on roasting most of us alive because, why not? Matthew 7:13-14
These words are distinct and separate concepts whether God is real or not and are not interchangable. Please don't take this wishy washy nonsense seriously. Please don't be fooled by the suits, ties and high production value, this is up there with the weakest arguments for God I have ever heard (and I've heard some weak arguments). If this man doesn't make your B.S-ometer ring even just a little bit, then I don't know what will. Oprah Winfrey literally made the same weak argument many years ago. A sharp 8 Year old could literally see the flaws in this argument.
There is a reason why there are over 40,000 different denominations of christianity and that reason is: the bible isn't a well written or defined document. It's literally (and I mean literally literally) the most overrated book of all time. I Understand life can be depressing/harsh and scary for some, and thus people turn to religious for a sense of purpose and meaning, but there are much more rational and meaningful ways to live a truthful, fufilling existance without believing in self contraditing paradoxical, sometimes sinister fairy tales.
Care for your fellow man and woman, love yourself, find like minded trust worthy people, take personal ownership of the problems in your own life, distance yourself from toxic people, place: logic, reason, compassion, love, science, rationality, empathy, discernment, disipline, pleasure as your highest values,
be strong and get on with your life
Peace
www(Dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=vKgDDglSq2s
After listening to your story about the Chinese student, I wonder why you think it’s so important for her to change her understanding and relationship with a being she has been in harmony with all her life? What makes Aristotles desire to worship “perfection" the right response? For instance if my kid thought I was the best dad ever, worship would be the last thing I expect. I assume that in time when my child reaches adulthood that he will model himself after me. But worship.......I don’t see it.
One thing I often find when discussing these issues with atheists is that they have difficulty in recognizing any a priori, or presuppositions, truths that they hold. I am speaking with one currently and he maintains that one can observe such things as, say, intentionality (which I continue to remind him is a phenomenon that comes out of the existentialist/phenomenology tradition of philosophy which is a reaction against materialism/naturalism/physicalism reductionism). I suppose the biggest hurdle for me is to 'prove' to an atheist that not all thinking or logical deliberation is done by observational science. That there are epistemic presuppositions that we all must have to even make sense of empirical phenomena that are not within the purview of empirical experience (save through some phenomenological perspective which is not a scientific observation but an existential/phenomenological one). Does that make sense? Most atheists I have encountered struggle with religious language because they treat it like scientific language and yet refuse to believe that they themselves use non-scientific epistemic strategies to understand the world.
I put the blame for that problem on the way modern science is taught. There's never any mention of epistemology, it's just all implied. So people are never asked to consider epistemology and are led to believe they are above those discussions.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Without a lens, one cannot contextualize what they are perceiving. Not a priori as in something one is born with per se. Rather, a developed worldview which directs the tenor of one's assessment of reality.
@@sentjojo Agreed
Robert Henry: Wrapping up beliefs in unfounded claims is not helpful. Do you have good, credible evidence for the existence of a "God"? No, I dare say you do not. In which case, why believe a "God" exists?
If you have been led to believe that "arguments" based in the philosophy of religion are "evidence", that is your problem. They are not.
Just a little digression from the mention of Aristotle at the end of this about Bartolome de las Casas. During his debate with Bishop Juan de Quevedo before the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V/King of Spain Charles I regarding treatment of the indigenous peoples of New Spain he responded to Quevedo's argument that Indians were "slaves by nature" as described by Aristotle by saying that since Aristotle was a nonbeliever he was presumably in hell and his teachings should provide no ground for such argument. I'm inclined to put this retort in the category of a swift riposte rather than an expression of any deeply held belief of the Dominican de las Casas. Las Casas is on the path to beautification by the Church, but it is fair to acknowledge that he had a temper when provoked.
i would like to read the original transcript of that conversation, because in spanish there are atleast two words that can be translated to slave, but one in particular "ciervo or siervo" is usually used as "servant of god" but can be translated as slave, the other word is "esclavo" and haves the same root from slave. That is why i would like to know which word was used.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:01 🤔 Fundamental questions about meaning and existence often lead to discussions about God's existence in philosophy.
00:43 🧐 Challenging atheists: People who deny God's existence might still believe in higher ideals like truth, goodness, and beauty, which can be considered attributes of God.
01:11 🌌 Different levels of belief in God: Some individuals may not accept the concept of a personal creator God but still adhere to abstract, transcendent principles.
02:20 💕 Seeking understanding: The process of contemplating and respecting the concept of God can lead to a deeper appreciation and recognition of truth and love.
03:03 🤔 Living with respect for God: Regardless of one's beliefs about God's nature, considering how to live in accordance with a higher power's principles can influence personal conduct and values.
Made with HARPA AI
So easy to turn these comments on their head and say 'This God you say you believe in is really The Highest Good (or whatever) dressed up in theological language'. What's sauce for the goose ...
It's actually very easy to be an atheist.
Functionally sure, not going to church or doing the typical things a religious person does(although there can be a debate about that too). But if someone believes in justice, goodness and beauty, the theist would recognize those qualities to be of God.
I think in modern day when we argue about the existence of God both sides in away do it presuppositional(I think I said that right). Meaning they both start out with an idea of God and argue either for or against that. Lot of issues with this, the biggest being, it seems that most theists and atheists start with a different definitions. This causes them to talk past each other
@@CedanyTheAlaskan Associating qualities with a deity doesn't seem to be a compelling proof that said deity actually exists.
@@CedanyTheAlaskan
_But if someone believes in justice, goodness and beauty, the theist would recognize those qualities to be of God._
Clearly, you must not be a Christian. I mean, have you _read_ the Bible? Justice, goodness, and beauty? Hardly!
It really is quite easy. All you have to do is live in darkness and be a materialist degenerate
@@RealAugustusAutumn If you're just going to strawman it's hard to give a toss what you think.
It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who thinks this way. If someone says they don’t believe in God, take their word for it.
Yes. They chose not to accept his existence (conciously or not)
"they think theres a highest good"
---WHO is he referring to exactly? .. Im an atheist and I dont believe there is a "highest good" .... I dont even know what "highest good" is supposed to mean
"they think theres a truth"
.... I think there are many truths... it depends on what we are specifically talking about.... for one to say "they think theres a truth" in reference to atheists, i think its a bit dishonest to present such a blanket statement, especially when the assertion "they think theres a truth" is so ridiculously vague, and doubly when the guy claims this vague "truth" is "god" .......... I dont like this guys vague blankets he is presenting here so far...
"they think theres beauty that transcends"
... transcends what? how? which atheists said that? did they elaborate? if so why did this guy not present those elaborations? and why didnt he explain HOW "god" is "beauty that transcends" ????? again, assertions based on vague assertions and all without any nuance or substance... just straw manning and unsupported assertions about "god"
"i dont believe you that you dont believe in god"
...well, I dont believe that this guy is a christian.... i say this guy is actually a muslim, and only pretending to be a christian....
What i just did, was an example of how remarks stifle any chance of a productive discussion between a theist and an atheist
"i didnt convince her... but to me, she has that... she realizes that being, she needs to respect"
....so this guy says that he didnt convince her of a being, but then says that she realized she needs to respect this being.... this being that he just said he failed to convince her even exists..... again, this goes right along with this guys theme of "people belueve what i believe even if they dont say they believe it and even if they flat out say they dont believe it"
"she is worshipping it in a certain way"
....no she is not worshipping it in a certain way, or any way at all, since he just said he failed to convince her of its existence in the first place...
"thats the highest thing there is in the universe"
im sorry, but this guy has absolutely no clue what is or is not the "highest thing there is in the universe"
how arrogant does someone have to be, to make a claim that clearly implies that they know everything there is to know about the entire universe????????
Im an openminded atheist willing to believe in things which i do not yet believe...however, this video is a great example of why its EASY to NOT accept theists claims about a god
but please note that the rejection of a claim about a god, does NOT equate to a claim that a god does not exist...
Lastly, dont try to claim to know what someone else believes or doesnt believe... we are all humans here, and nobody as far as i can see has demonstrated that they have the ability to read other peoples minds or knows how to prove whether or not someone believes something that they claim they do not believe...
When a theist does something like that, like this guy in the video did, I start to think that person is disingenuous or a flat out charlatan, or the very least insincere or having a lack of confidence in their own ability to prove their beliefs to non believers
Anyone interested in discussing this honetly and maturely, Im open to it! Peace!! :)
@@mike-cc3dd
You can be agnostic but nor atheist those days when even science proving existence of God
What science has proven the existence of God?
@@grosenj recommended YT Eric Metaxas"IsAtheism dead"
Lol, except that science has done no such thing. You are referring to someone misrepresenting and twisting science in order to pretend it has said something about God's existence.
@@dorasnop7771
Like most of us, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't claim that gods _don't_ exist. After all, any invisible, immaterial, magical being would be the all-time world champion at hide-and-seek.
But no, science hasn't proved the existence of God. I'm sorry, but that's just silly. I would recommend not believing Christian apologists on TH-cam - even when they say stuff you really, really _want_ to be true - without at least checking contrary views. (I might recommend Paulogia or Viced Rhino, though there are lots of good - and, unfortunately, some bad - atheist channels on TH-cam.)
I've heard Eric Metaxas. He was so unconvincing that I don't even remember what his argument was. I do remember that it seemed silly to me. Of course, I didn't really, really _want_ it to be true. (I want to believe true things, of course, but I need to have evidence that they're true _before_ I can believe them.)
@@timeshark8727 Look around at creation
at perfect laws, ratios that govern all..
then look deep inside yourself....grasp that you are meant for more ...if not then wow!
Wishing you that kind experience that at least make you wonder...
Many misrepresenting God-people can hold God only on their own level..
Einstein believed in God...
I'd say the least bad argument for theism is the hypothesis that a god or gods are responsible for creation. But theists need to grasp this: _belief_ in the _existence_ of a god or gods can be justified with argument but once you reveal beliefs about the _personality_ of your gods, you no longer qualify as a _believer_ but have advanced to _affirmer_ and _proof required!_ It's totally illogical to say "I don't _know_ if (insert god) exists but I believe it's a male and is good and jealous and likes (X) and dislikes (Y). That's like saying: "I don't know if an 8'6" tall woman exists but I believe she's a good person who likes opera and dislikes cheese." Without knowledge, the beliefs are just idle speculation. So remember: when theists start talking about what their gods want or like/dislike or love/hate, they're in Affirmer Town and proof may be demanded of them. If they can't provide that proof (and they can't), then call them out for their arrogant claim! Tell them to put up or shut up!
The proof is the revelation given to us through scripture and sacred tradition. We have centuries of Jewish and Christian witness testimony to what God has done and revealed about himself.
So yes, it is belief in that testimony that is proof of the nature of God. That testimony can be evaluated like any witness making any claim, but it is valid to say I know something because a witness to the event told me. I wouldn't know my own birth date if my Mom had not told me
As I've evolved in my beliefs, I've come to understand that God doesn't have to be conceived of as a person, because that sort of definition would simply be beyond my ability to conceive of what a person is, so it doesn't, and never did, help me to believe in the idea in that way. But I do like this concept of God as the superlative, highest good, uncaused cause, etc. I've come to see Jesus as merely the human manifestation of something that is incomprehensible. I don't believe in God, yet I do. I don't really believe, I have, as was said in the movie 'Dogma', a good idea of the Divine. But I look at grasping for a concretization of this idea as the thing that ultimately kills the beautiful thing. A human soul is not a thing, it is a process, and so is the rest of life. If we are fearfully tied to dogma, our souls will inevitably wither, because dogmas protect our egos and our worldly status. If our human identities are based in childlike wonder and simplicity, then we will be happy...and I think some things that Jesus is quoted to have said will back me up on that point.
How is believing Catholic dogma protecting ego or status?
@@aclark903 I didn't specifically mean 'Catholic dogma', and I don't perhaps mean ego and status in the way that you are taking it to mean (as some kind of way to offend). However dogma, in general, is something that gratifies the sense of permanence that we have in the current state of our lives, whereas in reality, there is much less that we have to be certain of. It's my personal belief that we are better off in accepting that we probably know less than we think we do, and that there is a certain futility in our struggle to define things and have them mapped out. I have largely given up this sort of metaphysical struggling as I think it's futile. But I wasn't implying anything negative or judgmental about a particular religion. Just describing my personal evolution.
@@billbirkett7166 So you know less than you think you do? I agree.
@@aclark903 Lol why are you seemingly wanting to pick a fight with me about what I wrote? It is not nearly as offensive as you are making it out to be, though I am assuming you are looking to be offended. That's okay I suppose given the age we live in. You should read the entirety of what I wrote, not nit-pick it in order to make jabs at me. I had no intention to offend your Catholic sensibilities. What I do find hard to deal with, however, is that every time you write something that a Catholic disagrees with, Catholics need to call it 'heresy X' or 'heresy Y'. Instead of just, 'this is an idea I disagree with and here is why.'
@@billbirkett7166 I'm not Catholic, Bill.
There are many miracles which you can point to, visions, saints, NDEs. If people look hard enough it can only be explained by God.
1. Fatima miracle
2. Christ resurrection.
3. Padre Pio (recent saint of our time)
4. Our Lady of Medjugorje
5. Our Lady of Guadalupe (Spain and Mexico)
6. Our Lady of Las Lajas. Amazing miracle
Putting Medjugorje and the supposed resurrection on this list serves to decrease the credibility of all the others.
@@mike-cc3dd On the grounds that it's an extremely unlikely claim that isn't substantiated well enough for people to believe it purely based on the historical evidence.
_There are many miracles which you can point to_
Sure. But can you demonstrate that _any_ of them actually happened? Or are we just supposed to believe vague claims?
Interesting....he's doing the flip flop of most atheists/agnostics I know.
I know very few that would take much care in a values argument to persuade them of the existence of God. Most still care about scientific arguments.
Values and morality is usually a popular reason for rejecting Christianity. Most of the friends that I have that reject Christianity, but still hold there is a higher being, are ok with a god, or at least a first cause, but not the Christian God.
I think some atheists would be ok with the existence of God....if He was the way they want Him to be.
@@adrianaelena2669 I mean, I'm an atheist and I'm fine with the existence of any number of deistic gods on a conceptual level... I just don't have any reason to believe they exist. Heck, even gods like the Greek or Nordic pantheons would be far better than the God of the bible in terms of logical possibility and palatability.
Monotheism runs into a problem when it tries to make its God all things, but then also limit it to favorable traits. For Christianity it leads to the problem of evil, as an easy example. Those impossibilities are not found in either deistic ideas of god where it made the universe then stopped or pantheons where different gods do different things.
The bible being a horrible book that supports slavery, women as property and/or less than men, genocide, ect, doesn't help though. Neither do the many Christian priests that have been found molesting children.
@@timeshark8727 I understand.
And yeah, I'm a christian, I see your problems with the biblical God and I will not make a novel here defending or explaining you those things because I am young and not experienced in this field.
You gave me an insight about how some atheist see the situation tho, thank you.
@@adrianaelena2669
I've been an atheist since I was a child (as long as I can remember), even though I was raised Christian (nominally, at least). All the time I grew up, I never met anyone who wasn't a Christian - not as far as I knew). And I'm 70 years old, so that was long before the internet. In America, Christianity was just the default.
I don't know why I was different. But everyone I knew only seemed to believe it because that's what they were taught to believe as a child and they really, really _wanted_ it to be true. Heck, almost none of them had even read the Bible! They didn't even know what was in it. (Of course, back then, I hadn't read it, either.)
My point is just that "if He was the way they want Him to be" doesn't fit me at all. I've just never seen even *one* piece of good evidence that your god - or any god - is actually real, rather than just imaginary.
When I was a kid, it wouldn't have taken _much_ evidence. After all, I clearly remember believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. But it would have taken _something._ Today, my standards are higher. (I no longer believe in Santa Claus. Heh, heh.) But I still haven't seen anything but vague claims.
I ask Christians for *one piece of good evidence* that their god is real, rather than just imaginary. Or *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. It's extremely rare that a Christian even tries to present anything specific. Even pastors immediately run away when I ask that. (Online, I mean. None of my Christian friends want to talk about religion, so we don't.)
Christian apologists tend to be convincing only to people who already believe this stuff, just like how Muslim apologists are only convincing to people who are already Muslim - almost always because that's the religion _they_ were taught to believe as a child. If you look at it critically and get specific, rather than vague, there doesn't seem to be anything there.
When I was a kid, I didn't know about any of the truly disgusting stuff in the Bible. I didn't have a problem with church. I kind of enjoyed the group singing. I didn't have any bad experiences. Indeed, for much of my life, I thought that religion was kind of silly, but harmless.
Of course, I've changed my mind about that now! These days, faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world. It is clearly _far_ from harmless. But my point is just to point out how "if He was the way they want Him to be" really doesn't apply to me at all.
PS. As a kid, I was really fond of ancient Greek and Roman mythology. Of course, it was called "mythology," but it was really just religion - a religion that people no longer believed. I knew that. And I knew that there were many other religions in the world, even if no one I knew believed in any of them. I was always a big reader. I knew that there _were_ people - lots of people - who believed in those religions just as much as my friends and neighbors believed in Christianity.
So, why were _Christians_ right? As far as I can tell, Christians have nothing more than any other theist. I talk to Muslims on TH-cam, and they have nothing, either. Rather, all religions have arguments. But they don't seem to have _anything_ distinguishable from wishful-thinking. They don't seem to have even *one* piece of good evidence.
@@Bill_Garthright I know atheists are of many types. I said that"some of them" not all.
And about evidences, I think that apologists may rarely bring proof to convince someone about the existence of God. That's why when I was in doubt I stopped listening to christian apologists too, because I was more confused after I was seeing the points atheists made. I asked God myself and got my answer. Judge as long as you wish, you may say that what I did was irrational, I was delusional etc. But that's it. It doesn't mean I am immature or less intelligent than other people.
I still like to study the stance of atheists too, because they have good point that make me look in other way at life.
We all have different life philosophies.
Now it depends what kind piece of evidence you search...
I am young and not experienced yet to show any kind of proof that an atheist might consider "worthy" so I usually do not try to refute arguments.
There is no end to the sleight of hand tricks that the religious philosophers try to pull.
Sorry but no, the burden is on the person making the claim not the other way around. If I say the greatest being is a futon and challenge someone else to prove it, I still haven't proved that the divine futon actually exists, nor does it prove that that futon is same one listed in the holy books that make claims, morals, ethics on it.
Actually, it's super easy, barely an inconvenience .
So atheists can’t deny god exists because you can call anything you want “God”? Pretty vacuous and disingenuous.
He's not arguing that anything can be God, he's arguing that to be Atheist you would have to deny things such as a greater good, objective truth, and overall meaning to existence since these all logically imply some kind of creator. Not necessarily that the creator is a personal God
@@sentjojo A "greater good" is and had typically been a subjective thing. And "overall meaning to existence" is a weird concept that doesn't truly make sense or seem like a requirement outside religious context.
As for "objective truth", objective according to who? If God, who's understanding of God?
@@Sho-td8wg you're proving the point here.
Greater good is an offshoot of objective truth. Something is objectively true if it is true no matter whose perspective is considered. It is true regardless of opinion. I would argue that because we can logically prove things, it implies that there is an objective truth to reality. I believe that there are things that are true that don't require humans to understand it to be true. Greater good means that there are things that are objectively better for humans than others, with something being greater than all the others, the greatest good. And the purpose of humanity is to know that greatest good.
I understand that you disagree, but your disagreement begins at not believing in objective truth.
@@sentjojo it's not so much that I deny objective truth, but rather we humans hold differing views and definitions of it. So much so that it effectively becomes subjective.
I'm suggesting it works as a philosophical concept but is practically used in ways that make it subject to the person or denomination's definition.
@@Sho-td8wg here I can agree. Human understanding of truth will always be flawed and in practice subjective. But logically, I do believe that there is an objective truth to reality and we can aspire to learn about it.
The Christian perspective is that God is the source of objective truth, and we can only hope to understand that truth through revelation, God revealing the truth to us. I don't think it makes sense for there to be an objective truth and also believe that there isn't some type of God, creator, or higher power behind that truth
Mattew 24:36
36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows,neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.
Mattew 23:8-10
8 But be not ye called teachers. for one is your Teacher, even Christ. 9 You are all brothers. And call no man father upon the earth. for one is Father, which is in heaven.10 And be not ye called masters. for one is your Master, even Christ....
“YOU must not let people call you ‘leaders’-you have only one leader, Christ!” (Matthew 23:10, The New Testament) With these words, Jesus made it plain to his followers that no man on earth would be their leader. Their one Leader would be heavenly-Jesus Christ himself. Jesus holds this position by divine appointment..
Jehovah “raised him up from the dead and . . . made him head over all things to the congregation, which is his body.”-Ephesians 1:20-23.
2 Since Christ is “head over all things” with regard to the Christian congregation, he exercises his authority over all that takes place within the congregation. Nothing that occurs within the congregation escapes his notice. He closely observes the spiritual condition of each group of Christians, or congregation. This is clearly apparent in the revelation given to the apostle John at the end of the first century C.E. To seven congregations, Jesus stated five times that he knew their deeds, their strong points, and their weaknesses, and he gave counsel and encouragement accordingly. (Revelation 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1,8,15,17) There is every reason to believe that Christ was equally familiar with the spiritual condition of other congregations in Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Babylonia, Greece, Italy, and elsewhere. (Acts 1:8) What of today?
th-cam.com/video/VuFTrWsp3XQ/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/y4KDwhNqYa4/w-d-xo.html
I've never found it difficult to be an Atheist. The ever-growing list of horrible theistic arguments like the ones presented here make it easy to maintain my non-belief.
No offense, but an atheist could easily argue from the counter. "So you believe in God, you are actually an atheist, you just aren't at that level of atheism yet." The problem here lies in the fallacy of the argument from two different epistemologies. I'm a devout Catholic, but I have to point out error in logic where I see it. But then again, Quid est veritas.
I don't think pure relativists would find these arguments persuasive unfortunately.
Would a relativist find anything persuasive?
@@sentjojo by their very nature, no.
Who is that smiley guy
The question to be asked is "Why should God believe in YOU?"
huh ?
@@23STEVO23
It really is a simple question demanding and deserving to be asked, and answered, when beginning with the creation of man, his "fall" in Eden, and then what is nothing more than the rest of not simply recorded history in the Bible but also to include the stuff of all recorded human history and it is to flip the coin over from the discussion of Jews and Gentiles, the saved the unsaved, i.e., salvation in terms of the collective and place the focus on...the individual.
You'll figure it out.
If you are referring to God from the bible, then belief wouldn't be any sort of factor. The God of the bible wouldn't "believe" anything, it would "Know" with absolute certainty. If you have complete knowledge, belief isn't a thing you can have.
@@timeshark8727
Yes, referencing the God from the Bible and now...only for the sake of discussion, not to start a theological war...that would mean that what is generally called "Calvanism" would be correct in its theological conclusions about God, man...yes, that whole story.
(But even then that simply changes the context of my original question. Instead of "Why" the problem then becomes "How". How...can a person know, be certain, i.e., have the faith...that God believes in him...personally?)
Again, just asking a question because there ain't anything new or exciting you or I could add to that old discussion, now it it?
Timeshark, stay safe and be well.
@@timeshark8727 well said
Hard? I find it not difficult at all. I don't think there is a highest good, all value judgements are dependent on the the person making such assessments. I find the term truth troublesome, I think there is reality and there there is the simulacrum of reality we construct in our head about reality, and how much the patterns we perceive actually represent the structures of reality is what we call truth, but that also makes truth only something related to our capabilities of perception. Beauty also just lies in the eye of the beholder and is not an intrinsic property of anything. So, nothing of those things is more than fiction, and somehow I don't think that my assessment of deities as mere fiction would satisfy the guy in the video.
There is no right or wrong just thinking that makes is so?
@@andrewyoung4483 No, just thinking doesn't do anything either. But looking at how right and wrong changes depended on if it is about something that happens to the ingroup or outgroup, it because very obvious that it is very much a social construct. Luckily we are getting better as a species to recognise human rights, thus extending the ingroup to everyone of our species and with animal rights even beyond that.
@@Drudenfusz you wrote "no" to disagree with my statement. Then proceed to give a very telling diatribe to further your belief . If you spend a little more time thinking about what you are saying /thinking you might see how you full of it you really are.
@@andrewyoung4483 Sure, Think about how it works, but it works not because of my thinking. Society existed long before I was born, the social contract existed long before anyone named it such. The only one full o themselves here seems to be you, not me. Thanks for wasting my time, guess you are definitely not one of the people I was talking about as being capable to recognise the humanity in others.
@@Drudenfusz and you are triggered for 1000.
Seems like a bad semantics argument akin to false equivalence. If someone doesn't believe in a concept, he will expand and redefine the definition of said concept to incorporate any random belief someone may have. Then after conflating the two concepts through a new definition, he will impose the rules of the original definition from the first concept onto the second concept.
Let's paraphrase this wishwambu: "God is a feeling, not a being, and if you narrow your perception to what is beautiful and ignore the ugly and tragic, you will feel God."
@@Unclenate1000 The vast, Vast, VAST majority of the universe is deadly to us. Yet is was designed for us?
Great points.
How will we respond to the available light?
The least bad argument for atheism is infinite regression or at least regression beyond the Christian God.
Tao is pronounced "Dow," not "Tow"
Commenting for the Al Gore rhythm!!! ✝️✝️✝️
Something I read recently is a difference between the Hebrew conception of truth and the Greek concept. In many respects, we today think like the Greeks in that truth is a thing or an idea. Truth is a what. The Hebrews on the whole saw truth as a Who. The fact that we got the bible from the Hebrews and not from the Greeks is telling to me.
_In many respects, we today think like the Greeks in that truth is a thing or an idea. Truth is a what. The Hebrews on the whole saw truth as a Who._
I don't see that at all, myself. (I'm an atheist, so maybe I don't see this as most people do?)
I think that things are "true" to the extent that they match up to reality. We call it the "truth," when a statement matches up to reality to whatever degree of precision we require.
For example, "the Earth is a sphere" is the truth, though it's just a rough approximation. It's _more_ true to say that "the Earth is an oblate spheroid," meaning that that description is more precise. But the Earth is still not _exactly_ an oblate spheroid, of course. Both descriptions are the truth, just to different degrees of precision.
The idea that truth is a "thing" doesn't make any sense to me. Certainly, the idea that truth is a _"who"_ makes no sense. How in the world could _that_ make sense, whether you believe in a god or you don't? But the truth _is_ a concept, so yeah, it's an idea. It might be considered an idea like a circle is an idea.
We can make a circle as precise as we want, as close to a perfect circle as we want, but it will never be _exact._ Likewise, we can probably indicate reality as precisely as we want, without being able to describe it _exactly,_ don't you think? It would still be the "truth," just like you might draw a "circle." It's just a matter of how much precision you require.
@@Bill_Garthright Interesting to get your take on this. I'm not sure we actually disagree; it seems to me we are using different language to describe the same thing.
The crux of what I was saying is the people who wrote the text of the Bible saw truth different than we tend to see it today, in that they more readily personified truth in the form of deity. If you are an atheist I can certainly see that being a foreign concept , but to be honest even a lot of us theists still think this way. Am I making sense?
@@alexwatson7068
Well, I'm certain that people two thousand years ago, people with a natural explanation of almost _nothing,_ looked at the world differently than I do, someone with the advantage of such incredible scientific discoveries in recent centuries. And - obviously - they wouldn't have been speaking English, so "truth" isn't the word they would have used anyway, huh?
So I'm absolutely on board with that part of your argument. They undoubtedly _did_ see things very differently than even most theists of today, let alone than an atheist (me, to be precise). And I'm not sure I really _could_ understand that mindset. Heck, I don't even know what word they used that you're translating as "truth."
That said,... I'm not sure if I can trust that _you_ know how they saw "truth," either. I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm just saying that it's probably hard for _you_ to put yourself in their mindset, too, right? Can _any_ of us actually do that?
Of course, as you point out, I've had modern Christians tell me that "God is truth." I've had it argued to me - well, more a claim than an argument, since they never wanted to actually _talk_ to an atheist about these things - that we can't have truth without God.
Those people _are_ using the same word that I use, and they live in the same society that I do. And yet I _still_ don't understand them. So maybe it's not entirely a matter of being two thousand years in the future? Heh, heh.
To me, the "truth" is just the extent to which a statement, a claim, matches up to reality. I really don't see _how_ you could personify that. It's a concept, not a person. But I find that I often struggle to understand theists. And they probably struggle to understand me, too. :)
Thanks for the reply!
@@Bill_Garthright Interesting to get your take on this.
We can know what ancient Hebrews thought about things simply because they wrote it down. Consider the Bible for a moment not as a text for a religion you don’t believe in but as one of the most complete windows into an ancient people that exist. That’s incredibly valuable even if you don’t believe there is a deity behind it.
Hebrews thought of their God as a parental and sovereign figure at once, whereas the Greeks saw their Gods as almost elemental, and almost certainly amoral. The Hebrew God is righteous and cares for the goings of people.
Zeus/Jupiter couldn’t care less about humans and can’t stop cheating on his wife with anything that breaths.
This Hebrews often saw truth the way we see fidelity. Covenants between themselves and their God were seen as supremely important, as they could be _true_ to their God and He in turn would be _true_ to them.
I’m not sure the Greeks saw truth having anything to do with their Gods.
Also I’m not convinced ancient peoples knew as little about the world and science as we thought they did (you ought to look up the Antikythera mechanism sometime if you’ve never heard of it). I think it’s more a matter of having different amount of data to work with. We only know so much because of the people who came before us. I feel indebted to them, actually. Just because they lived a long time ago doesn’t mean they were stupid (not that I’m accusing you of thinking that for a second, lots of people think that without realizing it though).
This is three and half minutes of straw manning atheism.
I knew a guy back in the USENET days who called his toaster oven a God. I could not disprove the existence of his toaster oven. But it is ridiculous to suppose that there's anything profound about that.
Theists laboring on again about what others believe/ don't believe..
Utter nonsense. 'Highest good' and 'beauty that transcends'? What does that even mean? They're just concepts that this guy's asserting without any basis that 'that's God'. Same with 'truth', depending on your definition. If any of them exists as more than just human-generated concepts, that has to be demonstrated, not just claimed.
The last thing you people need to be doing is telling atheists what they believe or how 'really hard' it is for us to believe something. It's insulting and does nothing to convince us. And _especially_ never go to the 'God has written Himself on our hearts' thing; all that does is prove to a non-believer that you're fundamentally wrong.
Do you believe that some things are more valuable (i.e. more good) than other things? And likewise, do you believe that some things are more beautiful than other things? This is where the 'highest good' and 'transcendent beauty' come from.
This isn't utter nonsense, this is literally Philosophy 101. Whether you believe in God or not, this is actually what philosophy is.
Now if you believe that such opinions are purely subjective, then there would be no such things as a 'highest good' or a 'transcendent beauty'. More often than not, atheists are fundamental materialists who believe that anything claimed must also be verifiably demonstrated. Theists on the other hand are fundamental idealists who believe that there are objective realities that exist above (or beyond) human consciousness and sense perception.
Although I find it amusing that many atheists believe that the Big Bang created the universe, and everything else astrophysics has taught them, without ever having experienced or having had it demonstrated to them in a way they could verify it. Basically taking it on faith that the theories must be true, because scientists are smart.
@@badmen1550 It's nonsense to say that just because something is 'really good' or 'really pretty', it therefore becomes god. As for the Big Bang, I think most people understand that what we've learned isn't necessarily the correct answer, but it's the model that best explains the facts that we've discovered about the universe. That's where theists keeps getting things wrong: there are facts that we can determine, and even if us laymen can't replicate those facts, the process of science means that the facts are constantly checked and verified. The conclusions reached through the examination of these facts are never going to be 100% certain to be true; the best they can do is create a model that ties them all together. You can mock the process all you want, but you're perfectly okay with the results in your day-to-day life. You drive cars, you use computers, you get treated for illnesses. It's only when it conflicts with your theological presuppositions that you start pushing back.
@@LaserShark123 No...that's what "God" actually MEANS. GOD = "the highest good", "the most transcendent beauty", etc. That's the definition of God. Just because your term for "God" is something else, like "the universe" or "The Unity", doesn't mean it isn't the same PRINCIPLE. That's what this video is about: the PRINCIPLE of "the highest good" IS "God". Do you understand? This is really basic philosophy stuff.
@@LaserShark123 Also, let me ask you this: How can a scientist discover an objective fact about the universe, when the scientist himself has a subjective viewpoint? Every experiment he performs will eventually be filtered through his own subjective experience.
@@badmen1550 No. You don't get to define God into existence. You don't get to say 'there is something that is the 'highest' good, and that's God'. If you can do that, then I get to say 'well, this invisible unicorn in my back pocket is an even greater good than God, and nothing you say can make your God a higher good than my unicorn'. You're not engaged in philosophy at this point, you're engaged in wish fulfillment. If your god is the highest good, you have to prove that this is the case, not just assert it without the slightest scrap of evidence.
And you're talking about the problem of solipsism, which is more of a problem for you than me. How can a theist possibly know anything about their God when anything they experience is by necessity interpreted by their fallible human brain? Scientists can base their observations on the shared experience of the universe we live in, and from those observations come up with testable, repeatable conclusions that, again, you're perfectly fine with as long as they don't step on your god's toes. Meanwhile, it seems like every single person has their own definition of God, as evidenced by the massive number of different religions and sects across the world and throughout history. If there's one true God, why is there absolutely no consensus like there is for science?
When you point blank ask to show proof God doesn’t exist, they deflect and say they don’t have to prove it. The burden of proof is on the person who believes only. What a joke
"I don't believe you that you don't believe in God"? Wow... So basically that guy is calling people liars when they say they don't believe? That's... embarrassing for him.
What is the situation here is that you have different definitions for deities, and you ignore the definition they use and force yours on them. But that makes no sense. You have to define the deity and then ask them whether they believe in that deity or not.
You can't just ask people "do you believe in the existence of a deity", and then whip out a pretty non-standard definition to call those peoples liars. It's like as if I'd ask you "do you believe that amoebas are highly intelligent", and you'd say "no", and I'd say "you are a liar, you believe that they are highly intelligent compared to rocks". Like wtf is this nonsense?
And what does that even mean "there is a truth - that's God". Truth refers to a claim. What claim is that? What is your truth referring to? Is your use of "truth" here not just a synonym for "God" and therefor you are just saying "there is a God - that's God", according to a definition that makes no sense to anyone not believing in God?
Also you seem to pretend that the only atheists in existence are explicit positive atheists, which is not the case. You just pretend as though the rest does not exist.
And what do you mean "they think there is a highest good"? Have you asked them? How do you define "highest good"? In matters of morality? How can you answer that question for them without asking them? Aren't you just creating fake play-dialogues in your head to make yourself feel better?
This is just utter nonsense what that guy is saying.
And regarding the creators comment:
The least bad argument for theism? I don't know any argument for theism that is not bad. But I'd say for theism the least bad argument would be the cosmological argument, because it sounds good until you think about it and realise that it's in the end nothing but armchair philosophy, nothing but assumptions not supported by good evidence.
Very bad logic. Circular reasoning. Not a defense. To say one believes in an absolute so therefore that is God is a ridiculous premise.,
It seems to me that ordinary people (myself included) don't have any personal experience with the divine. So, specific claims about God have to come from churches. There are a lot of different churches that each believe they are right, so the majority of people thinking that they are guided by the holy spirit must be wrong (even admitting that some people might be guided by the holy spirit). I've not been really impressed with any of my personal experiences with churches either.
As for the existence of objective truth and goodness. We have continual sensory experience, so treating sensory experience as the foundation of objective truth is easy to do. Matter (which we experience through our senses) appears to follow rational laws. The study of mathematics also makes the existence of logic seem like a thing unto itself. So, treating matter and logic as foundational to objective truth is not hard to do based on every day experience. However, there is no every day experience of objective goodness, since it is our every day experience that people experience goodness on an individual basis. It seems to me that God would be the only objective measure of goodness that could possibly exist, but there is no evidence from every day experience that he does actually exist.
It also seems true that an intelligent being created the universe, or else that the universe is infinitely old with no beginning, or is incomprehensible in some other manner.
I don't believe in God and i don't find it hard not to believe evem though i was raised christian
So why are you here? Why are you wasting your valuable short time watching this?
Thanks for the comment, Liam.
A good question to ask is *why* you dont believe in God. Is it an intellectual issue?, a heart issue?, etc
@@apracity7672 there's really no proof of a gods existance i did pray in the past and absolutely nothing came of it that was my esrly 20s it was then i came to the conclusion thtre was no god
@@NemoVir i just came on this video by accident
Funny how they are so dogmatic
I love when atheist say that believing in God is too far fetched, but then say that they have faith that abiogenesis occurred against all scientific evidence.
Against all scientific evidence? Citation needed
_I love when atheist say that believing in God is too far fetched, but then say that they have faith that abiogenesis occurred against all scientific evidence._
You're talking about the 'atheist' in your imagination, right? The strawman 'atheist' you just pulled out of your... imagination?
Notice the giant leap of faith. We hear arguments for _a god or gods,_ and we're just supposed to assume they point to God as opposed to any of the hundreds of other gods worshiped today. Who should decide what qualifies as compelling evidence for belief in a god or gods? The theist! Just challenge them to say what _they_ would accept as compelling evidence for the existence of a god or gods _of a religion other than theirs_ and we'll use that as the standard. That sticks a potato in their tailpipe! Shuts 'em right up!
Idk what u are trying to say...but God transcends all religion. Different names in the culture doesn't change the meaning. A chair is a chair no matter if the word changes. Rather the argument should be towards whose description of God is true...is it Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Judaism or whatever religion you believe? I believe that since majority of history have moved towards "There Is a God" and Science cannot explain the meta-physical, the existence of God should not be disputed. What should actually be the debate is whether Jesus, Muhammed or even aleister Crowley etc which one of them
was right?
I know Jesus was right.
Forms of argumentation and evidences vary depending on which god you are defending.
@@mentalwarfare2038 are you replying the op or me?
@@ojoghoro9821 I was replying to the other guy. I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to argue. My point is that arguing for say a monotheistic God is going to contain different premises as opposed to say a pantheistic god. Arguments for polytheistic gods are gaps arguments, thus pointing humanity to the One true God (ie. Something metaphysical).
@@ojoghoro9821 You write " I believe that since majority of history have moved towards "There Is a God" and Science cannot explain the meta-physical, " which sciences are "moving towards there is a god"? The existence of deities have never been proven by anything, but I would still love to read your sources. Science cannot explain metaphysics because metaphysics are not real, thats what "metaphysics" actually mean. Of course the existence of god should be disputed, such an abnormal concept should always be fought with reason.
A question I have been asking Atheists/Materialists/Whatever. Please provide me with Evidence that there is No God. I just got tired/bored with being asked for Evidence For God, by people who (to the best of my knowledge) have never Really investigated it. At least beyond a surface level.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
"it is not necessary to prove that something impossible does not exist"
As Dr. John Lennox often says Only In Mathematics can something be proved. Which is why I used the word Evidence. If I am asked to provide Evidence for God (in this case the God of the Bible) *I can do it, I do see why I can't ask for Evidence that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, that the universe ad life just happened by random chance, I don't see any Evidence for that..
* There was a time starting in the mid 19th century, when a good argument could be made that this all happened by random chance. Today (it appears to me) not so much.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
This morning while seated on the meditation throne ( :-) ) A better way of asking my question came to me. Perhaps a better way of asking my question would be, instead of asking for Evidence, ask Why. Why doesn't someone believe in God? Which is where I want to get to in these kinds of discussions.
"That science estimates that life was generated by random processes is an assumption. It is the most probable assumption among all the candidates."
Is It? It is Only if someone presupposes there is no God.
2 quotes from Alan Sandage
"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence."
"The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle-an architect."
Allan Sandage
"The supernatural option ranks very low because so far no one has ever encountered a supernatural factor that affects aspects of reality."
Once again (like so many others) it appears you are presupposing there is Nothing supernatural, that all there is, is the natural/material. But What If you are wrong? Christianity (One of the foundations of Western Civilization) is based on a supernatural event. A guy was killed, buried and 3 days later appeared to hundreds of people. We call it the Resurrection. To paraphrase Paul "If the Resurrection didn't happen, we're fools."
Might be a good idea to ask, Am I going down the wrong road looking for answers? What If your presuppositions are wrong?
There are 5 words I always ask myself on This and many many many other topics, that I believe in "But..I..Could..Be..Wrong."
Someone you might look up is Dr. Michael G Strauss. A particle physicist, works at CERN, teaches at University of Oklahoma. IF you are interested look him up, He his also on TH-cam.
well... since atheists/materialists/whatever don't necessarily believe there is no god, only that they don't believe in any gods... you may be waiting for a while. This is ignoring that its impossible to address, let alone prove, anything about the vast array of possible god claims with a single argument making any attempted answer to your request hinge on hitting the specific version of the specific god you were thinking of at the moment.
I mean, I could prove that specific bible stories didn't happen... or prove that Mt Olympias doesn't have a temple full of magical beings on top of it... or prove that the universe didn't just poof into existence from nothing in a week... but none of that would really prove there is no god(s).
I think you will find that the majority of atheists, at least in countries like the US where religion is in your face all the time, are more informed and have done more research than most Christians you will meet.
@@timeshark8727
As I believe I said earlier, my point in asking that question is not so much in finding/getting a answer (although that's fine too), but to get someone to think investigate more deeply into Why someone says There Is Not God.
atheism is the default position. It is easy not to believe in absurdities
atheism is not the default position. it is a worldview which cannot support its own internal suppositions. The entire human experience across all races, places, and times has shared a connection, in some form, to the transcendent supernatural. Atheism is the exception.
Well first, this guy doesn't know what "atheism" is... its not the belief that there is no god. Its the label for people who don't believe in any gods.
He also doesn't know what God refers to apparently. God is a specific character, not a vague idea of an absolute X.
Second, it _IS_ hard to not believe in any gods... but not because of any of the stupid things he said... Its hard to not believe in any gods because of how early the indoctrination starts and because of what abandoning that belief can do to your interpersonal relationships and sense of self.
0:40 Already starting off with a strawman. Yes sorry but we aren't playing that game. It's theists that are making a claim that a god exists, so its up to theists to provide the evidence that a god exists.
0:44 Sooooo you are defining a god as the 'highest good'? That doesn't even make sense. Good in what sense and how is it good?
0:48 Truth is that which matches reality.
0:50 Beauty is subjective, it doesn't transcend anything.
0:54 A 'bring' would at lest make sense because everything else you said doesn't.
1:03 Sooo you think that because of a number of things that have nothing to do with a god show that atheists really do believe in a god? . . . Were you dropped on your head as a child?
1:06 Right because you are soo all-knowing that you know what other people believe. . . Or you are just wrong, which do you think is more likely?
1:12 Then guy number 2 is presupposing a creator, but can he show that the universe needed a creator? No of course he can't.
1:26 An 18 year old isn't going to know too much, try me.
1:44 Yes there are all kind of very DIFFERENT beliefs that are religious in nature, That really goes against you claims.
2:22 So you just admitted that you didn't convince her yet you still think her agrees with you? WOW you are dumb!
These people really need to talk with a real atheists instead of being a an echo chamber.
Believing in a God takes the same effort as believing in dancing leprechauns.
What do dancing leprechauns ground ?
"The highest good is god?" No it isn't. No matter how much you able about it, god is a fantasy, PERIOD, FULL STOP !!!! And by the way, it isn't up to the "non-believer" to disprove god. The burden of proof is always with the person making the claim - and the pertinent claim here is that there is a god, not that there isn't.
then i challenge you to prove your point... coz it seems you are just out to prove there is no God so go on prove that there is no God!!! full stop!!!
@@sgodbacolod5407 You claim there's a god. I say you have no evidence. The burden of prey is with the claimant.
@@goodmorning6827 if you want to not have a burden of proof, then don't say things like *_"No matter how much you able about it, god is a fantasy, PERIOD, FULL STOP!"_* because that's a claim... and like you said, the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim.
@@timeshark8727 You can't prove a negative -
@@goodmorning6827 Then you shouldn't make negative claims, thus incurring a burden of proof on something you can't prove.
Also, there are times when you can prove a negative. For instance, you can prove that the story of Noah's Ark didn't exist by pointing at the geologic column, talking about the lack of genetic evidence of a bottleneck event in every creature on the planet, or by pointing to the many ancient civilizations that weren't destroyed by a flood.
_"Why it's really hard to not believe in God (even for atheists)"_
You're wrong. It might be hard for _some_ people, I suppose - people taught to believe in that particular god as children, of course. I can't read minds, so I can't speak for anyone else. But that's certainly not true for me. It's very, very easy for me. As far back as I can remember, it's always been easy.
Indeed, it's hard for me to take _any_ god more seriously than I take magic leprechauns. Really. I can't demonstrate that gods _don't_ exist, but I can't demonstrate that magic leprechauns _don't_ exist, either. I can't even _imagine_ what kind of evidence there could be - even hypothetically - that magical beings with magical powers _don't_ exist,... somewhere.
I was raised Christian - nominally, at least. Indeed, I didn't know a single other person who _wasn't_ a Christian all the time I grew up. But none of that was based on evidence. It all seemed to be based on nothing but wishful-thinking. And it was simply impossible for me to take it seriously without good evidence it was actually _true._
_"They think there's a highest good. Well that's God."_
Heh, heh. Well, I have to ask you for *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of that is actually true. Because it just seems silly to me. I'm wondering, have you ever _met_ an atheist? Have you ever _talked_ to one of us? We vary, of course - "atheist" is a very, very narrow label - but it sounds to me like you're just _imagining_ what atheists must be like.
_"They think there's a truth."_
I have no idea what that even _means._ Perhaps you should define what you mean by "truth," because it doesn't sound like you're even using that word in a way I'd recognize. And just _claiming_ that truth is "God" is... well, silly. What if I claim that truth is magic leprechauns? Would that seem reasonable to _you?_
Wow, this is just such _complete_ nonsense! Does _this_ really seem reasonable to theists? How?
Maybe your next video should be titled "Why It's Really Hard for Theists to Listen to Atheists, Instead of Just Imagining Whatever Strawman 'Atheist' They Want to Invent."
To compare the existence of God to the existence of leprechauns is a classic new atheist false equivalency. This can be understood by looking at their attributes. Leprechauns are little men with pots of gold that live at the end of a rainbow. The obvious issue with this is that rainbows don't have ends. They are a refraction of light hitting water droplets in the air. The attributes of God, however, are the basis of metaphysics (above the natural world). God is the creator of all things, the knower of all things, the source of all truth, and many more.
To deny the existence of leprechauns is to deny that there are magic dwarves with pots of gold living at the ends of a rainbow. To deny the existence of God is to deny that objective truth exists, to deny that objective good exists, to deny that the universe had a beginning, to deny that all things in the natural world are contingent upon other things, to deny that intelligibility has to come from intelligence, and to deny that man's rational nature has any sort of reason behind it.
I agree with everything you said here; given the way you understood what THEY were saying, and given the fairly lame version of Christianity with which you were presented in your upbringing.
That said, for reasons of my own, I agree with some of what they said. But they didn't bother to say it in a way that was even slightly helpful for a person coming from your experience.
I mean, as one example: YES, it's a matter of logical necessity that God is "the highest good." But given the various incompatible bits of bad metaphysics and ethics we all absorb from popular culture around us long before we're cognizant enough to question them, that phrase ("God is the highest good") is going to be meaningless.
It won't be obvious what "good" means; it won't be obvious that "goods" can be objectively higher or lower; it won't be obvious that some are instrumental but that they can't all be instrumental; it won't be obvious that any such "highest good" could in any way be deemed to have agency or be non-local or non-temporal; it won't even be obvious that such a "highest good" would in any way be involved with constituting or maintaining reality as an originating or sustaining principle.
All of that might require...what? Several weeks' worth nonstop additional argumentation, with adequate time for clarifying definitions and usages and answering objections? But this short video clip barely even gestures at the need for all that groundwork.
So I think your objections are entirely valid. To anyone in your shoes, what Alex Plato said in this clip will appear to be nonsense-talk making meaningless claims for no reason, yet in a self-satisfied kind of way.
That'd piss me off, too.
@@cw-on-yt This might be helpful, th-cam.com/video/BB4fq8xyQkQ/w-d-xo.html it’s a vid by Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers on the New Atheism.
@@immaculata_marian I am convinced personally that the existence of God is necessary for the existence of objective goodness, but I'm not convinced that he's necessary for the existence of objective truth of any kind. We can see stuff with our eyes, can't we? Providing that it is somehow possible for stuff to exist without God, doesn't the existence of matter by itself constitute a kind of objective truth? And evolution and other natural explanations seem to show how it is possible for less intelligent/developed things to become more intelligent/developed, if not explain ultimately how it all got here.
@@immaculata_marian
_Leprechauns are little men with pots of gold that live at the end of a rainbow._
Don't be silly! Obviously, that's just an allegory. :)
That's like claiming that God is a magic man who lives in the sky, somewhere so low that primitive people building a _brick tower_ could build it all the way up to Heaven (the Tower of Babel story). Well, we build structures a lot taller than that _these days,_ not to mention that we fly even higher. No Heaven. No God. Therefore, "God" can't be real?
That's like claiming that the Christian god cannot exist because there never was a worldwide flood. Or because the stuff in Egypt, described in Exodus, never happened. Christians can excuse anything they _want_ to excuse in the Bible, so why can't I do the same thing with magic leprechauns?
I don't require special treatment when it comes to magic leprechauns, but I won't allow Christians to have special treatment, either. If Christians don't have to defend every story as literal, then I don't, either.
Obviously, human beings might have gotten some things wrong about magic leprechauns, just as they get some things wrong about gods. (After all, no matter _what_ you believe, you don't agree with all human beings about gods.) But that doesn't mean magic leprechauns aren't _real._ Otherwise, it would mean that gods weren't real, too. And we can't have _that,_ right? :)
_God is the creator of all things, the knower of all things, the source of all truth, and many more._
*Evidence?* Do you have *one piece of good evidence* backing up _any_ of that?
Maybe magic leprechauns are the creator of all things, the knower of all things, the source of all truth (although I don't know what you even _mean_ when you use the word "truth" in that way), etc. Claims are easy, after all. Claims are _easy._
_To deny the existence of God is to deny that objective truth exists, to deny that objective good exists, to deny that the universe had a beginning..._
Nope. But I don't "deny the existence of God" any more than I "deny the existence of magic leprechauns." It's just impossible for me to believe in either one without even *one* piece of good evidence backing up such claims.
Likely, it would take more than one to convince me - both are truly extraordinary claims, after all - but I'm just asking for *one example,* specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. Or else I can't even take gods or magic leprechauns _seriously._
So far, *one* seems to be too much to ask of Christians. (I'm not sure about believers in magic leprechauns, since I haven't met any.)
Actually, it’s very easy to not believe in god. For the exact same reason as it is to not believe in Zeus, Santa, and the Easter bunny. No one has ever established they exist. All theists have are bad arguments and assertions to support their faith. Which would be fine if every theist had the identical god, but you don’t. You seem to have the exact god that expresses your personal views.
This argument nearly broke my brain from sheer stupidity.